Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO, S.K.MISHRA
Maxi @ Maximus Soreng – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's alleged crimes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court's process and findings. (Para 4) |
| 3. details of the circumstantial evidence. (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments of the defense and prosecution. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. doctor's findings and implications. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. final conclusion on prosecution's failure to prove guilt. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant Maxi @ Maximus Soreng faced trial in the Court of learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial Case No. 255/29 of 1998-04 for commission of offences under sections 302, 315 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on the night of 11.02.1998 at about 9 p.m., in the village Tildega (Dumerguda), he committed murder of Kumudini Dung Dung (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) and her newly born female child and threw the dead bodies of the deceased and her child into a well before the birth of the child with the intention of preventing that child from being born alive and after knowing certain offences have been committed, he caused disappearance of the evidence by tying the dead body of the deceased with stone and threw the same inside a well situated near Du
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused; suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof.
As long as someone’s innocence is not completely ruled out by way of established facts and evidence, Court has no option but to be loath to put him behind bars – Suspicion, however grave may be, cann....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that leads to the only conclusion of guilt, leaving no room for reasonable....
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act was a central legal principle established in the judgment, placing the onus on the appellant to explain the circumstances of the deceased's d....
The court upheld the conviction for murder and sexual assault, affirming strong evidential links to the appellant despite procedural challenges in the case.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory in establishing the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence, such as last seen theory, is insufficient for conviction without corroborative proof.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
