Allowed

Anil Kujur v. State

Orissa HC8 Sept 2023JCRLA/79/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, reviewing a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellants. The appellate bench held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence, specifically citing flaws in the last seen theory, contradictory medical findings regarding the cause of death, lack of proven motive, and insuffic

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges. Bail bonds are discharged.

Anil Kujur Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

JCRLA No.79 of 2005

¶3

An appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the 2^nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.24/111 of 2004.

¶4

-------------------------

¶5

Anil Kujur

¶6

Rantho Tanty
@ Jayapuria ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For Appellants: - Mr. Nilamadhab Bisoi
For Respondent: - Smt. Saswata Patnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate
-------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶8

¶9

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 08.09.2023

¶10

¶11

By the Bench: The appellants Anil Kujur and Rantho Tanty @

¶12

Jayapuria faced trial in the Court of learned 2^nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No.24/111 of 2004

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

for commission of offences under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of

¶15

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 8I.P.C.9) on the accusation that on 09.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. in village Bhagatpada, Kansabahal, they committed murder of one Bhaja Kindo (hereinafter 8the deceased9) and threw his dead body on the railway track in order to cause disappearance of the evidence in furtherance of their common intention.

¶16

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 found both the appellants guilty under

¶17

the aforesaid charges and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

¶18

Prosecution Case :

¶19

The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter 8F.I.R.9) presented by Rama Kindo (P.W.6) before the Officer in-charge of Kansabahal Out Post, Kansbahal on 24.11.2003, is that on 09.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased who was his younger brother came on a bicycle along with the appellants to his house and asked his sister to give him Rs.10/- (rupees ten), but the sister of the deceased refused to pay the money, for which all of them went to the house of a neighbour, namely, Jeera Lakra (P.W.5) and thereafter they went away. It is stated that the deceased was a cowman and he

¶20

Page 2 of 25

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

was staying in the house of Terenga Kindo (P.W.7) in village Dipatoli and occasionally he was visiting his own house. On the next day, the deceased did not come to his house. The informant and his family members remained under an impression that the deceased might have gone to the house of P.W.7 for which they did not search for him. On 10.11.2003, one naked dead body of a person was found on the railway track near Kansabahal by the G.R.P.S., Rourkela police and they registered U.D. case no.37 of 2003 and seized the body and sent it for post mortem examination. On 12.11.2003, some local boys while tending cows found the cycle of P.W.7 lying in a nala and they kept it in the house of one Golta Bada. Hearing about the recovery of the cycle, P.W.7 came to the house of Golta Bada and indentified his cycle which the deceased had taken with him while leaving his house. P.W.7 along with P.W.6 came to G.R.P.S., Rourkela where they identified the photographs of the dead body as that of the deceased and ascertained further that the dead body had been sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter, P.W.6 came back to his village with P.W.7 and disclosed about the matter before others. The appellants being confronted confessed that after consuming liquor, they had committed murder of the deceased by strangulating his neck and laid the dead body between the railway tracks near Kansabahal and also concealed the wearing

¶23

Page 3 of 25

¶24

// 4 //

¶25

apparels of the deceased. It is further stated that the villagers were calling the mother of the informant as 8witch9 and threatening her and abusing her in case any villager was falling ill.

¶26

The written report presented by P.W.6 was sent to the Inspector in-charge of Rajgangpur police station for registration of the case and accordingly, the Inspector in-charge of Rajgangpur police station registered Rajgangpur P.S. Case No.167 dated 24.11.2003 under sections 302/201/34 of I.P.C. and directed the Sub-Inspector in-charge of Kansabahal Out Post, namely, Mayadhar Rout (P.W.10) to take up investigation, who had already taken up preliminary steps of investigation.

¶27

During the course of investigation, P.W.10 examined the informant (P.W.6) as well as other witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.11) and seized an old Avon cycle from the house of Golta Bada as per seizure list Ext.12 and also collected the relevant documents concerning the connected U.D. Case No.37 of 2003 of G.R.P.S., Rourkela. P.W.10 arrested

¶28

the appellants on 26.11.2003 and while in custody of police, they confessed their guilt and after recording of the statements of the appellants under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the wearing apparels of the deceased and the stones (weapons of offence)

¶29

Page 4 of 25

¶30

// 5 //

¶31

were seized from the place of concealment at the instance of the appellants. The I.O. (P.W.10) also seized the wearing apparels of the appellants as per seizure list Ext.15. He also issued requisition for collection of the blood sample and nail clippings of both the appellants on 27.11.2003 and on production by constable A. Prahan, he seized the same as per seizure list Ext.16. On 02.12.2003, P.W.10 gave the seized cycle in the zima of P.W.7 by executing zimanama and the seized articles were kept in Malkhana of Rajgangpur police station and a request was

¶32

made to the J.M.F.C., Rajgangpur to send the seized exhibits for chemical examination. P.W.10 received the chemical examination

¶33

report dated 30.04.2004 issued by the Director, S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet under sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants.

¶34

Framing of Charges :

¶35

After submission of charge sheet, the case was

¶36

committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court charged the appellants under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. on 28.09.2004 and since the appellants refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial

¶37

Page 5 of 25

¶38

// 6 //

¶39

procedure was resorted to prosecute them and establish their guilt.

¶40

Prosecution Witnesses & Documents Exhibited By

¶41

Prosecution :

¶42

During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses.

¶43

P.W.1 Dr. Meera Sasmal was the Assistant Surgeon attached to Panposh S.D. Hospital, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and 11.11.2003 and proved her report vide Ext.1. On receipt of the query made by the investigating officer relating to the possibility of the injuries sustained by the deceased by the seized stones, she gave her opinion vide Ext.2.

¶44

P.W.2 Letha Xaxa was the ward member of

¶45

Bhagatpada and he did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶46

P.W.3 Mithu Banchhor was the Grama Rakhi, but he

¶47

also did not support the prosecution case.

¶48

P.W.4 Rama Xaxa, P.W.5 Jeera Lakra and P.W.8 Sukra Kindo, who are the co-villagers of the informant (P.W.6), did not support the prosecution case for which they were declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶49

Page 6 of 25

¶50

// 7 //

¶51

P.W.6 Rama Kindo is the informant and the elder

¶52

brother of the deceased. He narrated about the incident that took place in the evening hours on 08.11.2003 but he was also declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶53

P.W.7 Terenga Kindo was the employer of the deceased. He narrated about the incident that took place on 08.11.2003 but he was also declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶54

P.W.9 Chandra Sekhar Sahoo was the Sub-Inspector

¶55

of Police attached to G.R.P.S., Rourkela, who enquired U.D. Case No.37 of 2003, held inquest over the dead body lying on the down track in between Kansabahal and Kalunga after taking photographs and prepared inquest report (Ext.7) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination.

¶56

P.W.10 Mayadhar Rout was the S.I. of Police, the In-

¶57

charge of Kansabahal Out Post, who is the Investigating Officer of the case.

¶58

The prosecution exhibited eighteen documents. Ext.1

¶59

is the P.M. report, Ext.2 is the report of query, Ext.3 is the confessional statement of the appellants, Ext.4 is the F.I.R., Exts.5, 5/1 and 5/2 are the photographs, Ext.6 and Ext.11 are

¶60

the spot maps, Ext.7 is the inquest report, Ext.8 is the dead body challan, Ext.9 is the command certificate, Ext.10 is the

¶61

Page 7 of 25

¶62

// 8 //

¶63

receipt in respect of records of U.D. Case, Ext.12 is the seizure

¶64

list in respect of an old Avon cycle, Ext.13 is the seizure list in respect of stones, Ext.14 is the seizure list in respect of wearing apparels of the deceased, Ext.15 is the seizure list in respect of wearing apparels of the appellants, Ext.16 is the seizure list in respect of blood sample and nail clippings of the appellants, Ext.17 is the office copy of forwarding letter and Ext.18 is the C.E. report.

¶65

Defence Plea :

¶66

The defence plea of the appellants is one of denial

¶67

and it was pleaded that since the appellants were accusing the

¶68

mother of the informant and the deceased to be a 8witch9, they have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶69

Findings of the Trial Court:

¶70

The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as

¶71

well as documentary evidence on record came to hold that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court summed up the following circumstances adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellants:-

¶72

a) The deceased was last seen with the accused

¶73

persons before his death;

¶74

Page 8 of 25

¶75

// 9 //

¶76

b) Dead body of the deceased was found lying on the railway track in a naked condition near Kansabahal in between two railway lines;

¶77

c) The cycle, which the deceased was carrying, was found in a nala;

¶78

d) Ante mortem lacerated injury on the face of the deceased, bone deep wound on the occipital region of the head of the deceased and bleeding

¶79

from both the nostrils and ears, were found by the

¶80

autopsy surgeon;

¶81

e) The accused persons confessed their guilt before the informant and other villagers; and

¶82

f) The accused persons while in custody of police, gave recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased and the stones (weapons of offence) from the place of concealment.

¶83

While adjudicating the last seen theory, the learned

¶84

trial Court has held that the version of P.W.6 appeared to be clear, cogent and trustworthy and the prosecution has conclusively established the circumstance consistent with the last seen theory. So far as the recovery of the dead body and the cycle is concerned, the learned trial Court has held that from the

¶85

Page 9 of 25

¶86

// 10 //

¶87

evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 so also from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.10), the prosecution has proved the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the railway track as well as recovery of cycle carried by the deceased from a nearby nala. The learned trial Court further held that though the doctor (P.W.1), who conducted post mortem examination opined that ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased but she has not given any opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased and thus, medical evidence is not clear or

¶88

conclusive. So far as extra judicial confession of the appellants before P.W.6 is concerned, it was held that the appellants had confessed their guilt before P.W.6, however, such confession does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants. It was further held that through the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.10), the prosecution has proved the recovery and seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellants under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned trial Court further held that absence of any material to establish the motive or mens rea behind the crime, does not assume any significance. It was further held that the appellants have committed murder of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention and caused disappearance of the evidence of murder by laying the dead body on the railway

¶89

Page 10 of 25

¶90

// 11 //

¶91

track in a naked condition and by concealing the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the weapon of offence and accordingly, held the appellants guilty under sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C.

¶92

Contentions of the Parties:

¶93

Mr. Nilamadhab Bisoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that since it is a case which is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances proved by the prosecution do not form a complete chain so as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants, the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellants. The evidence of the witnesses are contradictory and the evidence of P.W.6 should not have been relied upon to prove the last seen theory aspect and the manner of death as per the extra judicial confession deposed to by P.W.6 runs contrary to the finding of the post mortem report proved by P.W.1. Learned counsel further argued that if these two circumstances are not accepted, the other circumstances are not sufficient in themselves to establish the guilt of the appellants and therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellants.

¶94

Smt. Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional

¶95

Government Advocate appearing for the State of Odisha, on the

¶96

Page 11 of 25

¶97

// 12 //

¶98

other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6 and the last seen theory proved by the prosecution coupled with the extra judicial confession, the recovery of the wearing apparels and the stones which are the weapon of offence are sufficient in themselves to uphold the conviction and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

¶99

Principles of proving a case based on circumstantial evidence :

¶100

Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the evidence on record, we find that there is no direct evidence in this case as to who committed the murder of the deceased, when and how. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Keeping in view the 8five golden principles9 laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1984 SC

¶101

1622 which their Lordships termed as “panchsheel99 in the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, we have to see as to how far the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn against the appellants have been fully established by the prosecution, how far the facts established are consistent

¶102

Page 12 of 25

¶103

// 13 //

¶104

only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and not explainable on any other hypothesis. We have also to see whether the circumstances are of conclusive nature and tendency and the chain of evidence is so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellants and to come to an irresistible conclusion that the act must have been done by the appellants and none else. Since in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger of conjecture

¶105

or suspicion taking the place of legal proof, we have to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. It is said that the mind is apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely is it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.

¶106

Homicidal death :

¶107

First of all let us see how far the prosecution has established that the deceased met with a homicidal death.

¶108

Page 13 of 25

¶109

// 14 //

¶110

P.W.1, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead

¶111

body though noticed one lacerated wound on the left side face and one incised wound on the occipital region and also found blood was coming out from both the nostrils and both the ears and he further opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature but so far as the cause of death is concerned, she kept the opinion reserved pending analysis of viscera. The doctor further stated that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. She suggested sending the preserved viscera

¶112

for chemical analysis to ascertain the exact cause of death. However, there is no material that the viscera report was obtained and placed before P.W.1 to obtain her final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Court is quite justified in observing that P.W.1 has not given any opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased and the medical evidence is not clear or conclusive.

¶113

Last seen theory :

¶114

In the case of Jabir and Ors. -Vrs.- The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 32 , it is held

¶115

that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the

¶116

accused and the time of murder is narrow; furthermore, the

¶117

Page 14 of 25

¶118

// 15 //

¶119

Court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the "last seen" circumstance.

¶120

The last seen theory is deposed to by P.W.6, who has stated that the deceased was his younger brother and on 08.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night, the deceased came along with the appellants to his house and asked for Rs.10/(rupees ten) to his sister, namely, Palo Kindo and since the sister did not pay the money, the deceased went away along with the appellants. Admittedly, the sister of the deceased, namely, Palo Kindo has not been examined. P.W.6 has stated in the crossexamination that he was sleeping in the house when the deceased had come along with the appellants and as he was married, he was staying in a separate room and his mother along with other members of the family were residing in another room. The learned trial Court while analysing the evidence relating to last seen has been pleased to hold that the deceased must have called his sister in a loud voice on account of which

¶121

she woke up and the deceased asked her for Rs.10/- (rupees ten) and there was every possibility that P.W.6 had also woke up hearing the loud voice of the deceased. When the sister of the deceased has not been examined and there is no evidence that the deceased asked in a loud voice for Rs.10/- (rupees ten) to

¶122

Page 15 of 25

¶123

// 16 //

¶124

his sister for which P.W.6 who had already slept woke up, the

¶125

finding of the learned trial Court in this respect seems to be based on assumption which is not acceptable. It appears from the evidence of P.W.6 that he was sleeping in a different room and there was no electricity connection in the village and most of the inhabitants belonged to labour class and usually they go to bed by 8.00 p.m. The deceased seemed to have stayed near his house in that night for a short time and went away after his sister refused to pay money to him. In such a scenario, it is difficult to believe that P.W.6 was in a position to notice that the deceased was in the company of the appellants on 08.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. In the F.I.R., it is stated by P.W.6 that the deceased had come with the appellants on 09.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. In the F.I.R., it is mentioned by P.W.6 that after the sister of the deceased refused to pay him money on that night, the deceased along with the appellants went to the house of P.W.5 who was staying in the neighbourhood, but P.W.5 has not

¶126

supported the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile. P.W.7 though stated that the deceased left his (P.W.79s) house on 08.11.2003 at about 5.30 p.m. to go to his own house with Avon bicycle, but his evidence is silent that at that point of time, the appellants were with him. It is thus doubtful whether the deceased had come with the appellants to his house during

¶127

Page 16 of 25

¶128

// 17 //

¶129

the night hours on 08.11.2003 as deposed to by P.W.6 in his evidence or on 09.11.2003 as stated by P.W.6 in the F.I.R.

¶130

The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in such a case.

¶131

According to P.W.6, the appellants and the deceased

¶132

were there near his house on 08.11.2003 at about 10.00 p.m.

¶133

but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found on 10.11.2003 lying on the down track in between Kansabahala and Kalunga as stated by P.W.9 and U.D.

¶134

Case No.37 of 2003 was registered at G.R.P.S., Rourkela. Since the places where both the appellants and deceased were last seen and where the dead body was found are completely different and there was a long time gap between the two, it

¶135

Page 17 of 25

¶136

// 18 //

¶137

cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully established

¶138

by positive evidence that the appellants were there with the deceased till his death took place and in absence of any clinching evidence, the possibility of injuries being caused to the deceased by any third person cannot altogether be ruled out.

¶139

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution relating to the deceased being last seen in the company of the appellants.

¶140

Extrajudicial Confession :

¶141

So far as the extra judicial confession by the appellants before P.W.6 is concerned, after being declared hostile by the prosecution, P.W.6 has stated that he has stated before the police that the appellants being asked by him, confessed that they had killed the deceased by pressing his neck and had laid the dead body on the railway track.

¶142

Law is well settled as held in the case of Balwinder

¶143

Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1996 SC

¶144

607 that an extra judicial confession, by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is

¶145

Page 18 of 25

¶146

// 19 //

¶147

surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.

¶148

In the case of Sahadevan and another -Vrs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in A.I.R. 2012 SC 2435, the Hon9ble Supreme Court held that in order to record a conviction basing upon an extra-judicial confession, the Court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

¶149

Law is well settled that extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and should be made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.

¶150

In the case in hand, the prosecution has not adduced

¶151

any evidence whatsoever as to why the appellants would repose confidence on P.W.6 and make confession before him who is none else than the elder brother of the deceased and what benefit they are likely to get by making such confession. Moreover, even though it is stated in the so-called confessional statement that the appellants killed the deceased by pressing his neck but P.W.1, the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination has not found any injury on the neck of the

¶152

Page 19 of 25

¶153

// 20 //

¶154

deceased much less has given any opinion that the cause of death was on account of strangulation. Therefore, the cause of death as per the extra-judicial confession is contrary to the medical evidence. Though in the F.I.R., it is stated that such confession was made before the co-villagers but no other witness has come forward to say in that respect except P.W.2 and P.W.2

¶155

has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and he has stated that the appellants did not disclose in his presence how and why they killed the deceased.

¶156

In the case of State of Delhi -Vrs.- Ram Lohia reported in A.I.R. 1960 SC 490 , it is held that statements recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence in a case and cannot be made use of except to corroborate or contradict the witness. An admission by a witness that a statement of his was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and that what he had stated there was true would not make the entire statement admissible, much less that any part of it could be used as substantive evidence.

¶157

A statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is

¶158

not a substantive piece of evidence. In view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 162 Cr.P.C., the statement can be used only for limited purpose of contradicting the maker thereof

¶159

Page 20 of 25

¶160

// 21 //

¶161

in the manner laid down in the said proviso. Such a statement

¶162

cannot be treated as evidence in criminal trial but may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness. Therefore, the admission made by P.W.6 with reference to his previous statement made before the Investigating Officer regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before him would not make such statement admissible, much less be used as substantive evidence in the case.

¶163

Therefore it is very difficult to place any reliance on

¶164

the evidence relating to extra judicial confession adduced by prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellants.

¶165

Recovery of wearing apparels of the deceased and stones

¶166

at the instance of the appellants :

¶167

Though the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) during the

¶168

course of investigation made the seizure of stones, wearing apparels of the deceased on the basis of the statements of the appellants recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act after

¶169

they were taken into custody but it seems that the seizures were made on 26.11.2003 as per seizure lists Ext.13 and Ext.14. There is no material on record as to in what condition those seized materials were kept before those were sent for chemical analysis on 11.02.2004. No reason has been assigned as to why

¶170

Page 21 of 25

¶171

// 22 //

¶172

there was such an inordinate delay in sending the material

¶173

objects to the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical analysis. The C.E. report marked as Ext.18 indicates that both the blood stains found from the stones and also the sample blood of appellant no.1 are of human blood group 8A9, but the wearing apparels of the deceased were found not to be stained with any blood and even the nail scrapings of the appellants were not stained with any blood. Also, the wearing apparels of both the appellants were not stained with any blood. In such a scenario,

¶174

the recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased as well as the stones cannot be a factor which would be sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.

¶175

Motive :

¶176

The prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind the commission of crime. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of motive is always an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case. No doubt, it is

¶177

only the perpetrator of the crime who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to take a certain course of action leading to the commission of crime, however, the absence of motive puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the

¶178

Page 22 of 25

¶179

// 23 //

¶180

circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take the place of legal proof. The absence of an apparent motive is certainly a relevant factor in this case to be considered in favour of the appellants, particularly, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Though P.W.6 has stated in the first information report that in the village, his mother was called as a witch and the villagers used to threaten his mother and quarrel with her in case anyone was suffering from fever but in the evidence, P.W.6 has stated that the entire

¶181

colony was inimical to his family since they were suspecting that his mother was a witch. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to

¶182

prove specific motive on the part of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased.

¶183

Other circumstances relied upon by the trial Court :

¶184

The learned trial Court has relied upon the

¶185

circumstances that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the railway track in a naked condition near Kansabahala

¶186

in between two railway lines and the cycle which the deceased

¶187

was carrying was found in a nala. These two circumstances are not sufficient enough to come to a certain and undeniable conclusion that the appellants are the authors of the crime.

Page 23 of 25

// 24 //

Conclusion :

In view of the foregoing discussions, analysing the evidence on record meticulously, it is found that the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution have not been fully established and there is no cogent and reliable evidence against the appellants to inculcate them in commission of the crime. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants seems to be based on conjecture and suspicion, which have got no place in the matter of legal proof of guilt of the appellants in a criminal trial and therefore, we are of the humble view that the impugned verdict is nothing but a sheer moral conviction. Emotions have no role to play in a criminal trial in adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the accused which is to be established by credible evidence. The crime committed may be cruel or ruthless but the evidence on record has to be evaluated dispassionately and objectively to see whether the accused is responsible for the said crime or he is innocent. We are of the humble view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶192

In the result, the JCRLA is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellants and the

¶193

Page 24 of 25

¶194

// 25 //

¶195

sentence passed thereunder is hereby set aside. The appellants

¶196

are acquitted of the charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. The appellants, who are on bail by virtue of the order of this Court, are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. The personal bonds and the surety bonds hereby stand cancelled.

¶197

The lower Court records with a copy of this

¶198

judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for

¶199

information.

¶200

information.
..........................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
..........................
S.S. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 8 th September 2023/RKMishra

¶201

Signature Not Verified

¶202

Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Sep-2023 14:02:56

¶203

Page 25 of 25

Anil Kujur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kujur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nimananda Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Swati Smaranika Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Shrestha Vs State of Odisha