The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK JCRLA No.20 of 2013 An appeal under section 374 of Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T./Ss. Case No.109 of 2011. ------------------------ Barun Behera ....... Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ....... Respondent For Appellant: - Mr. Gokulananda Padhi Advocate For Respondent: - Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty Addl. Standing Counsel ------------------------ P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Sahoo, J. The appellant Barun Behera faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T./Ss. Case No.109 of 2011 for commission of offences punishable under sections JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 1 of 54 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter „I.P.C.‟) on the accusation that on 23.03.2011 in between 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. near Kanarpur hill under Sadar police station in the district of Dhenkanal, he committed murder of Priyabrata Pati @ Pintu (hereinafter „the deceased‟) by intentionally causing his death and also knowing or having reason to believe that the offence had been committed, he caused certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear by concealing the dead body of the deceased after committing the murder hurriedly under a Neem tree in a stone ditch (Pathar Khola) with the intention to screen himself from legal punishment. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2012 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 2 of 54 Prosecution Case: 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter „F.I.R.‟) (Ext.12) presented by Dandapani Behera (P.W.14) of village Khuntujhari before the Inspector in- charge of Dhenkanal Sadar police station on 23.03.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., in short, is that on the same day, he along with his friends Susant Prusty, Nishakar Pradhan (P.W.7), Jitu Sahu (P.W.10) and Babuli Sahu (P.W.11) of village Indupur were arranging a feast at Dhenkaborei near Suakhainala. At about 12.30 p.m., the informant noticed two boys passing through Kanarpur village by walking. At about 2.30 p.m., out of the duo, one i.e. the appellant returned. Noticing the pant and the shirt of the appellant were stained with blood, when the informant and his friends asked the appellant about the other boy who had accompanied him sometime before, the appellant not only disclosed his name and address, but also gave the identity of that boy as deceased Pintu @ Priyabrata Pati, son of Pabitra Mohan Pati and also confessed to have committed murder of the deceased by means of a knife by slitting his throat and thrown his dead body on the hilltop. Being frightened, the informant and his friends informed the matter to one Kunjabihari Sahu (P.W.4) over phone, who instructed them to detain the appellant there. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 3 of 54 After the arrival of P.W.4, all of them went to Kanarpur hillock with the appellant, where the appellant showed the dead body of the deceased, which was burnt about 75% and lying under a Neem tree inside a stone ditch facing downward. They also noticed severe bleeding injury on the throat of the deceased. On their return down the hillock, P.W.4 informed about the incident to the police over his mobile phone and on arrival of the I.I.C., Sadar P.S., a written report was lodged by P.W.14 at the spot. P.W.17, the I.I.C., Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. on receipt of the written report of P.W.14, treated the same as F.I.R. and took up investigation of the case after sending the report through A.S.I. Girish Ch. Pradhan to the police station for registration of the case. On receipt of the written F.I.R., the S.I. of Police, who was in charge of the P.S. in absence of P.W.17, registered Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. Case No.82 dated 23.03.2011 under sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. During the course of investigation, P.W.17 examined the informant (P.W.14) and other witnesses. He visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.19) and took the appellant to his custody and seized one black colour rexine bag containing one Nokia mobile phone, a money purse with cash of Rs.220/-, voter identity card of the deceased and one pant, one turkish towel, JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 4 of 54 one shawl from the possession of the appellant as per seizure list Ext.3/1. The I.O. then arrested the appellant and recorded his statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act and thereafter, the appellant led him and the witnesses to the place of concealment of the weapon of offence (knife) i.e. top of Kanarpur hillock, where the dead body of the deceased was lying in a half burnt condition and gave recovery of a knife from inside the ashes which was seized as per seizure list Ext.4/1. P.W.17 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2). He sent the dead body for post mortem examination to D.H.H., Dhenkanal and seized the blood-stained earth, sample earth, saline extract in gauze cloth, sample gauze cloth, saline extract of blood from the knife, ashes, dry leaves stained with blood on production by the Scientific Officer as per seizure list vide Ext.8. P.W.17 also sent the appellant for his medical examination as he found some injuries on his person, made a request to the A.D.M.O., D.H.H., Dhenkanal to collect the blood sample and nail clippings of the appellant and on 24.03.2011, he seized one vial containing sample blood and another vial containing nail clippings of the appellant as per seizure list (Ext.1). He also seized the wearing apparels of the appellant stained with blood JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 5 of 54 as per seizure list Ext.13, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, sample blood of the deceased and command certificate as per seizure list Ext.7, received the post mortem examination report (Ext.9) of the deceased from the D.H.H., Dhenkanal and also the injury report of the appellant vide Ext.17/2. P.W.17 sent the weapon of offence along with a query to the A.D.M.O., D.H.H., Dhenkanal and received the query report (Ext.10) along with the weapon of offence. He made a prayer to the S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal for sending the exhibits for chemical examination and accordingly, the exhibits were sent and the chemical examination report (Ext.22) was received. On 19.06.2011, P.W.17 left the Nokia mobile set, money purse and Voter Identity Card of the deceased in the zima of P.W.16, the father of the deceased as per zimanama (Ext.14). On completion of investigation, P.W.17 submitted charge sheet on 30.06.2011 under sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. against the appellant. Framing of Charges: 3. On submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after complying due formalities. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 6 of 54 trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits and Material Objects: 4. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eighteen witnesses. P.W.1 Biranchi Naik is a witness to seizure of one vial containing sample blood and another vial containing nail clippings of the appellant as per seizure list Ext.1. P.W.2 Bichitra Mohan Pati is the paternal uncle of the deceased. He stated that when he heard that the appellant committed murder of his nephew (deceased) and the appellant was detained at police station, he rushed to the police station and came to know that the appellant with a pretext to return back the borrowed money of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to the deceased, called him to the village of his aunt at Khuntujhari and committed murder of the deceased and
Decision
disposed of the dead body. P.W.3 Rabi Narayan Nath stated that he along with the villagers came to the police station to ascertain the cause of death of deceased and there they came to know that the appellant with a pretext to return back the borrowed money of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to the deceased, called him JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 7 of 54 to the village of his aunt at Khuntujhari and committed murder of the deceased and disposed of the dead body. P.W.4 Kunja Bihari Sahu is the elder brother of P.W.10, who stated that P.W.10 informed him about the occurrence over phone and requested him to inform the local police and accordingly, he informed the local police about the murder of the deceased by the appellant. He supported the prosecution case. He further stated to have visited the spot where he found the dead body with injuries and about the confession made by the appellant. P.W.5 Dibya Ranjan Nath is a witness to the inquest over the dead body of the deceased which was held on the hilltop of village Kanarpur and he proved the inquest report vide Ext.2. P.W.6 Dipak Kar did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Nishakar Pradhan, P.W.10 Jitu @ Jitendra Kumar Sahu and P.W.11 Babuli Sahu are the friends of the informant (P.W.14), who were organising picnic at Suakhainala on the date of occurrence. All of them supported the prosecution case. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 8 of 54 P.W.8 Biswanath Pratihari is a witness to the disclosure statement of the appellant recorded vide Ext.6/1 and also a witness to the seizure of knife (M.O.II) as per seizure list Ext.4/1 and one rexine bag containing a Nokia mobile phone, a money purse with Rs.220/-, Voter Identity Card and wearing apparels of the deceased as per seizure list vide Ext.3/1, all at the instance of the appellant. P.W.9 Bikram Jena is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased and command certificate as per seizure list vide Ext.7 and blood stained earth, sample earth, saline extract of blood, sample of gauze cloth, ashes and dried leaves stained with blood as per seizure list Ext.8. P.W.12 Subhashree Pati is the sister of the deceased. She stated that on the date of occurrence, in the morning hours at about 9 a.m., she and her deceased brother were in their house and at that time, the appellant came to their house and called the deceased to accompany him to village Khuntajhari to the house of his aunt for making repayment of borrowed money of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand). She further stated that the deceased went with the appellant and on the same day at about 3.30 p.m., she got information from her villagers that the JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 9 of 54 appellant had committed murder of the deceased and burnt the dead body in the hillock. P.W.13 Dr. Pratap Kumar Das was posted as the Assistant Surgeon at D.H.H., Dhenkanal, who on police requisition, conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 24.03.2011 and proved P.M. report vide Ext.9 and his query report vide Ext.10 and his endorsement on the requisition submitted by P.W.17 vide Ext.11. P.W.14 Dandapani Behera is the informant in the case and he supported the prosecution case. P.W.15 Dibakar Behera is a witness to seizure of one navy blue colour full pant stained with blood and one white stripped full shirt stained with blood on production by the appellant as per seizure list vide Ext.13. He further stated about the seizure of one vial containing sample blood and nail clippings of the appellant by the I.O. as per seizure list vide Ext.1. P.W.16 Prasanna Kumar Pati is the father of the deceased. He stated in similar manner like P.W.12. He took zima of one Nokia mobile set, one money purse containing Rs.220/- and the voter identity card of the deceased from the I.O. as per zimanama vide Ext.14. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 10 of 54 P.W.17 Sushil Kumar Senapati was working as the I.I.C. of Dhenkanal Sadar police station, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.18 Dr. Rajkishore Sethy was posted as the Medical Specialist at D.H.H., Dhenkanal, who on police requisition, examined the appellant and proved his report vide Ext.17/2. The prosecution exhibited twenty two documents. Ext.1 is the seizure list in respect of one vial containing sample blood and another vial containing nail clippings of the appellant, Ext.2 is the inquest report, Ext.3/1 is the seizure list in respect of one rexine bag containing a Nokia mobile phone, a money purse with Rs.220/-, Voter Identity Card and wearing apparels of the deceased, Ext.4/1 is the seizure list in respect of a knife, Ext.6/1 is the statement of appellant, Ext.7 is the seizure list in respect of wearing apparels of the deceased and command certificate, Ext.8 is the seizure list in respect of blood stained earth, sample earth, saline extract of blood, sample of gauze cloth, ashes and dried leaves stained with blood, Ext.9 is the post mortem report, Ext.10 is the report of P.W.13, Ext.11 is the endorsement of P.W.13, Ext.12 is the written F.I.R., Ext.13 is the seizure list in respect of one navy blue colour full pant stained with blood and JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 11 of 54 one white stripped full shirt stained with blood, Ext.14 is the zimanama, Ext.15 is the dead body challan, Ext.16 is the command certificate, Ext.17 is the requisition to M.O., Ext.18 is the spot visit report, Ext.19 is the spot map, Ext.20 is the prayer of P.W.17 to S.D.J.M., Ext.21 is the forwarding report and Ext.22 is the Chemical Examination Report. The prosecution also proved fifteen material objects. M.O.I is the shirt of the appellant, M.O.II is the knife, M.O.III is the red colour ganjee, M.O.IV is the chadi, M.O.V is the blood stained earth, M.O.VI is the sample earth, M.O.VII is the saline extract of blood from surface of stone, M.O.VIII is the sample gauze cloth, M.O.IX is the saline extract of blood from knife, M.O.X is the sample gauze cloth, M.O.XI is the ash collected from the spot, M.O.XII is the leaves, M.O.XIII is the half burnt shirt, M.O.XIV is the blood stained full pant and M.O.XV is the blood sample of the appellant. Defence Plea: 5. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial. Defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 12 of 54 Findings of the Trial Court: 6. The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, came to hold that there is no direct evidence in the shape of narration of eye witnesses in the case and that the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to prove its case: (i) Homicidal nature of death of the deceased; (ii) The accused had prior acquaintance with the deceased, as there was friendship between them and the accused had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/-from the deceased; (iii) On the morning of the date of occurrence, the accused had been to the house of the deceased and called the deceased to go with him to the house of his aunt for repayment of the loan and both of them left the house of the deceased together; (iv) On the same day, at about 12.30 p.m., the accused and the deceased were last seen going together towards Kanarpur hill; JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 13 of 54 (v) On the same day, at about 2.30 p.m., the accused was seen alone returning back having covered his face by a Turkish towel with blood- stained clothes and having an air bag; (vi) The accused made extrajudicial confession before P.Ws.7, 10, 11 and 14 to have murdered the deceased and burnt his dead body; and he was detained by P.Ws.7, 10, 11 and 14 and police was informed over telephone and after arrival of police, FIR was lodged; (vii) After arrest, the accused led the police and witnesses to the place of concealment and gave recovery of the weapon of offence; (viii) The Medical Officer opined that the injury found on the deceased could be possible by such weapon of offence; (ix) The Voter Identity card, Nokia mobile phone and money purse containing cash of Rs.220/- belonging to the deceased were seized from the possession of the accused; JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 14 of 54 (x) Incised injuries were found in the gap between right thumb and index finger and on left index finger of the accused; (xi) The doctor opined that these types of injuries could be possible when someone attacks another by means of a sharp cutting weapon like knife and the other struggles for life and tries to escape from his clutches. The learned trial Court considering the evidence of the doctor (P.W.13) came to hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the first ingredient required to be proved in the case of murder. It was further held that the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 16 do not suffer from any interestedness and from their mouth, the prosecution successfully brought out that the appellant had prior acquaintance with the deceased, being friends and the that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased. It was further held that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased earlier and on the date of occurrence morning, the appellant had been to the house of the JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 15 of 54 deceased and called him to accompany him for repayment of the loan and both of them left the house of the deceased together. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.7, 10, 11 and 14, it was held that there can be no trace of doubt that the deceased was not last seen in the company of the appellant. It was further held that presumably, the appellant had no other way to return back from the hillock after committing murder than the picnic spot and therefore, the prosecution is said to have proved that on the date of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m., the appellant was seen alone returning back having covered his face by a turkish towel with blood-stained clothes and having an air bag. It was further held that it is clear that at the time of extrajudicial confession made by the appellant, no police personnel were present there. Moreover, except mere threat of calling the police, no other grave threat or assault was made by the witnesses to the appellant. There was no evidence or reason to show that P.Ws.7, 10, 11 and 14 had any prior enmity to settle score with the appellant to falsely implicate him in a case like murder and only to know the real truth, they threatened the appellant to call the police and therefore, the extrajudicial confession cannot be said to be a tainted one. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 16 of 54 It was further held that the confession made by the appellant before P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14 was not a tainted one and it is an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. Relating to after arrest, the appellant leading the police and the witnesses to the place of concealment and giving recovery of the weapon of offence, the learned trial Court held that it is accepted that the prosecution has proved it conclusively that the discovery was made on the fact, disclosed by the appellant. It was further held that it can safely be accepted that the injury, found on the neck of the deceased was caused by the knife (M.O.II), which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. Relating to the seizure of Voter Identity Card, Nokia mobile phone and money purse containing cash of Rs.220/- belonging to the deceased from the possession of the appellant, the learned trial Court held that it can safely be inferred that those articles were with the deceased, when he accompanied the appellant on the date of occurrence. Relating to the injuries noticed on the appellant, the doctor (P.W.18) opined that these types of injuries can be possible when someone attacks another by means of a sharp JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 17 of 54 cutting weapon like knife and the other struggles for life and tries to escape from his clutches and thus, the learned trial Court held that it can safely be inferred that the appellant might have sustained those injuries during the alleged incident. Basing on the circumstantial evidence against the appellant, the learned trial Court held that the circumstances make out a complete chain of evidence not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant and show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the appellant. It was held that the appellant called the deceased from his house and took him with him to repay back the loan amount of Rs.10,000/-, which he had borrowed from the deceased and committed his murder at Kanarpur hillock and tried to dispose of the dead body by burning it in order to cause disappearance of evidence to screen himself from legal punishment. Accordingly, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty under sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. Contentions of the Parties: 7. Mr. Gokulananda Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant emphatically contended that admittedly there is no ocular evidence to support the case of the prosecution with JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 18 of 54 regard to the homicidal death of the deceased. He argued that even though P.W.12 and P.W.16, the sister and father of the deceased respectively have deposed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given to the appellant by the deceased, but there is no written document in respect of such loan transaction. There is no material evidence to prove any dissention between the deceased and the appellant and that apart, the issue of non-payment of such borrowed money is hardly material so as to compel the appellant to take such extreme steps of committing the crime of such grave nature and thus, the motive part put forth by the prosecution is very weak in nature. According to the learned counsel, both P.W.12 and P.W.16 being related to the deceased are interested witnesses and the learned trial Court should not have placed reliance upon their evidence either relating to the motive on the part of the appellant behind the commission of crime or last seen of the appellant in the company of the deceased. With regard to the last seen theory as deposed to by P.W.7, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.14, it is argued that all these four witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that they had no prior acquaintance either with the appellant or the deceased and P.W.7 in his statement has stated they were JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 19 of 54 enjoying the picnic and they had no special attention on the passersby and therefore, it is difficult to accept that they could have marked the appellant passing on the road with the deceased while they were having engaged in the picnic activities. With regard to the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.7, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.14, learned counsel urged that such confession should not be accepted as the same was out of threat given by the witnesses to the appellant and it was not voluntary. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence of P.W.17 with regard to recording of the statement of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be believed as such statement was made out of fear and threat. The doctor (P.W.13) did not find any blood stain on knife (M.O.II) which was produced before him by the I.O. for his opinion and therefore, the recovery becomes immaterial and can not be used as a circumstance against the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that since the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, in view of the five golden principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1984 JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 20 of 54 S.C. 1622, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. He has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishore Chand -Vrs.- State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 286 and Gambhir -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 351. 8. Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and argued that not only the prosecution has proved motive part, but also how the appellant called and took the deceased from his house with him on the pretext of repayment of loan amount. The last seen of the appellant in the company of the deceased, extrajudicial confession of the appellant, recovery of blood stained wearing apparels of the appellant, pointing out the half burnt dead body of the deceased by the appellant and leading to discovery of weapon of offence coupled with post mortem report and chemical examination report findings and recovery of the articles of the deceased from the possession of the appellant make the chain of circumstances complete. He argued that the evidence of the witnesses, namely, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.14 so also the evidence of the JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 21 of 54 doctor (P.W.13) coupled with the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.17) are clear and unambiguous and there is no missing link and therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant and thus, the appeal should be dismissed. Principles for appreciation of case based on circumstantial evidence: 9. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence relating to the commission of murder of the deceased and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), a Bench of three Judges of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after analyzing various aspects, laid down certain cardinal principles for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It has been laid down that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) 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; JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 22 of 54 (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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, according to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is thus clear that even in the absence of eye witness, if various circumstances relied on by the prosecution relating to the guilt are fully established beyond doubt, the Court is free to award conviction. Further, the chain of events must be complete in order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the case of Kishore Chand (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “4. The question, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case of circumstantial JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 23 of 54 evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis.” In the case of Gambhir (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “9. It has already been pointed out that there is no direct evidence of eye witness in this case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well- settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 24 of 54 satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” In a case based on circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that suspicion howsoever strong should not be allowed to take the place of proof. A moral opinion howsoever strong or genuine and suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute a legal proof. A very careful, cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 25 of 54 The prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of „may be true‟ to the plane of „must be true‟. The core principles which need to be adhered to by the Court, while examining and appreciating circumstantial evidence, have been strenuously discussed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi Lal -Vrs.- State of Rajasthan reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 447 in the following words: “17…It has been propounded that while scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a Court has to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The underlying principle is whether the chain is complete or not, indeed it would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be laid down for the purpose. But the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, it must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 26 of 54 Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court, the evidence on record needs to be analysed to see how far the prosecution has proved the circumstances as enumerated by the learned trial Court and whether the circumstances taken together form a complete chain to come to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death?: 10. The inquest report (Ext.2), which has been prepared by the I.O. (P.W.17) indicates the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. There was injury on throat and burn injuries on the body. P.W.13 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 24.03.2011 on police requisition and noticed the following injuries: (i) The body was emaciated, rigor mortis present on all the four limbs, whole body burnt, there was pugilistic attitude, left hand was clinched, eyes closed bilaterally, mouth half opened, tongue bitten and protruded, irregular bruise was present on left hand knee joint, upper cervical vertex damaged, both the pleura, lungs were congested, but pale, large vessels were damaged severely, JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 27 of 54 mainly, carotid, jugular vein was injured due to sharp cut; (ii) There was a sharp cut wound of 10 cm. X 6 cm. X 6 cm. on left neck and great vessels like left carotid and left jugular were damaged, there was pugilistic attitude of the body and 75% burnt more found on the back; (iii) There was peeling of spleen and the sharp cut was present below the thyroid cartilage. P.W.13 further stated that the cause of death was due to cut throat injury, caused by sharp cutting knife leading to severe haemorrhage and shock and the injury was ante mortem in nature and death was within 24 hours prior to his examination and the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death was homicidal in nature. The post mortem report was marked as Ext.9. It further appears from the evidence of P.W.13 that on 22.04.2011, the I.O. (P.W.17) made a query regarding possibility of the injury found on the deceased by knife (M.O.II), which was produced before him and on examination, P.W.13 opined that the injury found on the neck of the deceased might have been caused by the knife and the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 28 of 54 of the deceased and the query report has been proved as Ext.10. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in the cross- examination to disbelieve the evidence of the doctor (P.W.13). After going through the evidence on record, more particularly, the inquest report (Ext.2), the evidence of the doctor (P.W.13) and the post mortem report findings vide Ext.9, we are of the humble view that the learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased met with homicidal death. The homicidal death aspect of the deceased has also not been challenged by Mr. Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant. Motive: 11. According to the prosecution case, the deceased had given a hand loan of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to the appellant and when the deceased insisted the appellant to make repayment of such loan amount, on the date of occurrence, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and called him to go to his aunt‟s house for making repayment of the loan amount. On this circumstance, P.W.12, the sister and P.W.16, the father of the deceased respectively are the witnesses. P.W.16 has stated that the appellant had taken Rs.10,000/- as loan from the deceased and when the deceased insisted for repayment of the loan, on the date of occurrence the JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 29 of 54 appellant called the deceased from the house to repay the money by arranging from his aunt and took the deceased with him. In the cross-examination, P.W.16 has stated that he had personal knowledge about the loan which was given by the deceased to the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve this part of evidence of P.W.16. Similarly, P.W.12, the sister of the deceased has stated that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased for marriage of his sister and the said fact was known to her and her parents as well and also to the parents of the appellant. She further stated that on 23.03.2011 at about 9.00 a.m., while she was in her house with her deceased brother, the appellant came to their house and called the deceased to accompany him to village Khuntajhari to the house of the aunt for repayment of loan of Rs.10,000/- which the appellant had taken earlier from the deceased and accordingly, the deceased went with the appellant. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.12 to disbelieve this part of evidence. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.12 & P.W.16, it is crystal clear that in connection with the marriage of his sister, the appellant had taken loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 30 of 54 which he did not pay even though the deceased insisted for such repayment. On the date of occurrence, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and asked the deceased to accompany him to his aunt‟s house situated in village Khuntajhari for making repayment of the loan amount and accordingly, both of them left the house. Mr. Padhi, learned counsel argued that there is no written document in respect of such loan transaction and therefore, the evidence of P.W.12 & P.W.16 should not be accepted on this issue. The I.O. (P.W. 17) has stated that during investigation, he did not find any documentary evidence regarding lending of money by the deceased to the appellant. We are not inclined to accept such a submission inasmuch as many hand loans are given on good faith without keeping any document and it should not be forgotten that it was a rural area and the loan was given for a purpose and the transaction was known not only to the family members of the deceased but also to the appellant. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue of non-payment of the borrowed money of Rs.10,000/- could not have compelled the appellant to take the extreme step of committing murder of the deceased, but JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 31 of 54 such submission does not hold good as it depends upon person‟s nature as to how he would react and what he would do, if he is repeatedly asked for refund of the loan amount which he had taken and not able to make repayment. In the case in hand, the prosecution has put forth the non-refund of the loan amount by the appellant to the deceased from whom he had borrowed as a motive on his part to commit murder of the deceased. So far as the relevancy of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the weight of authorities is on principles that if motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, but absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (Ref: Prem Singh -Vrs.- State (NCT of Delhi): (2023) 3 Supreme Court Cases 372). The motive remains locked in the heart of the accused which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited the accused to commit a particular crime. Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does assume great importance, JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 32 of 54 but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is given this one factor an importance which is not its due. If the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the non-refund of the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant to the deceased cannot be said to be a strong motive, becomes immaterial. Appellant calling the deceased from his house and taking him for repayment of loan dues: 12. This circumstance as already stated has been deposed to by P.W.12 & P.W.16. The contention of Mr. Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant that both P.W.12 & P.W.16 being related to the deceased are interested witnesses and therefore, no importance should be attached to their evidence. The settled position of law is that merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and trustworthy, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 33 of 54 their evidence. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness rather the Court has to be more careful while assessing the evidence of such witnesses and scrutinize their evidence meticulously. It is difficult on the part of the prosecution to produce independent witnesses always to prove a particular fact as it may be the relatives of the victim or deceased who might be only aware about the same like torture on a woman in connection with demand of dowry. The evidence of P.W.12 & P.W.16 that on the pretext of making repayment of loan amount of Rs.10,000/-, the appellant called the deceased to go to his aunt‟s house on the date of occurrence, in our humble view does not suffer from any infirmity and after scrutinizing their evidence carefully, we are satisfied that their evidence have a ring of truth and thus the same can be relied upon. Appellant and the deceased were last seen together: 13. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14 to prove the last seen of the deceased in the company of the appellant. P.W.14 Dandapani Behera, the informant has stated that on 23.03.2011, while he along with his friends, namely, Susanta Prusty, Nisakar Pradhan (P.W.7), Jitu Sahoo (P.W.10), JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 34 of 54 Babuli Sahoo (P.W.11) and others were enjoying picnic at Suakhainala during day time at about 12.30 noon, they found the appellant and the deceased were proceeding towards Kanarpur hillock by walking and at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., the appellant returned alone. In the cross-examination, P.W.14 has stated that there was only one road which was leading from village Kanarpur to hillock. He further stated that the distance between the place where they were enjoying the picnic and the place where they saw the appellant and the deceased going together would be around half a kilometer. He specifically stated that they were five who were enjoying the picnic on that relevant day and that he had no prior acquaintance either with the appellant or with the deceased. The evidence of P.W.14 is getting corroboration from the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.10 & P.W.11. All of them have stated that they had seen the appellant and the deceased going towards Kanarpur hillock at about 12.00 noon while they were enjoying picnic. It is of course correct that in the cross- examination, P.W.7 & P.W.10 have stated that they had got no prior acquaintance with the appellant and the deceased, but the same is not very much material to disbelieve the evidence of all JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 35 of 54 these witnesses particularly when they were not at such a long distance from where they could not have marked the appellant and the deceased proceeding on the road by walking while they were enjoying picnic. There is no evidence of any obstacle/blockage from the place of picnic to the passage on which the appellant and the deceased were proceeding. After one and half hours, they found the appellant returning alone wearing blood stained clothes and also making extrajudicial confession before them and leading them to show the dead body of the deceased, which was lying in the hillock with throat cut and having burn injuries. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant that why these four witnesses would give any attention to the persons who were passing on the road while they were engaged in picnic activities, is not acceptable. Thus, not only from the evidence of P.W.12 & 16, the sister and father of the deceased respectively, but also through the evidence of P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14, the prosecution has successfully established the last seen of the deceased in the company of the appellant. If the time gap between accused being last seen together with the deceased and discovery of JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 36 of 54 dead body is not long, evidence of last seen together becomes very relevant. Appellant returning alone after sometime covering his face and having blood stained clothes and an air bag: 14. P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14 have also deposed on this aspect. P.W.14, the informant has stated that they found the appellant and the deceased proceeding towards Kanarpur hillock by walking at about 12.30 noon and at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., the appellant was returning alone through the picnic spot covering his head with a turkish towel holding an air bag in his hand and there was blood stains in his wearing apparels. P.W.7, P.W.10 and P.W.11 have also stated on this aspect corroborating the evidence of P.W.14. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of any of these four witnesses to disbelieve this part of evidence. Therefore, when the appellant was in the company of the deceased at about 12.30 noon going on the road towards Kanarpur hillock by walking and after about one and half hour, he was found returning alone covering his head with turkish towel, wearing blood stained clothes and holding an air bag, his movement became very suspicious to P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14 who JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 37 of 54 were enjoying the picnic nearby and they detained the appellant. Specific questions on this aspect have been put to the appellant in the accused statement but he has failed to explain as to when and how he departed from the company of the deceased and in what manner but only stated that the witnesses are deposing falsehood. It may be noted that once the theory of last seen together is established by the prosecution and there is short time gap between the last seen as well as the discovery of the dead body of the deceased meeting with a homicidal death with cut wound on the throat and burn injuries on the body, the appellant was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased. It is true that burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of the person, the burden of proving the fact is upon him. If the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against him as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In the case based on circumstantial JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 38 of 54 evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very a crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him. In the case of Rajendra -Vrs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 623, it was observed that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted the company with the deceased in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act. He must furnish an explanation that appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under section 106 of the Evidence Act is not discharged and such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Extrajudicial confession: 15. The prosecution case is that the appellant made extrajudicial confession before P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14 to have committed murder of the deceased. P.W.14, the informant has stated that when seeing the appellant covering his head with a turkish towel holding an air bag in his hand and having blood stains on his wearing JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 39 of 54 apparels, they doubted some foul play, on being asked about the reason of blood on his wearing apparels, the appellant remained silent and when they threatened to call the police, the appellant disclosed before them not only his own name but the name of the person who was accompanying him to be the deceased and further stated that he had committed murder of the deceased by cutting his throat with knife on the hillock. Similar evidence has been given by P.Ws.7, 10 & 11 and nothing has been brought out to disbelieve their evidence on this aspect. In the 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant has denied to have made any such confession before these four witnesses. The extrajudicial confession evidence was attacked by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that it was out of threat given by the witnesses to the appellant and it was not voluntary. Section 24 of the Evidence Act states that a confession made by an accused becomes irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if it appears to the Court that (i) in the making of the confession, any inducement, threat or promise was caused; (ii) such threat, inducement or promise had reference to the charge against the accused; (iii) it proceeded from a person in JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 40 of 54 authority and (iv) it was sufficient to give the accused grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him. It is always a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each case whether certain words used have or have not had certain effects on the mind of the accused. It is no longer res integra that the confessional statement shall be voluntary and shall be outcome of free will. Mere existence of threat, inducement or promise is not enough, but in the opinion of the Court, such threat, inducement or promise shall be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by confessing, he would get an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him. It is the duty of the Court to place itself in the position of the accused and to form an opinion as to the state of mind in the circumstances of the case. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extrajudicial confession, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan -Vrs.- Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 180 held that an extrajudicial JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 41 of 54 confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The Court further expressed the view that such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. In the case in hand, it appears from the evidence of the four witnesses who are no way having any hostility with the appellant that when they saw the suspicious movement of the appellant, who had covered his head with turkish towel and was having blood stains on his wearing apparels and holding an air bag, they asked about the reason of blood on his wearing apparels, but the appellant remained silent and when they threatened to call the police, the appellant made the extrajudicial confession. These four witnesses, in our humble view, cannot be said to be the persons in authority for the purpose of section 24 JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 42 of 54 of the Evidence Act. There is no evidence that they either induced, made any promise to the appellant for which he made the confession. When the appellant remained silent to their query regarding blood on his wearing apparels, the witnesses threatened to call the police whereafter the appellant confessed his guilt. There is no evidence of any grave threat which created panic in mind of the appellant to make such confession. These four witnesses were not even aware that any crime had been committed by the appellant and that too commission of murder of the deceased. They had not even questioned about the whereabouts of the deceased who had accompanied him a few hours before. The appellant could have given any explanation regarding the presence of blood on his wearing apparels and could have said that since he received some injuries on the hand, it was his own blood which was there on his wearing apparels. On the other hand, he volunteered to confess his guilt and not only disclosed the identity of the deceased but also how he committed murder of the deceased and at what place. The extrajudicial confession part also finds place in the first information report and getting corroboration from medical evidence, thus, it cannot be said that it is a creature of an afterthought or it is a tainted evidence and therefore, we are of JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 43 of 54 the view that the learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.7, 10, 11 & 14 relating to the extrajudicial confession. Appellant leading the police to the spot where dead body was lying and giving recovery to the weapon of offence: 16. The evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.17, the I.O. are very relevant on this aspect. P.W.8 has stated that on 23.03.2011 while the appellant was in police custody, he not only confessed his guilt but also expressed his intention to lead to the place of concealment of knife. He further stated that the appellant‟s statement was recorded by the I.O. vide Ext.6/1 and then the appellant led to Kanarpur hilltop to a neem tree and gave recovery of a sharp knife (without handle) from the ashes which was seized by the police as per seizure list Ext.4/1 in which he himself put his signature (Ext.4/2) so also the appellant put his signature (Ext.4/3). He identified the knife which is marked as M.O.II. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the seized knife was 5 inch in length and he and P.W.6 Deepak Kar put their signatures on the seizure list but the other persons did not sign the seizure list. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 44 of 54 P.W.6 has not supported the prosecution case relating to the seizure of knife at the instance of the appellant and he was declared hostile. The I.O. (P.W.17) has specifically stated that after he arrested the appellant, while he was in custody, he stated to have concealed the weapon of offence and volunteered to give recovery of the same and accordingly, he recorded his statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act and thereafter, the appellant led him as well as the witnesses to the place of concealment of the weapon of offence i.e. the top of Kanarpur hillock, where the dead body of the deceased was lying in a half burnt condition and the appellant brought out a knife from the ashes which was seized as per seizure list Ext.4/1. The I.O. proved the statement of the appellant recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ext.6/1 and also proved M.O.II, the blood stained knife without handle which was recovered by the appellant during leading to discovery. No challenge has been made to the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.17) by the learned defence counsel in the cross- examination that neither the appellant made any such statement leading to discovery nor he led the police to the spot and gave recovery of any knife from the ashes. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 45 of 54 The witnesses P.Ws.7, 10, 11 and 14 have also stated that the appellant took them to the hillock and showed the dead body lying under a neem tree in a burnt condition having injury on his throat. P.W.4 received a phone call from his younger brother Jitu Sahu (P.W.10), who told him about the occurrence and accordingly he (P.W.4) informed the police. P.W.4 also stated to have gone to the spot with his brother (P.W.10) and his friends and police officers so also with the appellant and found the dead body of the deceased was lying with cut injury on the throat and his body was half burnt but his face was recognisable. The grounds on which the evidence has been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the statement was made out of threat and was not a volunteered one. There is nothing in the evidence of I.O. to come to such a finding. Of course, the doctor (P.W.13) has stated that he did not notice any blood on the knife (M.O.II) which was produced before him by the I.O. for his opinion, but it appears that the knife was sent for chemical examination and the C.E. report has been marked as Ext.22 which indicates that human blood was found on the knife. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 46 of 54 The object of making a provision in section 27 of the Evidence act was to permit certain portion of the statement made by an accused to a police officer admissible in evidence whether or not such statement is confessional or non- confessional. That bar against admissibility would stand lifted if the statement distinctly relates to a discovery of fact. Recovery or even production of object by itself need not necessarily result in discovery of a fact. The fact discovered within the meaning of the section is not equivalent to the object recovered but the fact embraces the place from which the object is recovered & the knowledge of the accused as to it. The pre-condition to bring section 27 of the Evidence Act into operation is that the discovery of a fact must be deposed to and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. In the case of Anter Singh -Vrs.- State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 657, it is held as follows:- “14…..It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section (section 27) into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 47 of 54 The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only “so much of the information” as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word “distinctly” means “directly”, “indubitably”, “strictly”, “unmistakably”. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase “distinctly” relates “to the fact thereby discovered” and is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery.” [Emphasis supplied] In view of the available evidence on record, we are of the view that the learned trial Court is quite justified in holding JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 48 of 54 that this circumstance has been proved by cogent evidence and also placing reliance on it. Recovery of voter identity card, mobile phone, money purse containing cash belonging to deceased: 17. The evidence of P.W.16 and P.W.17 on this score is very relevant. P.W. 17, the I.O., has stated that when he visited the spot, the informant (P.W.14) and other witnesses handed over the appellant to him and he took the appellant to his custody and thereafter seized one black colour rexine bag containing one Nokia mobile, a money purse with cash Rs. 220/-, voter identity card of the deceased, one pant, one turkish towel and one shawl from the possession of the appellant in the presence of the witnesses and prepared the seizure list Ext.3/1. In the cross-examination, P.W.17 has stated that the black colour rexine bag which was seized on production of the appellant was not available in the Court. P.W.8 has also stated about the seizure of such articles from the possession of appellant under seizure list Ext. 3/1 and he is also a signatory to such seizure list and he has JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 49 of 54 proved the signature of the appellant vide Ext.3/3 on such seizure list. P.W.16, the father of the deceased, stated about receiving the Nokia mobile set which was used by the deceased, the money purse of the deceased containing Rs.220/- and the voter identity card of the deceased from police by executing zimanama (Ext. 14). The appellant has failed to explain as to how the Nokia mobile phone of the deceased, the money purse of the deceased and the voter identity card of the deceased came to his possession which was seized by the police. Therefore, the learned trial Court is justified in using this circumstance against the appellant and inferring that those articles were with the deceased when he accompanied the appellant on the date of the occurrence. After committing the crime, the appellant seems to be removing Nokia mobile phone, money purse and the voter identity card of the deceased so that even if the dead body was found in a burnt condition later on, the identity of the dead body could not be established in absence of those articles. Injuries noticed on the person of the appellant: 18. P.W.18, the doctor who examined the appellant on police requisition on 24.03.2011 at D.H.H., Dhenkanal noticed JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 50 of 54 some incised injuries on the right thumb and index fingers so also left index fingers apart from other injuries and opined that these incised injuries on the hands were probably caused by sharp cutting weapons. He proved his report Ext.17/2 and stated that such injuries were possible when someone attacked another by means of sharp cutting weapons like knife while the other struggled for life and tried to escape from his clutches. The knife was also seized at the instance of the appellant from the ashes by the I.O. Specific questions have been put to the appellant in the accused statement regarding his injuries in question no.27 and the appellant has also admitted about such injuries, but he has failed to explain as to how he sustained those injuries. We are of the view that the learned trial court has rightly used this evidence against the appellant and came to hold that the possibility of the deceased struggling to save himself from the crutches of the appellant during the attack and the knife hitting the hands of the appellant could not be ruled out. Sum up & Conclusion: 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the prosecution has not only proved that the deceased met with a homicidal death, but also established the circumstances like hand loan of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 51 of 54 thousand) taken by the appellant from the deceased for his sister‟s marriage and not refunding the same to the deceased in spite of repeated demand; the appellant calling the deceased from his house on the date of the occurrence and taking him on the pretext of repayment of loan amount; the last seen evidence; appellant returning alone after a short gap when he was last seen with the deceased and his wearing apparels were stained with human blood and he was covering his face with turkish towel; Nokia mobile set, money purse and the voter identity card of the deceased were seized from the possession of the appellant; the appellant making extrajudicial confession before the witnesses who detained him while he was returning alone in a suspicious manner; appellant showing the dead body to the witnesses lying on the hillock in a burnt condition having cut injury on throat; leading to discovery of the weapon of the offence by the appellant and the injuries noticed on his person of the appellant. The chemical examination report marked as Ext.22 indicate that the knife seized at the instance of the appellant from the ashes was stained with human blood so also his full pant and shirt were also stained with human blood. These circumstances are very clinching in nature and in our humble view, these circumstances taken together formed a complete JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 52 of 54 chain and there is no escape from the conclusion that it was the appellant alone and none else who was the author of the murder of the deceased. From the circumstances established, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of occurrence, the appellant came to the house of the deceased, took the deceased with him on the pretext of repaying back the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- which he had borrowed from the deceased and committed his murder at Kanarpur Hillock and tried to dispose off the dead body by burning it in order to cause disappearance of evidence and to screen himself from the legal punishment. Therefore, the learned trial Court is quite justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the charges under sections 302/201 of I.P.C. against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result, the JCLRA being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Before parting with the case, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. Gokulananda Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 53 of 54 provided by Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel. The trial Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information. .......................... S.K. Sahoo, J. .................................. Chittaranjan Dash, J. Chittaranjan Dash, J. I agree. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th September 2025/RKMishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 11:15:23 JCRLA No.20 of 2013 Page 54 of 54