Dismissed

Pramod Digal v. State

Orissa HC25 Jan 2024JCRLA/71/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against a life sentence for murder, the High Court of Orissa upheld the conviction of the appellant. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the murder weapon recovered from the appellant, blood matching the deceased, and his failure to explain injuries or absconding, did not leave any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and resulted in a guilty verdict.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to surrender within 15 days to serve sentence of life imprisonment.

Pramod Digal Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008

¶3

(Arising out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. Case No.63 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.8 of 2007 arising out of Phulbani Sadar P.S. Case No.1 of 2007)

¶4

--------------
.......
Pramod Digal Appellant
-Versus-
.......
State of Orissa Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Sonak Mishra,
Addl. Standing Counsel

¶5

P R E S E N T :

¶6

HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. K. SAHOO

¶7

AND

¶8

HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶9

Date of Judgment : 25.01.2024

¶10

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

¶11

The sole Appellant faced trial in the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after in short called JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 1 of 24

¶12

“IPC”) for having committed murder of his wife - Mamata Digal (herein after in short called “the deceased”). He was found guilty and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of ₹500/- [Rupees five hundred only] in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence U/S 302 I.P.C.

¶13

The prosecution case as reveals from the case record and evidence is that the deceased Mamata Digal who was aged about 16 years, the daughter of the Informant (P.W.4) fell in love with the Appellant and got married in the month of November, 2006. After the marriage, both stayed as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that the father of the Appellant was not happy with the marriage since the deceased hailed from a poor family. On 02.01.2007 at about evening, the Appellant and the deceased visited the parental house of the deceased wherein they stayed for a couple of days. At about 5 P.M. on 04.01.2007, the Appellant along with the deceased left the paternal home of the deceased for the matrimonial home. On 05.01.2007 at about 6 A.M., the mother of the Appellant came to the house of the Informant to enquire about the whereabouts of the Appellant and the deceased since they had not reached their house on the previous evening. Suspecting some foul play, they all set out in search of them. During the search, the dead body of the deceased was found lying under a mango tree inside the nearby jungle with cut

¶14

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 2 of 24

¶15

injury on the neck. The Informant (P.W.4) then submitted a written report before the police at Sadar Police Station Phulbani whereupon the police registered the case and took up the investigation.

¶16

In course of the investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, examined the witnesses, held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mamata in presence of the witnesses, and got the autopsy done over the dead body of the deceased. On 07.01.2007, getting information about the concealment of the Appellant in the jungle, the I.O. apprehended him from the nearby jungle. While in police custody as the Appellant volunteered to give his statement disclosing the place of concealment of the weapon of offence and give recovery thereof, the I.O recorded the disclosure statement of the Appellant in presence of the witnesses u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Pursuant to his statement as the Appellant led the police and witnesses to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon of offence, which is, a knife, was seized. Since there were injuries on the person of the Appellant, he was sent for medical examination. The I.O. also seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot. The wearing apparel of the Appellant which was stained with blood alleged to be worn by the Appellant at the time of incident was seized after the post-mortem. All the seized articles were sent for Chemical Examination. The C.E. report reflected that the blood stain

¶17

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 3 of 24

¶18

earth, the garments of the deceased and the garments of the Appellant contained blood stains of human origin of “O’ group which is that of the deceased. Upon completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant.

¶19

The case of the defence is one of complete denial and false implication.

¶20

To prove the culpability of the Appellant, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. While the P.W.4-Hadi Digal, is the father of the deceased, P.W.1-Abiram Digal and P.W.2Ramesh Digal are the two witnesses to the alleged leading to discovery statement given by the Appellant as well as the seizure of the weapon of offence. P.W.3-Sukru Digal is the person before whom it is alleged that the Appellant made extra judicial confession. P.W.5-Banita Digal is the aunt of the deceased who is examined to prove the motive. P.W.6-Sudhir Kumar Panigrahi is the Medical Officer who had conducted the Post-Mortem over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7Laxmidhar Mahapatra, the Police Office, who simply submitted the charge-sheet. P.W.8 is the I.O. P.W.9-Parsuram Behera, is the Medical Officer, who examined the Appellant. The prosecution also proved the documents marked as Ext.1 to 16/1 besides the M.O. I to M.O.VII.

¶21

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 4 of 24

¶22

The defence neither examined any witness nor proved documents in support of its case.

¶23

The learned trial court believing the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 8 besides the circumstances such as the motive, last scene theory, the leading to discovery of weapon of offence, the conduct of the Appellant in absconding from his house, the presence of blood stain on the cloth of the deceased that tallies with the blood group found in the clothes of the Appellant so also in the knife proved under Ext. M.O.1 consistent with the opinion of the doctor in the case found the evidence to be cogent and the circumstances emerged to have proved and accepted the prosecution case to be truthful and concluded the same to be unerringly point guilt on the Appellant alone and held the Appellant and none else is the author to the murder.

¶24

Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, the learned counsel for the Appellant in course of the argument, inter alia, submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution is tainted with doubt as there is glaring contradiction in the ocular evidence as well as the evidence on the circumstances emerge from the case that found not linked with each other so as to form the chain to establish the Appellant to be the author of the murder. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the witnesses are not worthy of credence for the

¶25

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 5 of 24

¶26

reason that the substantive evidence recorded on oath is in complete departure from the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the same being inconsistent with the statement that the Appellant persuaded the deceased to accompany him to go to the matrimonial house but she did not agree and remained in her house. According to learned counsel for the Appellant, it is further case of the prosecution that after the Appellant left the house of his in-laws, the deceased went outside the house to attend the call of nature and did not return. According to him, the above circumstance appearing in the case of the prosecution leads only to the conclusion that the deceased died while in her parental house and the Appellant had no axe to grind against her since he had left the in-laws house much before the time the deceased had left her house to ease. The learned counsel also submitted that having regard to the nature of charge it was incumbent for the prosecution to establish the fact beyond reasonable doubt and the probability of the fact that the Appellant remained in her house and did not accompany the Appellant being not properly addressed in the evidence, the same cannot be held to be sufficient to bring home the charges. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the injuries suffered by the Appellant have not been explained by the prosecution even though, he was examined by the doctor pursuant to the requisition issued by the I.O. and as such no

¶27

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 6 of 24

¶28

manner of reliance can be placed on the prosecution evidence to hold that the Appellant and none else is the author of the crime.

¶29

Mr. Sonak Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and contended that the circumstances appearing in the evidence are sufficient to implicate the Appellant as the author of the murder. According to him, the learned trial court has correctly assessed the evidence in respect to the last scene theory as the F.I.R. story corroborates the substantial evidence made by the witness during trial. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that the statement made by the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC cannot be taken as material that contradicts the statement of the witnesses for the simple reason that witnesses have no control over such statement as it is scribed by the I.O. He also submitted that each of the circumstance i.e the motive ascribed to the crime, the last scene theory, the blood stain that was found on the clothes of the Appellant being one of the same group belonging to the deceased and further the conduct of the Appellant in remaining away from his house and none explanation of the Appellant as to the circumstance under which he received the injuries or that the blood stain found in his garment is sufficient to indict that the authorship of the murder can only go to the Appellant. It is also pointed out by Mr. Mishra that the very fact that the mother of the Appellant arrived in the house of the Informant in

¶30

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 7 of 24

¶31

search of the Appellant and the deceased on the next morning informing that the deceased and the Appellant to have not returned to their home since the previous evening is a circumstance that nullifies the argument advanced by the defence, if at all made under Section 161 of the CrPC with respect to the fact that pursuant to an altercation and on the plea that the Appellant is poor and is not taking care of the deceased, she refused to accompany him and that the Appellant had left the in-laws house alone on the relevant day.

¶32

In a case where the Appellant is faced with a charge of murder the rudimentary aspect which is incumbent for the Court to examine is the nature of death of the deceased. Hence, before adverting to the authorship of the murder, it is felt expedient for this Court to examine the nature of death of the deceased. In this regard, the ocular evidence brought through the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence procured through P.W.7 found relevant. The P.W.7, the Medical Officer who deposed on oath to have conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased stated that on the relevant day he was the Assistant Surgeon in D.H.H. Phulbani. Based on the police requisition, he conducted post-mortem examination at 1:30P.M. on the dead body of one Mamata Digal, D/o- Hadi Digal of Pipali Sahi and found one cut mark over the front side of the neck of size 3” x 6”. Neck vessels underneath the cut mark were found cut. There was no ligature mark. Rigor mortis

¶33

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 8 of 24

¶34

was present in lower limbs. The larynx and trachea were found cut which indicates the depth of the wound i.e. the cut over the neck. He opined that the cause of death is due to shock which is caused by the cut wound. The shock may be hemorrhagic in nature. The death occurred within 24 to 48 hours of the postmortem. He proved the postmortem report prepared by him in his own hand under Ext. 5. He further stated that the injury he found is ante mortem in nature and is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 11.03.2007 on receipt of a query from the I.O., he stated to have opined that the weapon which was sent to him for his observation could cause the cut wound and the wound could cause death in ordinary course of nature. The weapon sent to him was the knife and proved his opinion on the query vide Ext. 6 and proved M.O.I to be the knife which was sent to him for his opinion.

¶35

In the evidence of P.W.4, the Informant and the P.W.5 there is nothing to dispute that the death of the deceased was not by injuries suffered to her neck which was found slit. No such material could be elicited either from the P.W.4, P.W.5 or the medical officer to doubt the testimonies with respect to the nature of death of the deceased rather than to accept them as sacrosanct to hold the death of the deceased to be one of homicidal nature.

¶36

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 9 of 24

¶37

As discussed above, the prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Law is well settled that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the court is required to examine if the various circumstances appearing in the case and the chain of sequence are consistent to link the chain pointing towards the guilt of the Appellant. The various circumstances emerging from the evidence may be reduced as follows –

¶38

(i) the motive;

¶39

(ii) the deceased last seen in the company of the Appellant;

¶40

(iii) the Appellant having absconded from the scene of occurrence;

¶41

(iv) the recovery of the blood-stained weapon at the instance of the Appellant and

¶42

(v) the blood stain found on the wearing apparel of the Appellant that matches the group of the blood of the deceased besides, the injury is found on the body of the appellant himself.

¶43

It is apt to mention that in circumstantial evidence, the court is required to examine the evidence on the touchstone of the decisions reported in the matter of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] which lays down 5 golden principles. These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Those 5 principles are –

¶44

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 10 of 24

¶45

Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established

¶46

Fact so established should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that accused is guilty

¶47

Facts should be of conclusive nature

¶48

The fact should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved

¶49

There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the must have been done by the accused.

¶50

Keeping the above principles in mind when the first circumstance is examined with regard to motive, could be drawn from the statements of P.W.4 & P.W.5. P.W.4 vividly narrated the circumstances in which the Appellant got married to the deceased. It is the admitted case of the parties that the marriage between the deceased and the Appellant was out of a love affair and at the instance of the Appellant. P.W.4, the Informant stated that when the daughter (deceased) was in Class-VIII she used to complain before him that she was being harassed by the Appellant on her way to the school. He further stated that in the month of November, 2006, the Appellant took away his daughter and all the effort made by him (P.W.4) to bring her daughter back to the house went in vain as the deceased refused to return to her parental house since both the deceased and the Appellant had started living as husband and

¶51

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 11 of 24

¶52

wife though contrary to the wishes of the parents of the Appellant. His evidence found absolutely akin to the FIR story.

¶53

P.W.5, the co-villager of the Appellant stated that for about three occasions, she has come across the parents of the Appellant rebuking the Appellant for the manner in which he fell in love with the deceased and brought her as his wife. It is also apparent from the evidence that the parents of the Appellant were unhappy because the deceased belonged to a very poor family and they were instigating to drive away the deceased and to marry another lady who would bring sufficient dowry. This part of evidence of P.W.5 disliking the deceased by the parents of the Appellant is found supported by the version of P.W.4, who in his cross-examination stated that the parents of the deceased were dissatisfied with the marriage. Nothing could be brought from the evidence of P.W.5 to disbelieve her testimony. The fact elicited in course of the cross-examination with regard to the previous statement of the witnesses as recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC wherein it is stated by P.W.5 that the Appellant called the deceased to go with him and the mother of the deceased refused to allow her to go with the Appellant by saying that the deceased would be given in marriage to someone else and thereafter the Appellant went alone to his house has been flatly denied by the witness. Since P.W.5 is a post occurrence witness who appeared in the scene

¶54

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 12 of 24

¶55

only at the time of detection of the dead body, had no scope to give such a statement before the I.O. in the manner she allegedly stated as to what transpired in the house of the deceased at the relevant time when the deceased and the Appellant left the matrimonial house and the reason why the Appellant had to leave the in-laws house alone. Consequently, the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted as one to have been stated either by P.W.4 or P.W.5. This is more so because the Informant-P.W.4 remained consistent and firm in his evidence on oath akin to the narration made by him in the F.I.R.

¶56

Admittedly, the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is by the I.O. over which the witness does not have control and as such, the substantive evidence of the witness before the court for all purposes has to be considered authentic and reliable and when it corroborates the FIR story its authenticity further gets reinforced for the reason that the story that was revealed at the first instance cannot be expected to be concocted more so when the FIR was lodged with promptitude. In the instant case, no sooner the dead body was detected that to at the effort of the mother of the Appellant and the parents of the deceased its genuineness cannot be put to doubt even if the statement of the witnesses is not in exactitude with the one recorded by the I.O. The learned court below has observed that

¶57

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 13 of 24

¶58

in a circumstance when the witness gives a complete narration of the case as the one, he complained before the Police must be given primacy than the one stated to have been recorded by the I.O. The evidence, therefore, cannot be said to be a tainted one. Therefore, the credibility of P.W.4 and P.W.5 cannot be questioned on the part of the evidence that the deceased was never accepted by the Appellant or his parents to continue their matrimonial tie up and he wanted to get rid of her that leads to strong motive to do away with the life of the deceased and the prosecution has proved the circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.

¶59

The second circumstance can be drawn from the last seen theory. It is held in Satpal Vs. State of Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 610, para 6 –

¶60

“ Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have been taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the

¶61

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 14 of 24

¶62

accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstance, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine”

¶63

In the present case, according to the prosecution case, the deceased was last seen with the Appellant before found to be dead. The evidence as stated above forthcoming from the mouth of P.W.4 clearly establishes that the deceased and the Appellant having stayed in the parental house of the deceased for a couple of days had left in the evening on 04.01.2007 together. The statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is obviously doubtful for the reason as discussed in preceding paragraph and there is no material to support that the witnesses would have given such statement before the I.O. as the circumstance leading to such a story also does not find support in the prosecution evidence. Now, on the contrary, it is proved on record not only through ocular version of P.W.4 but otherwise from the circumstance as narrated above when the mother of the Appellant arrived in the house of the informant in search of the Appellant and the deceased early in the morning giving a clear indication that she was aware that the Appellant had left with the company of the deceased from her parental house and she had apprehension as to some untoward incident which she might have seen in the conduct of the Appellant

¶64

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 15 of 24

¶65

earlier. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the Appellant had left the house of the Informant in the evening of 04.01.2007 in the company of the deceased as last seen. Further, there being no other intervening factor elicited from the evidence came in between the time of leaving of the deceased in the company of the Appellant and detection of the dead body establishes the fact of last scene theory to its hilt and the same is sacrosanct.

¶66

The third circumstance is with regard to the conduct of the accused in absconding from the scene of occurrence as well as from his house. From the conduct of the Appellant who did not reach the house and remained away from the house in the entire night is a strong circumstance as to his involvement. Now, it is further required for the court to see if the other circumstances appearing in the case are cogent and have been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. If the Appellant had left alone from the house of the in-laws, then it is expected that he would have reached his house and there was no scope for his parents to doubt or to have any kind of suspicion as to his whereabouts but he did not move to his house safely and concealed the weapon of offence at the outer side of the house below the roof which did not come in the notice of any member of the house of the Appellant. Furthermore, P.W.8 the I.O. stated in his evidence that on 07.1.2007 he arrested the accused from the

¶67

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 16 of 24

¶68

nearby Jungle at 11.30 P.M. and brought him to the police station, found no way challenged. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the Appellant coupled with the injuries sustained by him is opined to be the nail marks, clearly attributes the Appellant to be present at the scene.

¶69

As regards the circumstance as to discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the Appellant; P.W.8, the I.O. stated in his evidence that on 07.01.2007 he arrested the Appellant from the nearby Jungle at 11.30 P.M. and brought him to the police station. It is also in his evidence that while the Appellant was in his custody, in presence of the witnesses he gave statement to give recovery of knife from inside his house. He then recorded his statement proved under Ext-2/2. He proved his signature underneath the statement proved under Ext-2/3. It is also in his evidence that the Appellant thereafter took him to his house and brought out a knife from the low level bhadi of his house and handed over the same to him which he had seized under seizure list Ext-1/2. The seizure list Ext ½, discovery and the statement leading to discovery made by the Appellant proved vide Ext-2/3 corroborates his evidence. M.O-I the knife also lends assurance to his evidence. P.Ws. 1 and 2, the two witnesses to the alleged leading to discovery statement and the seizure list have completely disowned their knowledge regarding the same. Both had stated in their evidence-in-chief

¶70

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 17 of 24

¶71

that they were called to the P.S. by the police who took their signatures in a blank paper. Both the witnesses were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. This goes to show that these two witnesses are not truthful witnesses. Thus, no importance to the evidence of these witnesses can be attached. Law is well settled that the evidence of police officer cannot be brushed aside merely on the sole ground that he is a police officer. It is to be weighed with the same manner as that of an independent witness if it assures credence. In the matter of Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P. S. & Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 1292], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that,

¶72

“if the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even from the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record.”

¶73

In the instant case, it is borne out from the evidence that the Appellant gave statement in presence of the witnesses. It is true that the witnesses though admitted their signatures vide Ext. 2/3, they did not support the evidence of IO to the effect that

¶74

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 18 of 24

¶75

that the appellant made any statement before them so also the manner of confession pointing the place of concealment of weapon and its recovery. But the evidence of the I.O. which is chronologically described and proved with regard to the statement volunteered by the Appellant while in custody, its recording and leading to the place of concealment followed by recovery at the instance of the Appellant and seizure thereof contemporaneous to the recovery of the knife is sufficient to hold the evidence of the I.O as truthful. From the evidence of the medical officer which is also left unchallenged by the defence clearly suggests that the prosecution has established that M.O.I is the weapon of offence which was given recovery of by the Appellant while in police custody from his conscious possession. Hence, the circumstance as to leading to discovery of the weapon of offence is rightly held to have been proved through P.W.8.

¶76

Another circumstance that the prosecution attempted to prove in the case is the presence of blood stain on the clothes of the Appellant, which tallies with the blood of the deceased and the presence of the injuries on the Appellant. It is in the evidence of P.W.8 that he seized the blood-stained pant and shirt of the Appellant on his production on 07.01.2007 worn by the Appellant at the time of the incident and prepared the seizure list vide Ext-12. He identified the seized pant and shirt

¶77

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 19 of 24

¶78

of the Appellant, proved vide M.O.II and III respectively. These two seizure lists and the respective M.Os. completely corroborates the evidence of P.W.8. The further evidence of P.W.8 is that he had also sent the Appellant for his medical examination having noticed injuries on his person and for collection of his nail clippings. P.W.9 is the medical officer who stated to have examined the Appellant on police requisition. In course of his evidence, P.W.9 identified the Appellant with reference to the identifying mark in his person of the Appellant and further stated that he found one abrasion of size 2cm × l cm over lower lip of the left side and one abrasion of size 3cm × lcm on the left side nose and the injuries are possible by fall on hard surface, by tussle with a human being or by fingernail or broken piece of bangles having pointed edges during tussle with a human being. He proved his injury report vide Ext-17 which corroborates his evidence.

¶79

Admittedly, nothing is before us to deduce a circumstance that the appellant received the injuries by fall whereas keeping in view the place and nature of injuries, the same could be a result of a tussle by nail mark or a broken bangle. This part of evidence coupled with the evidence to the effect that blood stains found in the wearing apparels of the appellant that tallies with the blood group of his wife speaks volume to the conduct of the appellant.

¶80

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 20 of 24

¶81

Hence, the absence of any explanation from his side as to how the wearing apparels got stained with blood matching with blood group of the deceased and further the injuries suffered by him particularly in places and manner as deposed by P.W.9-the doctor, clearly establishes the circumstances as to the presence of the appellant not only at the scene of the occurrence but his active involvement in the death of the deceased.

¶82

Law is well settled that the onus of offering an explanation for the incriminating facts lies upon the accused and if he does not offer any explanation or falsely denies the very existence of the incriminating facts, it is itself a circumstance pitted against him.

¶83

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of

¶84

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti versus State of Uttar Pradesh in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 6465 OF 2022 held as follows:-

¶85

It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law where there is any infirmity or lacunae in the prosecution case, the same could

¶86

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 21 of 24

¶87

be cured or supplied by a false defence or a false plea which is not accepted by a Court.

¶88

Before a false explanation can be used as an additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied:

¶89

(i) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved.

¶90

(ii) such circumstances points to the guilt of the accused as reasonable defence.

¶91

(iii) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.

¶92

In the instant case, there is nothing in the evidence to show that the Appellant had parted himself away from the deceased before her death nor any explanation has been offered by him regarding presence of the injuries in his person to be for any other reason and the presence of blood-stain on his garment like pant and shirt which tallies with the blood group of the deceased. The Appellant had also not given any explanation regarding his absconding from the village and regarding recovery of the weapon of offence from his possession. On his statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the Appellant had simply denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him as “false”. Therefore, the non-offering of any explanation and falsely denying the very existence of the incriminating fact is taken as an additional link, which completes the chains of circumstances.

¶93

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 22 of 24

¶94

Therefore, the circumstance as to the nature of death of the deceased which proved to be homicidal coupled with the motive attributed to the Appellant, the deceased last seen in the company of the Appellant, the blood stained wearing apparel containing the blood group of the deceased and injury appearing on the Appellant being proximate to the circumstance by nail or a struggle to wriggle out from the clutch and above all the conduct in absconding from the house and the presence of the Appellant in the jungle close to the place where dead

¶95

body was lying all pointing unerringly to the Appellant.

¶96

On a close scrutiny of the evidences brought through the witnesses on their ocular version coupled with the circumstances proved being cogent, therefore, lead only to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances brought by the Prosecution is clear, cogent and absolute and unfailingly connects the Appellant with the authorship of the murder and no hypothesis consistent with his innocence could be drawn. The impugned order of the trial court being consistent and akin to the evidence both in fact and law cannot be faulted with and in our humble opinion the same meets the requirement of law with regard to both the circumstantial evidence as well as the ocular version and is accordingly confirmed.

¶97

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 23 of 24

¶98

In the result, the JCRLA stands dismissed being devoid of merit. The Appellant who is on bail vide order of this Court dated 02.07.2014 is directed to surrender forthwith within 15 days of this Judgment before the learned trial court to serve the sentences.

¶99

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶100

S.K. Sahoo,J. I agree.

¶101

(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Date the 25 th January, 2024.
A.K. Pradhan, Sr. Steno.

¶102

Signature Not Verified

¶103

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Steno Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 25-Jan-2024 11:09:30

¶104

JCRLA No. 71 of 2008 Page 24 of 24

Pramod Digal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Digal 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

Pabitra Pradhan Vs State

Govinda Nayak Vs State

Chitra@Chitrasen Vs State

Baikuntha Bihari Dansana Vs State of Orissa

Muna Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sidheswar Pradhan Vs State