Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Nirakar Das on 18 February, 2025
Bench: B.P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Corrected
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 20-Feb-2025 14:10:43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
GCRLA No. 9 of 2003
(From the judgment dated 14th November, 2002 of learned Sessions
Judge, Cuttack passed in S.T. Case No.397 of 2000)
State of Odisha .... Appellant
-versus-
Nirakar Das .... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, Additional
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, Amicus
Curiae
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
th
18 February, 2025
By The Bench.
1. Heard Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State and Ms. B. Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae for
the Respondent.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the State challenging
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.11.2002 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.397 of 2000,
Designation: Personal Assistant
whereby the Respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the occurrence took place
on the intervening night of 13th/14th March, 2000. The Respondent
and the deceased were co-employees at Ranga Rupa Arts Workshop,
situated within the premises of Samrat Cinema Hall at Cuttack. On
the night of the occurrence, both the deceased and the Respondent
stayed at the workshop along with five other employees. It is alleged
that the deceased and Respondent had a quarrel five days before the
occurrence, when the deceased tried to persuade the Respondent to
give up the habit of drinking. On the morning of 14th March, 2000,
the deceased's body was found lying in the front verandah of the
office room with multiple cut injuries on different parts of his body,
including the neck, forehead, and abdomen. A handwritten slip,
written in pencil, containing the words "My name is Black Dog -
KALA KUKURA E LOKA AMAKU BAHUTA HAIRANA
KARICHHI," was recovered near the body. The matter was reported
to police by P.W.1 who is the owner of that workshop where the
deceased was working as a carpenter and the accused as painter.
Designation: Personal Assistant
4. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined 12
witnesses and marked 21 exhibits. Additionally, 7 material objects
were also marked in course of trial on behalf of the prosecution.
5. The case of defence is one of complete denial and the
Respondent did not adduce any evidence in his defense.
6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the materials and evidence
brought on record, found that the prosecution could not establish the
charge against the Respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and,
accordingly, the Respondent was granted the benefit of doubt and
acquitted henceforth.
7. Mr. Khandayatray, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits
for the State that the learned trial Judge erred without considering all
the circumstances brought on record against the Respondent. He
asserts that, particularly, the matching of the handwriting on the
paper slip lying near the dead body with that of the Respondent's
handwriting, has been completely underestimated by the trial Court
along with the recovery of the weapon of offence. It is also
submitted that the previous enmity of the Respondent-accused with
Designation: Personal Assistant
the deceased coupled with the established circumstances, pointed
towards his guilt.
8. Ms. Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae, on the other hand, submits
that the circumstances so narrated by the prosecution are
inconclusive in nature and did not directly implicate the Respondent.
She emphasised that multiple persons were present at the workshop
on the night of occurrence as there was a feast in the premises. In
view of the possibility of a murder taking place, or some altercation
for that matter, someone must have heard or perceived it. The
absence of any witness attesting to such an event raises doubts about
the prosecution's case. She further argued that in the absence of
direct evidence, the Respondent could not be held guilty based on
mere suspicion.
9. The charge is for murder simplicitor. P.W.7, the doctor
who conducted the post-mortem examination, found ten cut injuries
on the deceased's body, including wounds on the neck, abdomen,
right scapula, forehead, and various other parts. According to
P.W.7's final opinion, all the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting
weapon, and collectively, they were fatal in the ordinary course of
nature, leading to death due to shock and hemorrhage. He further
Designation: Personal Assistant
concluded that the death was homicidal in nature, resulting from the
cumulative effect of all the injuries. The recovery of the body, the
presence of multiple cut wounds, witness statements, and the
doctor's opinion confirm that the death of the deceased was
homicidal in nature.
10. Now coming to the complicity of the Respondent in the alleged
murder of the deceased, admittedly there is no direct evidence
against him. The prosecution case, as brought on record, rested on
circumstantial evidence, summarised as follows:-
i) A quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the
Respondent five days prior to the incident;
ii) The deceased and the Respondent were co-workers at the
same workshop;
iii) The paper slip found kept near the dead body contained the
handwriting of the Respondent as per the opinion of
handwriting examiner;
iv) A barber's razor was recovered at the instance of the
Respondent, leading to discovery of weapon of offence;
v) The Respondent was found absconding the morning the dead
body of the deceased was discovered.
Designation: Personal Assistant
11. From the chemical examination report it is found that while
various material objects containing blood stains were found to be of
human origin of group 'A', none could conclusively establish a link
to the Respondent. All the material objects including the barber's
razor were seized by the investigating officer. Although, the razor
marked as 'J' (M.O.III) was found stained with blood, it could not
be determined regarding any opinion whether the same is human
blood or not. Similarly, a seized pair of jeans marked as "I" for
examination did not contain any bloodstains and no opinion was
given by the examiner. Therefore, no help can be rendered from the
opinion of the chemical examiner recorded in the CE report under
Ext.20/1.
12. The circumstances, discussed as above, reveals that the
handwritten paper slip, although bearing the Respondent's
handwriting, as per the opinion of the government examiner under
Ext.13, did not contain any confession or indication of a motive. The
letters on the paper slip do not reveal anything about the murder of
the deceased or speak any word towards the motive of murder. The
meaning of the words as written on the paper slip is found to be a
general opinion on the conduct of the deceased. The Respondent's
Designation: Personal Assistant
abscondence on the morning following the murder, while
underscores a suspicious conduct, cannot in isolation help the
prosecution to attribute a circumstance relating to the culpability of
the Respondent.
13. So far as leading to discovery of the barber's razor (M.O.III) is
concerned, upon chemical examination, the same is found to contain
small amount of blood stain but no opinion could be recorded with
respect to the same. It is true that the injuries noticed on the person
of the deceased could be possible by the said barber's razor but in
absence of any opinion with regard to presence of human blood on
the same upon chemical examination, the alleged weapon of offence
cannot be connected to the murder of the deceased definitely. The
mere possession or recovery of the razor is insufficient to establish
guilt.
14. With regard to the circumstance of the alleged previous enmity
between the Respondent and the deceased, it is found that as per
allegation, the quarrel between them happened five days prior to the
occurrence when the deceased tried to persuade the Respondent to
give up the habit of drinking. The allegation itself does not create
Designation: Personal Assistant
any suspicious circumstance against the Respondent constituting a
strong motive for murder for holding it over as a grudge.
15. It is an established fact that there were several other persons
present in the workshop on the night of the occurrence. According to
the evidence of P.W.6, a co-worker and P.W.1, the owner of the
workshop, the deceased was sleeping in the front verandah of the
office room, whereas, the Respondent was slipping in a room behind
the office room. An empty bottle of liquor was also found on the
verandah where the dead body was found. P.W.7, the doctor who
conducted post-mortem examination, also could not conclusively
88uopine whether all injuries were ante-mortem or post mortem or
any of such injuries were post mortem or ante mortem and has
opined them to be peri-mortem in nature. The circumstances though
reveal a strong suspicion against the Respondent but does not
conclusively point towards guilt of the Respondent.
16. The Panchsheel principles of circumstantial evidence, as laid
down in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 1984 AIR 1622 and Hanumant vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, require that
Designation: Personal Assistant
circumstances must form a complete chain leading exclusively to the
guilt of the accused. However, in the instant case, the circumstances
presented by the prosecution are not found to be satisfactory to
establish the guilt of the Respondent. The chain of circumstance is
found to be insufficient to exclude every possible hypothesis except
the guilt of the Respondent.
16. Upon a thorough analysis of evidence brought on record, we
concur with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Rourkela,
that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond all
reasonable doubt against the Respondent. As a result, the order of
acquittal is not liable to be interfered with.
17. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
M..K. Panda, P.A.
