Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 149
ORISSA HIGH COURT
B. P. Routray, C. R. Dash, JJ
STATE OF ORISSA – Appellant
Versus
NIRAKARA DAS – Respondent
GCRLA 9 / 2003
For Appellant :Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, Additional Standing Counsel; For Respondent: Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, Amicus Curiae
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading exclusively to guilt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against acquittal - The State challenged the acquittal of the Respondent for murder, asserting that circumstantial evidence, including a quarrel and handwriting on a slip, pointed to guilt - The trial court found insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 16)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The principles require a complete chain of circumstances leading exclusively to guilt - The prosecution's evidence was found inconclusive, failing to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent and the deceased were co-workers who had a quarrel prior to the incident; the deceased was found dead with multiple injuries, and a slip with handwriting was recovered nearby. (Paras 3, 9)
Findings of Court:
The trial court acquitted the Respondent due to lack of direct evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 6, 17)
Issues: The main issues were whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the Respondent's guilt and whether the trial court erred in its judgment. (Paras 7, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that mere suspicion and circumstantial evidence without a complete chain do not suffice for conviction. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident details and background (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution evidence and witnesses (Para 4) |
| 3. defense's position (Para 5) |
| 4. trial court's findings (Para 6) |
| 5. state's argument on evidence (Para 7) |
| 6. defense's argument on evidence (Para 8) |
| 7. details of the murder (Para 9) |
| 8. analysis of circumstantial evidence (Para 10) |
| 9. chemical examination findings (Para 11) |
| 10. analysis of the paper slip (Para 12) |
| 11. absence of direct evidence (Para 13) |
| 12. previous enmity analysis (Para 14) |
| 13. presence of other persons (Para 15) |
| 14. principles of circumstantial evidence (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
18th February, 2025 By The Bench.
1. Heard Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. B. Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae for the Respondent.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.11.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.397 of 2000, Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 20-Feb-2025 14:10:43 whereby the Respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 13th/14th March, 2000. The Respondent and the deceased were co-employees at Ranga Rupa Arts Workshop, situated within the premises of Samrat Cinema Hall at Cuttack. On the night of the occurrence, both the deceased and the Respondent stayed at the workshop along with five other employees. It is alleged that the deceased and Respondent had a quarrel five days before the occurrence, when the deceased tried to persuade the Respondent to give up the habit of drinking. On the morning of 14th March, 2000, the deceased’s body was found lying in the front verandah of the office room with multiple cut injuries on different parts of his body, including the neck, forehead, and abdomen. A handwritten slip, written in pencil, containing the words “My name is Black Dog – KALA KUKURA E LOKA AMAKU BAHUTA HAIRANA KARICHHI,” was recovered near the body. The matter was reported to police by P.W.1 who is the owner of that workshop where the deceased was working as a carpenter and the accused as painter. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 20-Feb-2025 14:10:43
4. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 21 exhibits. Additionally, 7 material objects were also marked in course of trial on behalf of the prosecution.
5. The case of defence is one of complete denial and the Respondent did not adduce any evidence in his defense.
6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the materials and evidence brought on record, found that the prosecution could not establish the charge against the Respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the Respondent was granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted henceforth.
7. Mr. Khandayatray, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits for the State that the learned trial Judge erred without considering all the circumstances brought on record against the Respondent. He asserts that, particularly, the matching of the handwriting on the paper slip lying near the dead body with that of the Respondent’s handwriting, has been completely underestimated by the trial Court along with the recovery of the weapon of offence. It is also submitted that the previous enmity of the Respondent-accused with Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 20-Feb-2025 14:10:43 the deceased coupled with the established circumstances, pointed towards his guilt.
8. Ms. Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae, on the other hand, submits that the circumstances so narrated by the prosecution are inconclusive in nature and did not directly implicate the Respondent. She emphasised that multiple persons were present at the workshop on the night of occurrence as there was a feast in the premises. In view of the possibility of a murder taking place, or some altercation for that matter, s
