Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.501 of 2017 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and arising from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, in Sessions Trial Case No. 115 of 2015.). Diba @ Sudhakar Dalei State of Orissa -versus- …. …. Appellant (s) Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Appellant (s) For Opposite Party(s) : : Mr. Suryakanta Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING:-08.05.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -08.08.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this CRLA, the Appellant assails the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Athagarh, in S.T. Case No. 115 of 2015 (arising out of C.T. Case No. 290 of 2015 and Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No. 55 of 2015), whereby the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 directed to pay a fine of ₹5,000, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2015, the informant, Prakash Behera, received information that the accused, the husband of the deceased, had killed her on the previous night at his house. Upon receiving such information, the informant came to the spot and found his sister lying dead. The matter was reported to the Police Station, whereupon Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No. 55 of 2015 was registered and investigation was taken up. 3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, examined witnesses, conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, issued requisition for post mortem examination, seized sample gauze and blood-stained gauze from the scientific officer, arrested the accused, seized his blood-stained wearing apparels, collected nail clippings of the accused, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased from the police constable, and also seized a blood-stained katari from the possession of the accused. 4. The accused was then forwarded to court, and the seized katari was sent to S.D.H., Athagarh with a requisition for medical opinion. All the seized articles were sent to SFSL, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination. Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 5. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
Legal Reasoning
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the testimony of P.W.20, the Investigating Officer, is inherently unreliable and ought not to be accepted. It is apparent from his evidence that although he claimed to have apprehended the Appellant at the spot with a ’katari’, independent witness Ashok Dalai (P.W.5) clearly stated in his cross- examination that nothing was seized from the possession of the Appellant. This material contradiction strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and seriously undermines the credibility of the investigation. 8. Although P.W.20 purportedly apprehended the Appellant at the spot, he did not lodge the F.I.R. on his own initiative. Instead, he waited for the arrival of the deceased’s family members before registering the case, which is wholly unnatural and casts a grave doubt on the bona fides of the prosecution case. Such delay and inaction are fatal to the prosecution case, warranting acquittal. Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 9. The learned counsel also contended that P.W.1, a purported seizure witness, categorically admitted during cross-examination that he signed a blank seizure list. 10. Furthermore, P.W.1 was declared hostile and, under cross- examination by the prosecution, specifically denied that the Appellant was found holding a blood-stained ’katari’ or was sitting in the veranda of his house as alleged. Thus, the seizure of incriminating articles stands vitiated. 11. The Appellant’s conviction is primarily based on the finding that the ‘lungi’ and ‘katari’ seized from him contained blood stains of group “A”, and the alleged failure of the accused to explain their presence. However, the investigating agency did not ascertain or establish the blood group of the deceased or the Appellant. In the absence of such crucial evidence, the inference drawn by the trial court is wholly unsustainable. The conviction, therefore, is based on surmises and conjectures and cannot be upheld in law. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE: 12. The learned counsel for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the deceased was killed in the house of the Appellant/accused during the intervening night of 16.07.2015 and 17.07.2015 and nobody except the accused and the deceased were present in the house. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 13. Although P.W.5 was declared hostile, it was admitted by him during cross-examination that he was present in front of the accused’s house when the police arrived and observed the accused sitting in his house. 14. The Investigating Officer/P.W.20 deposed that, upon arrival at the house of the accused, he found the accused sitting on the front verandah holding a blood-stained ‘katari’. The witness Gramarakhi Gyanaranjan Barik, who accompanied the police, identified the accused. Upon seeing the police, the accused attempted to flee towards the back side of the house but was apprehended, and he disclosed his identity to the police. 15. Furthermore, P.W.16 corroborated that, on the night of the incident, a severe quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased which was quite apparent. 16. This collective and unshaken testimony of P.W.5, P.W.16, and P.W.20 clearly establishes the presence of the accused at the scene at the relevant time, thereby rendering the plea of alibi wholly untenable. The prosecution has clearly proved the complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. IV. TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT 17. The learned trial court, after framing a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, proceeded on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses and Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 relied on various documentary and forensic evidence, including the post-mortem report and chemical examination report. 18. The court found that the accused and the deceased were residing together in the same house where the murder took place, while the parents and children of the accused were living separately. The court observed that the accused was found, on the morning following the incident, sitting in the verandah of his house holding a blood-stained katari, and that upon seeing the police, he attempted to flee but was apprehended. The police seized the katari as well as blood-stained wearing apparels from the accused. The forensic report confirmed that the katari and the lungi worn by the accused bore human blood of group ‘A’, matching the blood found on the deceased’s clothes. 19. The trial court rejected the plea of alibi taken by the accused, noting that he failed to discharge the onus of proof in that regard, and that the cumulative evidence of prosecution witnesses (particularly P.Ws. 5, 12, 16, and 20) clearly placed the accused at the scene of occurrence. The court also found no plausible explanation from the accused as to how his clothing and weapon came to be stained with blood. 20. The contentions regarding procedural lapses, including the non- examination of certain witnesses, alleged suppression of the real FIR, and non-production of material objects, were considered and rejected by the court as immaterial or insufficient to discredit the prosecution case. Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 21. The court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken, and the conduct of the accused in attempting to flee upon seeing the police further reinforced his guilt. Accordingly, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted him thereunder, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of ₹5,000, and in default, to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 22. Heard both the parties and considered the judgment of the trial court. After extensively perusing the documents adduced, the principal question that arises for determination is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the chain of circumstances established in the case. 23. The present case is founded on circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct eye-witness to the incident. The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled, requiring the prosecution to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused and excludes every other hypothesis except that of his guilt. 24. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (Dr)1 observed the following when the guilt may be based solely on circumstantial evidence: “20. …the essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence are: 1(1992) 3 SCC 300. Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (2) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (3) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (4) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.” 25. In the same vein, the Supreme Court observed the following in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat2: “13. …It is well settled that in a case which rests on twofold circumstantial requirements: postulates evidence, law (i) Every link in the chain of the circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.” 26. In the present case, it stands undisputed that the deceased was found murdered in the house where she resided with the accused, while the parents and children of the accused were residing separately at a distance. The evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, and 18, as well as the informant, clearly establishes that the accused and the deceased were alone in the said house on the relevant night and none else was present. 27. The medical evidence of P.W.15, the Medical Officer, is categorical that the cause of death was homicidal, resulting from multiple sharp cutting 2(2020) 14 SCC 750 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 injuries to the neck and back, dislocation and fracture of the cervical vertebrae, and complete severing of the spinal cord, all of which could have been inflicted by a weapon such as a katari. The prosecution has established that the katari seized from the accused was capable of inflicting such injuries. 28. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.20), corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, reveals that, on the morning following the incident, the accused was found sitting in the verandah of his house holding a blood-stained katari. Upon seeing the police, the accused attempted to flee but was apprehended at the spot. The police seized from him the katari and his clothing, both of which were found to be stained with blood. 29. The chemical examiner’s report confirms that the katari and the lungi worn by the accused bore human blood of group “A,” which matched the blood found on the deceased’s clothing. The Appellant has not furnished any plausible explanation as to how his clothing and the katari in his possession came to be stained with blood of the same group as that of the deceased. 30. The evidence of P.W.5, even though declared hostile, supports the prosecution case in so far as material particulars are concerned by admitting to the presence of the accused at the house on the morning after the incident. P.W.16 further corroborates that a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased on the night of the incident. The Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 presence of the accused at the scene and the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution leave no scope for doubt regarding his involvement. 31. The defence plea of alibi, namely, the accused was not present in the house at the relevant time, has not been substantiated by any credible or independent evidence. The burden to establish alibi lies on the accused, and in the present case, such burden has not been discharged. 32. The contentions regarding procedural lapses, non-examination of certain witnesses, alleged suppression of the original FIR, and non- production of material objects have been duly considered. However, the record does not reveal any material irregularity or omission that would render the prosecution case unreliable or vitiate the trial. 33. The entire chain of circumstances, from the last seen evidence, the conduct of the accused in attempting to flee, the recovery and seizure of blood-stained weapons and clothes, the forensic evidence, and the absence of a credible defence, leads to only one conclusion, that the accused alone is responsible for the commission of the offence. 34. This Court finds that the findings and conclusions of the trial court are based on a sound appraisal of evidence and are fully supported by the record. There is no perversity, misappreciation of evidence, or serious procedural illegality that would warrant interference in appeal. In these circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Page 10 of 11
Decision
35. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:06:13 (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge (G. Satapathy) Judge G. Satapathy, J. I agree. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 8th August, 2025/ Page 11 of 11