Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash has recently acquitted a man who had been convicted by the trial court for the 1996 murder of his adoptive parents, holding that the conviction rested on “surmise and conjecture.” The Bench also clarified that when investigation reveals the involvement of the original informant, he may be treated as an accused and proceeded against without the necessity of lodging a new FIR. The case involved allegations that the adopted son and his wife had killed the elderly couple to obtain their property. Finding the evidence purely circumstantial and insufficient to form a complete chain of guilt, the Court set aside the life sentence and acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case alleged that on the night of 13/14 August 1996 at village Banchhara under Jatni Police Station, Khurda district, the deceased couple—identified as D-1 (Jadu Sahu) and D-2 (Pitei Sahu)—were killed in their bedroom. The appellant, adopted by the couple through a registered adoption deed dated 01 February 1993, resided in the same house with his second wife, Santilata. On 14 August 1996 at about 6:10 a.m., the appellant lodged a written FIR stating that the deceased couple quarrelled the previous night and that in the early morning he found D-1 dead and D-2 unconscious with head injuries. Jatni PS registered a case under Section 302 IPC, initially arraying D-2 as an accused.

Also Read: Supreme Court Approves Mediated Settlement in 40-Year-Old Property Dispute, Calls Lawyer-Mediators “Inevitable” for Future of Dispute Resolution

The investigation was first conducted by the SI (P.W.14), who visited the spot, held inquest over D-1, seized a blood-stained khanati (M.O. I), broken bangles (M.O.II), and sample earth, and sent D-2 for treatment; D-2 succumbed to injuries on 15 August 1996. Post-mortem examinations were conducted: P.W.4 on D-1 recorded rib fractures and internal haemorrhage; P.W.7 on D-2 recorded multiple injuries including rib fractures and lung laceration.

After transfer, P.W.13 (IIC) took over investigation, seized wearing apparels, obtained medical query opinions regarding whether injuries could be caused by M.O.I, and, upon suspecting the complicity of the appellant and Santilata, lodged a second FIR on 05 February 1997 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC against both. Santilata was arrested and later tried in S.T. Case No.145 of 1997, resulting in her acquittal on 18 January 1999. The appellant surrendered on 03 November 1998 and faced trial in S.T. Case No.161 of 1998. The Sessions Judge, Khurda, by judgment dated 23 August 2000, convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently.

On appeal, the appellant’s counsel argued that there was no direct evidence; that the appellant’s act of first lodging the FIR rather than immediately taking D-2 to a specialized hospital could not, by itself, be treated as incriminatory conduct; that the second FIR was impermissible; and that abscondence after 05 February 1997 could not be decisive. The State argued that motive existed owing to strained relations after the appellant’s second marriage, that the appellant’s conduct of not ensuring prompt specialized treatment for D-2 was telling, and that the second FIR did not vitiate the proceedings.

The Division Bench recorded that the prosecution had not established a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that “the circumstances have not been established with clinching evidence and the circumstances taken together do not form a complete chain.” The Court stated that “the motive behind the commission of the crime has not been proved by the prosecution.” It further recorded that “the conduct of the appellant after the occurrence was very natural and cannot lead to any inference of guilt.”

Regarding inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements, the Bench noted that “the inconsistent plea taken by the appellant coupled with his presence in the spot house… and his absconding after registration of the second F.I.R. cannot be the sole factor to find him guilty of the offences charged.” The Court stated that “no conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence since adduced in the case.”

The Bench recorded that “the conviction seems to be based more on surmise and conjecture than on any reliable evidences from which an irresistible conclusion about the complicity of the appellant… can at all be drawn.” It also observed that “the learned trial Court has proceeded pedantically without making an in-depth analysis of facts and circumstances and the evidences laid in the trial.”

Addressing the role of informants, the Court clarified that “the informant of an F.I.R. can be arrayed as an accused if investigation reveals his complicity or any incriminating material points towards his involvement in the crime,” and further stated that “there is no need on the part of the Investigating Officer to register a separate F.I.R. merely to implicate the original informant as an accused or to file charge-sheet against him.”

Also Read: Orissa HC Allows Premature Withdrawal Of Post Bank Fixed Deposit For Marriage, Citing Hindu Law’s Recognition Of It As Necessity

The Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It directed that “the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and the order of conviction and the sentence passed thereunder is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C.” The Court further ordered that “the appellant, who was released on bail by this Court during pendency of the appeal… is hereby discharged from liability of the bail bonds and the surety bonds shall also stand cancelled.”

“The trial Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information.” We would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. Sashibhusan Das, learned counsel for the appellant… This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided by Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner/Appellant: Mr. Sashibhusan Das, Dr. Biplab S., Mr. S. Padhi, Advocates
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha
Case Number: CRA No.229 of 2000
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash