"Convictions Based on Conjecture and Suspicion Cannot Sustain a Death Sentence": Orissa High Court Acquits Appellants in Triple Murder Case and Rejects Capital Punishment for Want of Conclusive Proof
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra on July 21, 2025, allowed a criminal appeal and answered a death sentence reference in the negative, thereby setting aside the convictions and acquitting two appellants previously sentenced to capital punishment. The Court held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that the convictions were based on conjecture and suspicion rather than legal proof. The appellants, who had been in judicial custody, were directed to be released immediately unless their detention was warranted in any other case. The Court further directed the disbursal of victim compensation previously awarded to the surviving minor daughter of the deceased family, while expressing appreciation to the counsels and amicus curiae for their assistance.
The case originated from a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by P.W.9, Susant Nayak, on October 10, 2017, at Kishorenagar Police Station, registered as P.S. Case No.91 of 2017. The F.I.R. pertained to an incident that allegedly occurred during the night of October 9 and 10, 2017, in village Gambharimaliha under Kishorenagar Police Station, District Angul, where three members of a family—Biranchi Naik, his wife Tarani Naik, and their minor son Naba @ Ekalabya Naik—were found dead. The appellants, Prakash Behera @ Babuli and Nandakishore Sethi @ Ranja, were accused of involvement in multiple grave offenses, including house trespass, robbery, kidnapping, murder, and disappearance of evidence.
Initial investigation was conducted by P.W.41 Premananda Lenka, who found the body of Tarani Naik with a throat injury in her house premises. Subsequently, the body of Biranchi Naik was discovered under the Gambharimunda Bridge near Pokanda village, and that of minor Naba @ Ekalabya Naik was found in Bankadhar Sahi Jungle. Various articles were seized during the investigation, including household items, blood-stained earth, the appellants’ clothing, a 'Katuri' (M.O.6), a 'Gamucha' (M.O.7), a Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle, and other materials. Their nail clippings were also collected.
The investigation was later transferred to Prativa Majhi on November 25, 2017, who forwarded the seized items to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (S.F.S.L.), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, for chemical examination. A sanction order under Section 39 of the Arms Act was obtained. The charge sheet was submitted on January 30, 2018, under sections 302, 449, 363, 364, 394, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Following the committal to the Court of Session, charges were framed under the same provisions. The appellants denied all allegations and claimed false implication, leading to the commencement of a sessions trial. The prosecution examined forty-one witnesses and submitted sixty-two exhibits, including post-mortem reports, inquest reports, F.I.R., seizure lists, disclosure statements, and the S.F.S.L. report. Additionally, twenty-four material objects were produced as evidence.
Among key witnesses, P.W.9, the informant and younger brother of the deceased Biranchi Naik, deposed about the sequence of events. The doctors, P.W.5 Dr. Prajna Paramita Pradhan, P.W.6 Dr. Anil Kumar Dey, and P.W.12 Dr. Debasis Bhanja, performed post-mortems and testified about the nature of injuries. P.W.37 Girish Kumar Sahoo, a grocery shop owner, stated that he had seen the deceased Biranchi Naik in the company of the appellants on the evening of the incident. Other witnesses included seizure, inquest, and motive-related witnesses. P.W.40, the Scientific Officer, described the forensic process, while P.W.41, the Investigating Officer, recounted the steps taken in the case.
The defence claimed false implication. Appellant Prakash Behera alleged he had been coerced by the Thakurgarh police into signing blank papers. Appellant Nandakishore Sethi also claimed innocence and stated that no recoveries were made at his instance. He appeared as D.W.1 to reiterate his plea.
The Court recorded that "from the inquest reports, postmortem reports and the evidence of the doctors coupled with the other evidence on record, it has been proved that all the three deceased met with homicidal death which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants." However, the Court found that "there is no direct evidence as to who committed the murder of the three deceased persons and how. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence."
The Court applied principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, stating that "circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn against an accused should be fully established" and "should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty." The Court noted, "there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of proof and such suspicion howsoever strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof."
Regarding motive, the Court examined two possible motives presented by the prosecution: robbery and political hostility. It was recorded that the trial court had disbelieved the robbery motive, and the State did not challenge this finding. The Court remarked, "there is no clinching evidence on record" regarding robbery and "discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses" existed concerning political hostility. As the Court put it, "failure to establish an attributed motive will certainly enfeeble the case of prosecution."
On the last seen theory, the Court analyzed the testimony of P.W.37, who allegedly saw the deceased with the appellants on the evening of the incident. The Court observed multiple inconsistencies, noting that "the statement of P.W.37 was recorded more than a month after the occurrence" and that "no test identification parade was conducted." The Court further stated, "it is difficult to accept his sole testimony to apply ‘last seen theory’ in this case against the appellants."
The Court scrutinized the seizures of incriminating materials. On the black full pant (M.O.23) allegedly recovered from Nandakishore Sethi, it noted, "both the seizure witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) turned hostile" and "the seizure list does not mention sealing or specimen seal." Similar findings were made about the white half shirt (M.O.24) and motorcycle seized from Sethi, observing, "seizure list lacks sealing details, and biology report found no blood."
Regarding the Katuri (M.O.6) and Gamucha (M.O.7) seized from Prakash Behera, the Court stated, "safe custody before production in Court is a doubtful feature" and added, "no grouping of human blood was possible." The seizure of clothing items (M.O.1 and M.O.2) was found similarly flawed.
The Court raised concerns over the DNA report (Ext.59), stating, "the S.F.S.L. report was marked through the I.O., who neither sent nor received the report" and the Scientific Officer who conducted the test was not examined. It concluded, "when reasonable doubt crops up relating to the safe custody of the exhibits, it is very difficult to give due weight to the DNA test report."
The Court directed, "In view of the evidence available on record, we are not in a position to accept that the prosecution has established its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt." It stated, "the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants seems to be based on conjecture and suspicion which has got no place in the matter of legal proof of guilt of accused persons in a criminal trial and we are of the view that the impugned verdict is nothing but a sheer moral conviction."
Consequently, the Court held, "the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt" and that "the conviction of the appellants under section 364/34 of I.P.C. is totally misconceived." It also ruled that "the conviction of the appellants under section 201/34 of I.P.C. is also not sustainable."
The Court thus ordered, "In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under sections 302, 364, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The death sentence reference is answered in the negative. The appellants, who are in jail custody, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other case."
Further, the Court placed on record its appreciation for the counsels involved, stating, "we place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Mr. Ramesh Ch. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pradip Kumar Panda, learned Amicus Curiae." It added, "We also appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate."
The Court assessed the hearing fees, stating, "the hearing fees of Mr. Pradip Kumar Panda, learned Amicus Curiae is assessed at Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) in toto which shall be paid to him immediately." It also directed, "the trial Court records along with a copy of the judgment be sent forthwith to the Court concerned" and "a copy of this judgment be communicated to the District Legal Services Authority, Angul, so that the victim compensation amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakh) as directed to be paid to the minor daughter of deceased Biranchi Naik namely Saina, shall be paid immediately, if not already paid."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Mr. Ramesh Ch. Maharana, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: State of Odisha -Versus- Prakash Behera @ Babuli and Nandakishore Sethi @ Ranja
Case Number: DSREF No.04 of 2024 and CRLA No.1166 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
