A division bench of the Odisha High Court comprising of Justice S Murali Dhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash acquitted the appellant charged under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC because the prosecution failed to two prove the important links in the chain of circumstances i.e., the Appellant subjecting the deceased to cruelty soon prior to her death and the death of the deceased being homicidal. The bench resorted to the five principles laid down by the Apex Court to judge a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Facts:
The appellant was continuously quarrelling with his wife and assaulting her on trivial matters. As per the FIR lodged by PW 9, he went to a nearby shop and learned that the accused had assaulted his wife (deceased) the previous night and again on the morning of 22nd July 2011 by pressing her neck. The deceased became unconscious. Hearing about this PW 9 went to the house of the Appellant and found the deceased lying unconscious on the bed. PW 9 was supposed to have enquired from the Appellant about the occurrence and the Appellant apparently disclosed to PW 9 that the Appellant had assaulted the deceased the previous night and the next morning and left her inside a separate room. After some time when the Appellant went to the said room, he found the deceased hanging from the angle of the ceiling by means of a saree. The Appellant immediately brought down the deceased, lay her on the bed and called one Pandey Doctor of Rampur, who came and declared her dead. PW 9 suspected that due to assault on the deceased by the Appellant, she had committed suicide out of anger.
On the above basis, P.S. Case No.164 of 2011 was registered u/S 306 IPC and the investigation was taken up. The sub-inspector took up the investigation and examined PW 9 and other witnesses. He arrested the Appellant and interrogated him. On completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the Appellant for the aforementioned offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. One Laxminarayan Sahu was examined as DW 1 for the defence. He disclosed in the Examination-in-Chief that the Appellant was his maternal uncle-in-law and the deceased was his aunt-in-law. He claimed that the deceased was ill-tempered and was always quarrelling with the Appellant due to his meagre earnings. DW 1 claimed that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the Appellant for the aforementioned offences and proceeded to sentence him in the manner indicated.
Observations of the Court:
The court held that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 would apply where the Court noted that the circumstances “must or should be” established and not “maybe” established. Further, the court acknowledged the five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence:
- “The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
- the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
- the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
- they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
- 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.”
In the present case, the trial Court judgment fails to properly delineate the various circumstances, which according to the trial Court formed a chain so complete with each of the links in the chain being proved by the prosecution, whereby the guilt of the Appellant is unerringly established. To begin with, even the medical evidence is not categorical that the death of the deceased was homicidal. That portion of the so-called extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant to PW 9 about his having assaulted the deceased on the previous evening and the very morning of her death has not been proved by the prosecution. This was in fact the most crucial link in the entire chain of circumstances. Consequently, two important links in the chain of circumstances i.e., the Appellant subjecting the deceased to cruelty soon prior to her death and the death of the deceased being homicidal, have not been proved by the prosecution.
Decision:
The Appellant was acquitted of the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. His bail bonds stood discharged. The appeal was allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
Case: Pradyumna Sahu vs State of Odisha
Coram: Justice S Murali Dhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Decided on: 30.09.2022
Citation: CRLA No. 131 of 2014
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
