top of page
In cases where guilt is based only on circumstantial evidence; suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof
Dama Pradhani Vs State of Orissa
CRLA No. 36 of 2011
About/from the judgment:
The High Court set aside the impugned conviction order and allowed the appeal.
The facts of the case are such that one Rama Dharua's (informant) niece Ghulikhai @ Nidra Majhi was missing and on searching the village and inquiring he failed to trace the whereabouts of their niece. The informant then reported the same to the police and an FIR was registered. On one night his son-in-law one Dullabha Majhi confided him that one Dama Pradhani (appellant) of his village had confessed before him that he had committed the murder of the deceased and concealed the dead body. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the village and took the appellant into his custody who allegedly confessed to have committed the crime by strangulating the deceased and having concealed the dead body in Gadiajore Nala. Upon arrival at the Gadiajore Nala, the body was immediately recovered. Inquest was conducted. The body of the deceased along with a lungi that was found tied around her neck was sent for post mortem examination. The appellant was also sent for medical examination where a sample of his semen was seized. The appellant was then arrested and forwarded to the court. Based on various witnesses presented before Trial Court the appellant was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 2, 000/-and in default further to undergo R.I. for a period of six months under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 1, 000. Upon further default, to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 201 of the IPC Aggrieved by the said order, present appeal was filed.
Appellants submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case of prosecution is solely based on circumstantial evidence. It was further submitted that although the extra-judicial confession has led to the discovery of the dead body, however, the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent and trustworthy evidence to prove the circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
Respondents submitted that the report of the Medical Officer reveals that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to strangulation by means of lungi. It was further submitted that the witnesses and evidence presented clearly states culpability of the accused.
The Court summarized four circumstances indicating the culpability of the appellant, namely
1. Extra judicial confession made by the accused
2. Recovery of dead body of deceased
3. Evidence and statements of various witnesses
The Court relied on judgment Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 wherein it was held that
"14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration."
The Court further relied on judgment Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 872 and observed that even if it can be accepted that the statement of the appellant led to the discovery of the body of the deceased and hence might be admissible, it is important to note that only that part of the statement which led to the discovery of the body of the deceased can be admitted. Every other information presented in the statement which are inculpatory and confessional including the confession of allegedly committing the offence, the alleged usage of the lungi to commit said offence, the existence of the love affair have to be completely barred and cannot be relied upon under any circumstances.
The Court observed that In the instant case there are no eye-witness to the occurrence and prosecution case solely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The Court relied on judgment Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 10 SCC 172 wherein it was held that:
"26. It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence."
The Court held "in the absence of eye-witnesses and the weak chain of circumstantial evidence, the order of conviction and sentence impugned herein are liable to be set aside."
In view of the above, appeal was allowed.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!