A two-judge bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Chittaranjan Dash and Justice S Muralidhar acquitted a murder accused since the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case was said to be that of direct evidence, leading to motive being an irrelevant factor and it was held that the guilt of the co-accused could not be attributed to the appellant.
Facts:
The deceased, Khirod Behera came to the accused’s village and was allegedly blocked by the three accused, i.e., Chhabi and his two sons, Santosh and Abhimanyu while the deceased was moving in a scooter driven by Surjyakanta Nayak (PW-6). After a heated argument, Chhabi and the present Appellant Abhimanyu gave blows to the deceased Khirod with lathis, whereas Santosh gave blows by means of a sword causing severe injuries. PW-6 fled away and disclosed the occurrence to others. After collection of evidence and post-mortem, Chhabi was arrested by PW-12 and from him, a sword was seized. PW-12 also arrested the accused Santosh and seized his clothes worn at the time of the occurrence. Later, the accused Abhimanyu surrendered in the Court. At the end of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the three accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
On behalf of the defence, DW-2 stated how he had noticed the dead body of the deceased and how the father of the deceased and his brothers were holding the dead body and crying. He purportedly asked PW-1 who had killed the deceased but, PW-1 could not tell the name of the assailants. He claimed that he had signed on the inquest report at the instance of the Police without knowing its contents. He noticed a sword lying at the spot itself. PW-6, the star witness for the prosecution, turned hostile. Initially he was stuck to the original version about the three accused attacking the deceased as described by the prosecution but when he was cross-examined again, he completely changed his version.
The trial Court accepted the initial version of PW-6 in his examination in chief because of the defence had been able to influence PW-6 over 2 years and along with the analysis of the medical evidence, not a single contradiction had been pointed out with respect to his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the investigation; On further examination of rest of the witnesses, the trial court went ahead to convict the three accused and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinbefore. The only appellant in this case is Abhimanyu since the other two defendants had died.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that the fact that there was political rivalry between the deceased and the accused might lend motive for the crime but, it can be double-edged. In a case as the present, where the attempt at projecting the case of the prosecution as based on direct evidence fails, motive assumes significance. Relying on Khurshid v. State of State of Jammu and Kashmir Crl A No. 872 of 2015, the judges observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance than in the case of direct evidence. What was projected by the prosecution as the case based on direct evidence of PW-6, could not have been converted into a case of circumstantial evidence.
The fact of the matter was that PW-6 turned hostile. He was subjected to the cross-examination by the prosecution but, it could not be demonstrated that he had been won over by the accused.. The judges concluded that a reading of the entire testimony of PW-6 does not lend assurance that he is speaking the truth. Further, the judges summed up the analysis of the prosecution evidence, and held that even keeping aside the testimony of the hostile witness PW-6 on one side, while the role of Chhabi and Santosh can be said to be established by means of the recoveries and the chemical examination report, there is no evidence other than the unreliable evidence of PW-6 to connect Abhimanyu Pattnaik to the
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that the fact that there was political rivalry between the deceased and the accused might lend motive for the crime but, it can be double-edged. In a case as the present, where the attempt at projecting the case of the prosecution as based on direct evidence fails, motive assumes significance. Relying on Khurshid v. State of State of Jammu and Kashmir Crl A No. 872 of 2015, the judges observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance than in the case of direct evidence. What was projected by the prosecution as the case based on direct evidence of PW-6, could not have been converted into a case of circumstantial evidence.
The fact of the matter was that PW-6 turned hostile. He was subjected to the cross-examination by the prosecution but, it could not be demonstrated that he had been won over by the accused.. The judges concluded that a reading of the entire testimony of PW-6 does not lend assurance that he is speaking the truth. Further, the judges summed up the analysis of the prosecution evidence, and held that even keeping aside the testimony of the hostile witness PW-6 on one side, while the role of Chhabi and Santosh can be said to be established by means of the recoveries and the chemical examination report, there is no evidence other than the unreliable evidence of PW-6 to connect Abhimanyu Pattnaik to the crime.
Abhimanyu was entitled to benefit of doubt after placing a reliance on the case of Padam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2000 SCC (Cri) 285 which held that the judicial approach in dealing with the case where an accused is charged of murder has to be cautious, circumspect and careful and the High Court, therefore, has to consider the matter carefully and examine all relevant and material circumstances, before upholding conviction. The trial court failed to do so.
Decision:
The court granted benefit of doubt to Abhimanyu Pattnaik - the only remaining appellant and set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court only as far as he was concerned. The bail bonds furnished by Abhimanyu Pattnaik were hereby cancelled.
Case: Abhimanyu Pattnaik v State of Orissa
Coram: Justice Chittaranjan Dash and Justice S Muralidhar
Citation: CRLA No. 124 of 2005
Decided on: 30.09.2022
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments