Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, G.SATAPATHY, JJ.
Heeradhar Chhreka @ Mallick – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 571 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2024
For the Appellant : A. Tripathy
For the Respondent: G.N. Rout
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 450 - Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) - Section 3(2)(v) - Conviction for murder and consequential offences - Acquittal due to lack of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 4, 13, and 14)
(B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory - To sustain a conviction, evidence must be unerringly consistent with guilt, contradicting the hypothesis of innocence. The absence of key eyewitnesses and failure to substantiate video evidence undermined the prosecution's case. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Urmila Deep, following a violent incident captured on CCTV footage. Prior disputes existed between the appellant and the deceased. The conviction was based primarily on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution did not prove the guilt of the appellant for murder or the associated charges under the IPC and the Atrocities Act beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant for murder and related charges was the main issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's reliance on insufficient circumstantial evidence, particularly digital evidence that could not conclusively establish guilt, led to the resolution in favor of the appellant.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and appeal grounds. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts of the case and prosecution inquiry. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendant's plea of false implication. (Para 5) |
| 4. circumstantial evidence and digital footprint reliance. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 5. arguments on forensic evidence and trial court findings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. evaluation of digital evidence and witness examination flaws. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. impact of unproven murder charge on other convictions. (Para 13) |
| 8. conclusion of appeal decision and order. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
G. SATAPATHY, J.
1. The appellant herein impugns the judgment passed on 21.04.2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal at Phulbani in Sessions Trial Case No. 10 of 2016 convicting the appellant for offences punishable U/Ss. 302/450 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the " IPC ") and Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) (In short the "Act") while acquitting him for offence U/S. 404 of and co-accused for offence U/S. 411 of the . By the impugned judgment, the appellant was, accordingly, sentenced to the following punishment:
i) The convict shall undergo sentence of imprisonment for life (which is always rigorous in nature) and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) for commission of offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC , in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of two (02) years.
(ii) The convict shall undergo sentence of imprisonment for life (which is always rigorous in nature) and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for commission of offence punishable U/s. 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of one (01) year.
(iii) The convict shall undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for commission of offence punishable U/s. 450 of the IPC , in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six (06) months.
2. The prosecution in brief is that one Urmila Deep (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") was working in the hotel Suravi at Phulbani as a maid and on 09.09.2015, she was found dead in the said hotel which was reported by P.W.1- Rajesh Kumar Panigrahy and, accordingly, for such unnatural death Khajuripada UD Case No. 7 of 2015 was registered and the Police S.I. P.W.15 Indramani Nayak inquired the matter. In the course of inquiry, P.W.15 ascertained that the deceased was a married woman blessed with three sons and one daughter, but prior to 7-8 years back, she came to Phulbani town leaving her husband and children due to quarrel and she was, accordingly, working in the hotel Suravi, but prior to one month of the occurrence, she left her rented house and was staying in the said hotel. While the deceased was staying at Sagadia Sahi in Phulbani, she fell in love with the convict- appellant, who was a cook in another hotel and they lived together in the rented house at Sagadia Sahi, Phulbani. On 19.02.2015, the deceased had lodged a case against the convict-appellant for offences punishable U/Ss. 341/323/294/506 of the IPC . It was also found in the inquiry that on 08.09.2015, the deceased had slept alone in the hotel, but in the dead hour of intervening night of 08/09.09.2015 at about 1.10 A.M., the convict trespassed into the hotel and killed the deceased by throttling, which was captured in the CC TV installed in the hotel. This was the sum and substance of the inquiry report submitted by PW15 on 11.09.2015.
3. Finding the aforesaid in inquiry report of P.W.15 to have disclosed commission of cognizable offence, the I.I.C., Khajuripada PS, Mr. A.K.Ghadei treated the same as FIR and registered Khajuripada P.S. Case No. 98 of 2015 and took up investigation of the case which was handed over to PW22, but P.W15 in the course of enquiry had earlier conducted in
