The High Court
Case Details
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 Corrected 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 Nirakar Das -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, Additional Standing Counsel For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, Amicus Curiae CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH JUDGMENT 18th 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, GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 1 of 9 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 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. GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 2 of 9 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 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 GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 3 of 9 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 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 GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 4 of 9 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 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. GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 5 of 9 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 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 GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 6 of 9 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 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 GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 7 of 9 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 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 GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 8 of 9 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 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. GCRLA No.9 of 2003 Page 9 of 9