Back
Acquits Four in Odisha Murder Case, Finds Pitch-Dark Night Eyewitness Identification Unreliable
The has acquitted four individuals convicted for the 2001 murder of Dhruba Pradhan in Odisha, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case . A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale set aside the judgments of the and the , granting the appellants the .
Case Background and Procedural History
The incident occurred on , when the deceased was intercepted at Agi Chhak by a group of armed individuals. The convicted six accused under Sections 148, 506, and 302 read with , sentencing them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the discarded the eyewitness testimony, finding it impossible to identify assailants on a pitch-dark night, but upheld the conviction based on . Two of the six convicts died during the pendency of the appeal before the , leaving the four surviving appellants.
Arguments Presented
Senior Advocates and argued for the appellants that once the High Court itself rejected the eyewitness account as unreliable, the conviction could not rest on such a weak foundation. They pointed to material contradictions among the witnesses and highlighted the deceased's criminal history involving 13 cases, including rape and murder, which raised a reasonable possibility of false implication by a large number of villagers who held a grudge against him. It was also emphasized that no weapon was ever recovered at the instance of any appellant, and the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses despite claiming that hundreds of people were searching for the deceased.
In response, the State of Odisha submitted that the prosecution had established an unbroken through consistent testimony of threats, the armed search, and the interception of the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of articles. It argued that under Section 149 IPC, individual overt acts need not be proved once the of an is established.
Legal Analysis and Application of Precedents
The found considerable merit in the appellants' submissions and disagreed with the High Court's approach. The Court noted that the prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of related witnesses (PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 26), who were brothers and sisters-in-law of the deceased. A significant inconsistency emerged, as PW-3 stated in the FIR that only PW-17 and PW-26 witnessed the occurrence, while PW-4 claimed that PW-3 was also present.
Applying the principles from and , the Court observed that is virtually impossible. The only light source was a torch carried by the accused themselves, which would have blinded the witnesses rather than aided identification. The High Court had already categorically recorded that it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have witnessed the incident or identified the assailants merely on the basis of the sound of the assault.
Turning to , the Court invoked the "" from , requiring that each circumstance be fully established and consistent only with the , excluding every other possibility. Citing , the Court reiterated that each link in the chain must be proved individually before a conviction can be sustained on .
The Court found that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court—including the alleged threat, the armed search, and identification of the accused—all rested on the same discredited eyewitness testimony. Furthermore, there was no evidence showing how a 53 kg laterite stone (the alleged weapon) was brought to the scene; it was never recovered or sent for forensic examination. The Medical Officer (PW-18) confirmed that no weapon was ever sent to him for opinion.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"It was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have witnessed the incident on a pitch-dark night or to identify the assailants merely on the basis of sound of the assault. The testimony of the alleged witness cannot be relied upon."
"Viewed cumulatively, the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and consistent excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants. The evidence on record leaves substantial gaps which create a as to their involvement."
"In , where two views are reasonably possible, the one must prevail."
Court's Decision and Implications
The allowed the appeals, quashing and setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the and upheld by the High Court. The four surviving appellants were granted the and acquitted of all charges. The judgment underscores the strict standard required for convictions based on and reaffirms that weak or unreliable eyewitness identification cannot be salvaged by . The decision serves as a reminder that the prosecution must prove each link in the , leaving no room for alternative hypotheses consistent with innocence.
