Orissa High Court Acquits Appellants in Alleged Murder Case, Cites Delays, Inconsistent Testimonies, and Lack of Forensic Evidence; Weapon Recovery Inadmissible Under Section 27 of Evidence Act as Found in Public Place

Court’s Decision:
The Orissa High Court overturned the trial court’s conviction of the appellants for murder under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, lack of corroborative forensic evidence, and uncertainty regarding the identity of the remains found. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released unless detained in another case.

Facts:
The case involved the alleged murder of a woman by the appellants. The victim, who was the second wife of one of the appellants, had reportedly faced physical and mental abuse. A village meeting was convened after allegations surfaced that she was having an affair, leading to her divorce from the appellant. Despite this, the victim allegedly continued to meet the appellant in secret. Some weeks later, the victim disappeared, and human skeletal remains were discovered in a nearby jungle. The appellants were arrested based on eyewitness accounts claiming to have seen them commit the murder. The trial court found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Issues:
The main legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the murder, given the evidence presented.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, particularly in the eyewitness testimonies, which were delayed and conflicted with the forensic evidence. The defense also questioned the reliability of the evidence linking the remains to the victim, pointing out that there was no conclusive proof that the bones found were hers.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The state, representing the prosecution, contended that the eyewitness testimonies and the circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of the remains and the weapon (a ‘Kati’), were sufficient to uphold the conviction. They argued that the inconsistencies in the testimonies were minor and should not undermine the overall credibility of the case.

Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the provisions of Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. It also reviewed the standards required for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down in previous judgments. The court noted that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and unbroken, leaving no room for any other explanation.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to established precedents, including the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), which laid down the principles governing the admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. The court also cited other judgments related to the recovery of weapons and the requirement of exclusive knowledge by the accused in such recoveries.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court found significant issues with the prosecution’s case, including delays in the reporting of the crime, inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies, and the failure of the forensic evidence to conclusively link the remains to the victim. The court also noted that the weapon’s recovery did not satisfy the legal requirements for admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it was found in a public place accessible to others. The absence of antemortem injuries on the bones and the mismatch in hair samples further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution had not established the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that the appellants had committed the murder, and the trial court had erred in convicting them. The judgment and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released immediately.

Implications:
This judgment underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. The court’s decision highlights the importance of consistency in witness testimonies, the need for corroborative forensic evidence, and strict adherence to legal procedures in the recovery of incriminating materials. It also serves as a reminder that convictions should not be based on speculation or insufficient evidence.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Quashes DDA’s Cancellation of Conveyance Deed: “Cancellation of a Conveyance Deed by a Governmental Authority Held Invalid Unless Proper Legal Procedures Were Followed