Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Ori) 219

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA ; CUTTACK
S.K. Mishra, Savitri Ratho, JJ.
Buta @ Bidyadhar Parida and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
CRA NO.50 OF 2001
Decided On : 09-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s. Arun Kumar Acharya
For the Respondent:Addl. Government Advocate.

The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in murder cases, and rely on corroborative evidence for extra-judicial confessions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 419, 420, 468 - Murder, conspiracy, forgery - Conviction under multiple sections relating to murder and forgery was challenged; prosecution failed to prove motive or the identity of the deceased's body - Court noted the absence of direct evidence and reliance on retracted extra-judicial confessions, which were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. (Paras 25, 26, 28)

(B) Extra-Judicial Confession - Admissibility and reliability - An extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated; it cannot be solely relied upon for conviction without substantiating evidence. (Paras 18, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted based on the allegation of murdering the deceased and subsequently withdrawing money from his bank account using forged signatures. There was no direct evidence of the murder, with prosecution heavily relying on confessions made to relatives and circumstantial evidence. (Paras 1-10)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution had not established a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the appeals were allowed, and the convictions set aside due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 28, 29)

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the validity of extra-judicial confessions as evidence in establishing the guilt of the appellants. (Paras 11, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, particularly in murder cases, and must establish the link between the evidence and the crime beyond all reasonable doubt. (Paras 26-27)

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted. (Para 28)

Table of Content
1. defendant's convictions for multiple crimes are based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defense presented witnesses denying involvement of defendants. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. motive established through circumstantial evidence, leading to conviction. (Para 9 , 10)
4. arguments presented challenging the reliability of evidence and prosecution's burden. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. extra-judicial confession must be substantiated by material evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. admission of guilt questioned due to lack of supportive testimony. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. insufficient evidence leads to overruling lower court's verdict. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
8. appeal granted; defendants acquitted of all charges. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

S.K.Mishra, J.

In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.2.2001 for the offence under Sections 120 - B/302/201/419/420/468 of the I.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the “Penal Code” for brevity) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.100/1996. Appellant No.1 has been convicted for the offence under 120-B/302/201/419/420/468 of the Penal Code and appellant no.2 has been convicted for the offences under -B/302/201/34 of the Penal Code. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302 /34 of the Penal Code, two years R.I. for the offence under Section 201 /34 of the Penal Code, one year R.I. for the offence under Section 120 -B of the Penal Code, two years R.I. for the offence under Section 419 of the Penal Code, three years R.I. for the offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code and three years R.I. for the offence under Section 468 of the Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution can be stated briefly as follows:

The deceased-Santosh Kumar Pradhan and accused-Bidyadhar Parida, appellant No.1, were jointly executing contract work at Bhaliadal standing in the name of Binoda Parida (D.W.1), the brother of appellant no.1. In that connection Santosh was putting up at Champei, the village of appellant no.1 and also at the work site i.e., Bhaliadal. On 3.1.1996 Santosh Pradhan went to his native place at Madalia under Barakote Police Station in the district of Deogarh to bring money from his father-Prasanna Kumar Pradhan. Prasanna Kumar Pradhan gave the Pass Book and two blank withdrawal forms being signed by him. That was the practice followed to provide money when money was required by Santosh for the work.

3. On 27.1.1996 Prasanna Kumar Pradhan received an interview call letter of Santosh which was scheduled to be held on 4.2.1996. So Prasanna came to the house of appellant no.1, but learnt from the family members that Santosh has not yet returned form his village since 3.1.1996. Thereafter Prasanna waited and further searched. Again on 18.2.1996 Prasanna came to village Champei and ascertained from appellant no.1 that Santosh had gone to Barbil. Being suspicious, Prasanna went to the Bank on 18.2.1996 and found the amount has been withdrawn by use of the withdrawal slips issued by him. On 20.2.1996 at Barkote P.S. and on 21.2.1996 at Suakati Out Post, information was lodged which was recorded in the respective Station Diary Registers and in the man missing register. During that period, Prasanna was residing at Mishra Lodge, Keonjhar for searching Santosh along with his relations Hrudananda Parida and Lokanath Parida. Appellant no.1, his brother Binoda and their two maternal uncles, Natabar Barik and Nisakar Barik, came to Mishra Lodge on 23.2.1996 night. Being advised by Police to trace out Santosh and in that connection they had discussions at Mishra Lodge. There appellant no.1 confessed before them to have committed murder of Santosh Pradhan along with co-accused Prafulla Barik with the help of a bala on 7.1.1996 night on their way from Bhaliadal, after enjoying the feast, to Bada Ghagara near a small hillock. Appellant no.1 further confessed that seei