Orissa High Court
Markanda Naik vs State Of Odisha on 20 December, 2024
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No. 18 of 2021
(Arising out of the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 14th of
February, 2020 passed by Shri S.R. Samanta, Additional Sessions
Judge, Athmalik, Dist.-Angul in CT(S) No. 163 of 2017 / CT(S) No.96
of 2016, for the offence under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860)
Markanda Naik ... Appellant
Ms. Anima Kumari Dei,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent
Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2024
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The Appellant, namely, Markanda Naik, in the present JCRLA, has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2020 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Athmallik, Dist.- Angul, wherein, he having found guilty of the offence under section 302/201 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, in short, JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 1 of 24 called "IPC"), sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years more for the offence u/s 302 of IPC, and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(rupees Ten Thousand) for the offence u/s 201 of IPC, with both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 05/06.12.2015, at about 2 a.m., the Appellant told the informant via telephonic call that his sister, the deceased, was missing. The informant (P.W.12), knowing the frequent quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased, suspected foul play and came to the Appellant's house in the morning. Upon enquiry, the Appellant admitted to have killed the deceased by assaulting her with a stone and disclosed that her body was left in the Badudikhola jungle. Acting on this information, the informant, along with the Appellant and others, proceeded to the spot, where the dead body was found in a 'nala' covered with large stones. Based on the written report of the Informant, the O.I.C. registered Handapa P.S. Case No. 132 dated 06.12.2015 vide Ext. 1, under section 302 of the IPC against the Appellant and directed the S.I. (P.W.15) to commence the investigation.
JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 2 of 243. In course of the investigation, the I.O. (P.W.15) examined the Informant, visited the spot and prepared spot map vide Ext.8 in presence of witnesses, examined other witnesses and seized blood-stained earth sample and plain earth sample, and said seizure list is marked as Ext.3. She held inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ext.2, and sent the dead body to the P.H.C., Handapa, for post-mortem examination. The I.O. also examined some more witnesses, and arrested the Appellant on 06.12.2015. While the Appellant was in police custody, he made a voluntary disclosure as to the place of concealment of weapon of offence in presence of witnesses. Accordingly, the I.O. recorded the statement of the Accused-Appellant u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, vide Ext.10, on being led to the place of concealment by the Appellant. The wearing apparels of the deceased were also seized. The weapon of offence was sent to the Medical Officer, P.H.C., Handapa for the query and opinion of the medical officer. The case was then handed over to the O.I.C. (P.W.14), who re-examined all the witnesses and sent the seized Exhibits to the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. Having gathered sufficient evidence against the Appellant, the chargesheet was submitted to face trial.
4. The case of the defence is one of complete denial and false accusations.
JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 3 of 245. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. P.Ws. 1 and 11 are the cousins of the Informant and the deceased, P.W.2 is the Informant's nephew as per village courtesy, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are co- villagers of the deceased, P.Ws. 8 and 10 are seizure witnesses, P.W.12 is the Informant and brother of the deceased, P.W.13 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, P.W.14 is the O.I.C. of Handapa P.S., and finally P.W.15 is the I.O. The defence, on the other hand, has examined no witness on its behalf.
6. The learned trial Court having believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found the prosecution to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and held the Appellant guilty and convicted him awarding sentence as described above.
7. Ms. Anima Kumari Dei, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, as firstly, the alleged extra- judicial confession made by the Appellant is inadmissible as evidence. She further submits that the statements attributed to the Appellant by the prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, do not meet the criteria for admissibility JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 4 of 24 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, because the alleged disclosure does not reveal any new fact previously unknown to the police, as the FIR itself mentions the location of the deceased's body and the alleged murder weapon. The recovery of the weapon (a stone) is further rendered unreliable, as it was never produced during trial and lacks any forensic or corroborative evidence linking it to the crime.
She further argues that the prosecution case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, which fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the Appellant. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged confession and recovery cast serious doubt on the credibility of the evidence. Ms. Dei, learned counsel asserts that there is no evidence of a quarrel or provocation between the Appellant and the deceased immediately before the incident. While the prosecution has alluded to a history of marital discord, this alone cannot establish the motive or guilt without corroborative evidence. The learned counsel, therefore, conclusively prays that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the Appellant, entitling him to an acquittal of charges under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
8. Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argues that the JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 5 of 24 prosecution has established a strong case against the Appellant under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Appellant's confession, though made in the presence of certain witnesses, was voluntarily given and has been corroborated by the circumstances, including the discovery of the deceased's body in the Badudikhola jungle. The confession made by the Appellant, while in police custody, led to the recovery of the murder weapon, a stone, which was used to inflict fatal injuries on the deceased. This statement was admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it led to the discovery of new facts, previously unknown to the police. Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC further asserts that the nature of the injuries on the deceased's body aligns with human intervention, and the injuries suggest that the crime was committed in a fit of rage, likely in a sudden altercation without any premeditation. He iterates that P.W.1 in his statement does state that the Appellant admitted that the quarrel ensued when he asked for a change of coin from the deceased at a temple, and being enraged by her response, he killed her. This provides a clear motive and establishes that the murder was committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, as opposed to a premeditated crime. Mr. Pradhan further argued that the history of marital discord and the Appellant's motive to kill the deceased has been clearly established through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 6 of 24The Appellant's actions after the murder, including concealing the dead body and failing to inform anyone of the crime, support the charge of causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of IPC. Learned ASC concluded his argument with that the prosecution has provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish a link between the Appellant and the crime and, therefore, the impugned judgment must be upheld.
9. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is incumbent to deal with the testimonies of the relevant witnesses for better appreciation of the case.
P.W.1 is the cousin brother of the informant and the deceased. He testified that the Appellant told the informant at 2:00 a.m. on the night of the incident that the deceased was missing. The next morning, P.W.1 along with the informant, the deceased's father, and others, went to the Appellant's house, where the Appellant confessed to have killed the deceased and led them to the spot in Badudikhol jungle, where he had buried the dead body of the deceased covered with large stones. He explained the injuries on the deceased's body and noted a history of quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. During cross-examination, he explained the spot of concealment of dead body. He further admitted to striking the JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 7 of 24 Appellant with a lathi while enquiring about the deceased, after which the Appellant made the confession.
P.W.2, a relative of the informant, corroborated the sequence of events narrated by P.W.1. He accompanied the informant with P.W.1 and others to the Appellant's house after learning that the deceased was missing. He states that, upon enquiry, the Appellant confessed to have killed his wife and led them to the jungle where her body was found covered with stones. He described injuries on the deceased's face, head, and missing front teeth. During cross-examination, he clarified that they left their village at 5:00 a.m. and reached the Appellant's house by 6:00 a.m., where the confession occurred. He further explained the spot of concealment of the dead body.
P.W.3 is a co-villager of the Appellant. He testified that the Appellant and his wife went to the forest together on the day of the incident, but the Appellant returned alone in the afternoon. He later learnt of the death of the deceased. The prosecution declared P.W.3 hostile when he denied hearing the Appellant confessed directly to the crime. However, he stated that the Appellant's mother informed him of the confession.
P.W.4, another co-villager, testified in the same note as P.W.3 that, the Appellant confessed to have killed his wife the following morning, upon questioning, in the presence of his mother and other villagers. He states that the Appellant JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 8 of 24 admitted to concealing the body in the Badudikhola jungle under large stones. He also stated regarding the Appellant and the deceased going to the jungle as usual to collect fire-woods and the Appellant returning alone. However, during cross- examination, P.W.4 admitted that he did not personally witness the Appellant and the deceased actually going to the jungle, or the confession, but learnt of it from the Appellant's mother.
P.W.5's testimony aligned with P.W.3 and P.W.4. He stated that the Appellant confessed to the murder on the next morning in the presence of villagers and his mother. However, his statements lacked direct observations of the events and relied on information relayed by others.
P.W.6 testified same as P.W.3 regarding the Appellant and the deceased going to the jungle as usual to collect fire- woods and the Appellant returning alone. He further stated that the Appellant confessed to the crime in police custody and led the authorities to recover the weapon of offense, a stone. He claimed to have witnessed the Appellant's statement recorded by the police. The prosecution declared him hostile, as he deviated from his earlier statements during his testimony.
P.W.7 denied any knowledge of the incident. The prosecution declared him hostile and examined him further.
JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 9 of 24He denied having provided any information to the police or being aware of the Appellant's actions or confession.
P.W.8 and P.W.10 served as seizure witnesses for the evidence recovered by the police.
P.W.9, the mother of the Appellant, testified similarly to P.W.7. She claimed to have heard about the confession from others but did not witness the Appellant admitting guilt.
P.W.12, the informant and brother of the deceased, recounted that the Appellant informed him of the deceased's disappearance on the night of the incident. The following morning, P.W.12 went to the Appellant's house, where he questioned the Appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased and the Appellant confessed to the murder and led them to the jungle. He described finding the deceased's body covered with stones and bearing visible injuries. During cross- examination, P.W.12 mentions that prior to the occurrence, the deceased and the Appellant often quarreled, and prior reports had been lodged regarding their disputes. He admitted that his statement to the police was prepared based on his narration at the police station and that he lacked direct knowledge of the actual killing.
10. Before analysing the culpability of the Appellant vis- á-vis the murder of his wife, it is incumbent to examine if the JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 10 of 24 prosecution could successfully establish the death of the Appellant's wife to be homicidal in nature.
External Injuries as per the post-mortem report vide Ext.6 -
i. One circular laceration of size 1/2" × 1/2" × 1/2", just above lateral side of left eye brow ii. One abrasion of size 1" × 1", just lateral to left eye and two inch anterior to left tragus iii. Multiple small abrasions over right half of upper lip iv. One abrasion of size 1" × 1/2" over left side of face, 1 × 1/2" above left angle of mandible v. One abrasion of size 1" × 1/2" over right side of face, 1/2" lateral to right dorsum of nose and 1/8"
below right lower eye lid vi. Multiple large abrasions over right arm and forearm over both dorsal and ventral aspect vii.Multiple linear abrasions over right side of back.
The post-mortem report reveals multiple external injuries that are not consistent with accidental or natural causes. Lacerations and abrasions on the head and face, injuries on upper limbs and back, and the presence of multiple abrasions on the arms and back suggest that the victim was subjected to sustained physical assault, possibly while resisting. According to P.W.13, the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt weapon with a rough surface, as per his report.JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 11 of 24
This description aligns with the stone found during the investigation, which the Appellant reportedly confessed to using. The cause of death, as stated by P.W.13, is traumatic head injury leading to coma and the nature of death to be homicidal. Injuries to the head which is a vital part of the body, and the associated injuries on other parts of the body corroborate that the victim endured a sustained and deliberate assault, which ultimately caused fatal trauma. The medical findings make it evident that the death was not incidental and it unequivocally establishes that the death of the victim was indeed homicidal in nature.
11. Coming to the culpability of the Appellant, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, with the prosecution relying on the confession of the Appellant, the recovery of the weapon, and witness testimonies to establish guilt, and it is trite law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, before reaching a conclusion, the Court is required to examine the evidence on the touchstone of the decision reported in the matter of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 -
"3:3. Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumant's v. State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091.JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 12 of 24
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. 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 act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti.
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SCR 1091; Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1969] 3 SCC 198; Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656; and Shivaji Sahabrao Babode & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 2 SCC 793 referred to. 3:4. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no pure moral conviction."
12. One of the circumstances appearing in the prosecution case is with regard to the last-seen theory. While appreciating JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 13 of 24 the prosecution case, in this regard, reference may be made to the decision the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Satpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 6SCC 610, para 6, as under: -
"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 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"
13. In the instant case, the prosecution's reliance on the last-seen theory rests primarily on the testimonies of P.W.3 JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 14 of 24 and P.W.6, who have stated that the Appellant and the deceased went to the jungle as usual to collect fire-wood, with the Appellant returning alone. However, it is pertinent to note that these statements are not based on direct observation, rather on narrations lacking first-hand knowledge. In the cross- examination, the defence did not specifically challenge these assertions, which might suggest tacit acknowledgment. Nevertheless, the evidentiary value of such statements is weakened from the narration of the witnesses that suggest to be a second-hand account rather than direct evidence.
Moreover, P.W.4 and P.W.5, who were also relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate this theory, retracted from their earlier statements during trial and denied having witnessed the Appellant and the deceased going to the jungle or the Appellant returning alone. As held in Satpal vs. State of Haryana (Supra), the last-seen theory, being a weak form of circumstantial evidence, requires strong corroboration by factors, such as the proximity of time between the Appellant's presence with the deceased and the recovery of the corpse, along with other incriminating evidence. The absence of direct observation, the reliance on unchallenged yet indirect testimony, and the retraction by key witnesses introduce substantial breaks in the chain of circumstances which renders the last seen theory insufficient to establish guilt conclusively.
JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 15 of 24Since the last-seen theory has not been conclusively established, the Appellant cannot be expected to provide any explanation on his account.
14. It is conspicuously noted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal material inconsistencies regarding the Appellant's alleged extra-judicial confession, undermining the reliability of their statements. P.W.1 stated that the Appellant confessed after being questioned and even admitted to dealing a lathi blow to the Appellant before the confession, indicating a possibility of coercion. However, P.W.2 contradicted this by asserting that the confession was made voluntarily without any physical force. P.W.3 denied hearing the confession directly, instead attributing knowledge of it to the Appellant's mother, who retracted from her statement during trial. Similarly, P.W.4 claimed the confession was made before the Appellant's mother in the presence of villagers but admitted to not witnessing it personally, further reducing its evidentiary value. P.W.5, while aligning with P.W.4, added no new details and also failed to corroborate a direct confession. P.W.6 mentioned a confession made in police custody, which significantly deviates from the narrative provided by other witnesses. P.W.7 and P.W.9 outrightly denied any knowledge of the confession, directly contradicting other prosecution witnesses. Finally, P.W.12 stated that the Appellant confessed at his house in the morning after the JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 16 of 24 incident but could not recall the individuals who were present during the confession, nor provided consistent details about the sequence of events. These discrepancies raise serious doubts about the voluntary and truthful nature of the alleged extra-judicial confession, suggesting a lack of coherence in the prosecution's case.
15. In Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that -
"5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility."JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 17 of 24
16. The alleged confession attributed to the Appellant fails to meet the established criteria for an admissible extra-judicial confession under the principles of Indian law of evidence. As per Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession must be voluntary and free from inducement, threat, or promise to be admissible. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses reveal that the Appellant's alleged confession was made under questionable circumstances, with indications of coercion. For instance, P.W.1 admitted to striking the Appellant with a lathi before he confessed, suggesting that the statement may not have been voluntary. Further, under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, any confession made in police custody is inadmissible unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. P.W.6's testimony that the Appellant confessed in police custody directly contravenes this requirement, rendering such a confession inadmissible.
Additionally, for an extra-judicial confession to be reliable, it must be clear, consistent, and corroborated by independent evidence. However, the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others show significant inconsistencies regarding the time, place, and manner of the confession. Some witnesses attribute the confession to a private setting in the Appellant's house, while others claim it was made publicly before the villagers or to the Appellant's mother. Such conflicting JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 18 of 24 accounts undermine the credibility of the confession. An extra- judicial confession, to be accepted, must inspire confidence and be corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Here, the lack of coherence and the possibility of undue influence or coercion detract from its evidentiary value. In view of these inconsistencies and procedural lapses, the alleged confession does not fulfil the legal standards of an admissible and reliable extra-judicial confession.
17. Coming to the alleged recovery of weapon of offense, it has been iterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nathu vs. State reported in AIR 1958 All 467, that -
"There could be no discovery of a fact about which the police has information already and in this view of the matter Section 27 was inapplicable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also have in Aher Araja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, (S) AIR 1956 S. C. 217 (D) held that the discovery of incriminating articles alleged to have been recovered by the accused is inadmissible in evidence if the police already knew where they were hidden."
18. In the instant case, the purported recovery of the stone alleged to have been used as the weapon of offence is fraught with significant legal and factual deficiencies, rendering it inadmissible and unreliable as evidence. The recovery was reportedly based on the disclosure statement made by the JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 19 of 24 Appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is evident from the record that the police already had prior information about the location of the deceased's body and the purported weapon, as the confession allegedly included specific details of both. As observed in Nathu vs. State (Supra) and reiterated in Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra reported in AIR 1956 SC 217, for a recovery to be admissible under Section 27, it must pertain to a fact that was truly discovered based on the Appellant's disclosure and not already within the knowledge of the investigating agency. Where the police already knows the location of the incriminating articles, any subsequent discovery cannot qualify as new information under Section 27. A disclosure that merely reiterates the facts already known fails to meet the requirements of Section 27.
Moreover, the prosecution's case suffers from a critical lapse, as the recovered stone, despite being recorded in evidence, was never produced during the trial. This glaring omission severely undermines the prosecution's ability to establish a link between the recovered article and the alleged offence. The mere assertion of recovery without production of the incriminating article in Court not only raises serious doubts about the credibility of the evidence but also breaches the chain of circumstance and probative value required to support a conviction. The trial Court's acknowledgment of this JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 20 of 24 lapse in the impugned judgment further highlights the prosecution's failure to substantiate its claim regarding the recovery. Without production of the alleged weapon of offence and the requisite corroboration of its connection to the crime, the recovery cannot serve as reliable evidence against the Appellant.
Section 27 demands that the disclosure and the recovery must form a direct and unbroken chain of evidence. Here, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged confession, casting doubt on whether the recovery was genuinely a result of the Appellant's disclosure. Therefore, the alleged confession fails to satisfy the legal requirements for either an admissible extra-judicial confession or a valid statement under Section 27.
19. While it is evident from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that there was a history of marital discord between the Appellant and the deceased, including frequent quarrels and prior complaints, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that any quarrel occurred immediately before or at the time of the alleged incident. The prosecution has not presented any witness or independent evidence to establish that a specific dispute or altercation took place between the Appellant and the deceased on the date of the occurrence. The allegations of prior discord, while relevant to JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 21 of 24 understanding the relationship dynamics, cannot substitute for direct evidence of a quarrel or motive on the day of the incident. In the absence of such evidence, the claim of a quarrel leading to the offense remains speculative and unsubstantiated.
20. From the discussions above, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 302 of IPC against the Appellant. There is no direct evidence of the Appellant committing the alleged act, nor is there credible circumstantial evidence to support such a conclusion. The prosecution's reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the murder weapon has been found inadmissible and unreliable. Additionally, there is no evidence of a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the incident, and the motive alleged by the prosecution remains unsubstantiated. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of murder under Section 302, IPC against the Appellant.
As regards Section 201, IPC, the prosecution has consequently also failed to prove that the Appellant knowingly concealed or destroyed evidence with the intention of shielding himself from legal consequences. The alleged recovery of the weapon and the concealment of the deceased's body in the Badudikhola jungle, as claimed by the prosecution, do not establish that the Appellant had actively JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 22 of 24 and intentionally taken steps to obliterate evidence. The absence of the recovered stone during the trial, as admitted in the impugned judgment, further weakens the case under Section 201, IPC.
21. In the light of these discussions, as emphasised in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that leaves no room for any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. In the present case, the chain of circumstances is not complete. The evidence presented is riddled with gaps, inconsistencies, and procedural lapses, failing to conclusively prove the guilt of the Appellant. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a coherent and unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the Appellant. It is clear that the prosecution has failed to meet the evidentiary standard required to convict the Appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
22. Therefore, in our considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and is not sufficient to ascribe the guilt on the Appellant. The Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.
23. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 23 of 24 Judge, Athmallik, are hereby set aside. The Appeal is allowed. The Appellant in judicial custody be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case.
24. Before parting with the case, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Ms. Anima Kumari Dei, learned counsel for rendering her valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided by Mr. S.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
S.K. Sahoo, J. I agree.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 20th December, 2024.
S.K. Parida, ADR-cum-APS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA
Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Dec-2024 16:25:08 JCRLA No. 18 of 2021 Page 24 of 24