Case Note & Summary
The present criminal appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 17th July, 2014, passed by the Orissa High Court, Cuttack, in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2000, whereby the High Court affirmed the judgment dated 26th August, 2000, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in Sessions Trial No. 2-A of 1989, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The facts, in brief, are that on 9th October, 1988, the appellant allegedly stabbed the deceased Laxminarayan Sahu with a knife due to a property dispute. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, including PW1-Kirtan Sahu, PW2-Nagendra Pradhan, and PW3-Hrusikesh Sahu as eyewitnesses, and relied on an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW6-Purna Chandra Pradhan. The Trial Court initially convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC, but on revision, the High Court remitted the matter for consideration under Section 302 IPC, leading to conviction and life imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the conduct of PW1 and PW2 was highly suspicious. PW1's statement was recorded after 4-5 days, and PW2 did not report the incident for 5 days despite being in the vicinity. The extra-judicial confession was not voluntary or trustworthy as PW6 was a co-villager and there was no corroboration. The recovery of the knife alone was insufficient to prove guilt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility - The prosecution relied on PW1 and PW2 as eyewitnesses, but their conduct raised serious doubts about their presence at the scene. PW1's statement was recorded after 4-5 days, and PW2 did not report the incident for 5 days despite being in the vicinity. Held that such witnesses cannot be considered reliable (Paras 15-17). B) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Reliability - The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW6 was not voluntary and trustworthy as PW6 was a co-villager and there was no corroboration. Held that extra-judicial confession cannot form the sole basis of conviction (Paras 18-19). C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of Weapon - The recovery of knife (M.O.1) at the instance of the appellant was not sufficient to prove guilt as the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the extra-judicial confession was not credible. Held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete (Para 20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and extra-judicial confession is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Conviction cannot be based on unreliable eyewitnesses
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and trustworthy
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
