Safiya Malik

The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant, rejecting the appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court for the murder of his wife, a verdict now upheld by the appellate court.

The case originated from an incident that took place on February 4, 2003. According to the prosecution, the appellant was frequently involved in acts of domestic violence against his wife. On the day of the incident, an altercation between the appellant and his wife escalated into a violent attack. Witnesses stated that at approximately 3:00 PM, the appellant was seen dragging the deceased by her hair into their house, ignoring protests from bystanders. Later that evening, the appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased again, causing serious injuries that led to her death.

The following morning, the deceased’s maternal uncle was informed of her death and, upon reaching the appellant’s residence, discovered her body lying in the courtyard. The informant noted multiple injuries on the deceased’s body and, after inquiries with the neighbours, learned that the appellant had subjected his wife to severe physical assault the previous night. Based on this information, he lodged a formal complaint at Khajuripada Police Station, leading to the registration of Khajuripada PS Case No. 12 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Mention Of S.307 IPC In FIR Doesn't Bar Quashing Of Case On Settlement If Offence Isn't Made Out From Allegations

The police launched an investigation, conducting an inquest of the body and collecting testimonies from multiple witnesses, including the deceased’s relatives and local villagers. The autopsy report confirmed severe injuries consistent with a brutal beating, leading the investigating officer to file a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC.

During the trial, the prosecution relied on oral and documentary evidence. Eight witnesses were examined, including:

PWs-1 and 2: Witnesses who saw the appellant dragging the deceased into their home by her hair.

PW-3: A post-occurrence witness who testified regarding the appellant’s history of violent behaviour towards the deceased.

PW-5: The medical officer who conducted the autopsy and provided crucial medical findings linking the injuries to a violent assault.

PW-6: The deceased’s maternal uncle, who first reported the crime.

PW-7: The mother of the deceased, who corroborated the claims of prior domestic violence.

PW-8: The investigating officer, who recorded witness statements and gathered physical evidence.

The defense, on the other hand, denied the allegations, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant maintained that he had no involvement in the crime and suggested that the injuries might have been caused by an accidental fall. The defense also pointed out that no weapon was seized and that no forensic examination of the appellant’s clothes was conducted to establish the presence of blood or other incriminating evidence.

The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, as no one directly witnessed the fatal assault. However, the sequence of events, coupled with medical findings and corroborative testimonies, led the court to conclude that the appellant was responsible for the crime.

The court recorded that "the appellant was last seen dragging the deceased into his house, and the burden was on him to explain the subsequent events as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act." Since the crime took place within the appellant’s residence, the onus was on him to provide a reasonable explanation for how his wife sustained the fatal injuries.

The post-mortem report, prepared by PW-5, detailed multiple external and internal injuries on the deceased’s body, including:

• A depressed skull fracture.

• Bruises and abrasions on her arms, shoulders, and torso.

• Haemorrhages in the brain.

• Signs of internal bleeding consistent with blunt force trauma.

The medical officer opined that "the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death." The court found this medical testimony crucial, as it stated out the possibility of an accidental fall or self-inflicted injuries.

The prosecution further argued that the appellant’s behaviour following the incident—his failure to report the death and his subsequent disappearance—indicated guilt. The court took note of this under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, observing that "the appellant’s failure to provide any reasonable explanation for the events occurring in his own home further strengthens the prosecution’s case." The court also found it significant that the appellant’s parents had informed PW-6 that the appellant had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and had ignored their protests while assaulting the deceased.

The defense attempted to challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly PWs-1 and 2, arguing that their testimonies were inconsistent. However, the court found their statements reliable, as they were corroborated by medical findings and other circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the defense’s contention that the absence of a seized weapon weakened the prosecution’s case was dismissed, with the court noting that "the nature and severity of injuries confirm that the death was homicidal, irrespective of the specific weapon used."

Also Read: Right To Life Includes Living Without Mental Trauma: J&K High Court Allows Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy Of Minor Sexual Assault Victim

The court also observed that "while no one directly witnessed the fatal assault, the circumstantial evidence, when viewed cumulatively, establishes the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." The court held that the appellant’s prior history of domestic abuse, combined with the testimonies of multiple witnesses and forensic findings, left no room for doubt regarding his involvement in the crime.

After examining the evidence in detail, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The judgment stated that "on a cumulative assessment of the evidence on record, the appellant is the author of the crime." The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s judgment did not require any interference.

Additionally, the court cancelled the bail bond that had been granted to the appellant during the appeal process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court directed that "the appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.".

Case Title: Bishnu Charan Ganda v. State of Odisha

Case Number: JCRLA No. 59 of 2007

Bench: Justice K.R. Mohapatra, Justice V. Narasingh

[Read/Download order]