Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has acquitted four persons convicted for the 2001 murder of one Dhruba Pradhan in Odisha, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case either through direct or circumstantial evidence, and that the trial court and the High Court erred in relying on eyewitness testimony that could not withstand scrutiny.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale made the observations while setting aside the judgements of the Orissa High Court, holding that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

It is alleged that in 2001, one of the accused visited the informant's house and threatened to kill the deceased. Later that evening, a group of accused persons armed with weapons allegedly searched for the deceased and later intercepted him on a motorcycle, assaulted him with stones and weapons, and threw his motorcycle into a pond.

Out of 18 chargesheeted persons, 14 were tried and the trial court convicted 6 accused under Sections 148, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Sections 191(3), 351, and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 149 IPC (now Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), sentencing them to life imprisonments, while acquitting 8 others.

In appeal, the High Court discarded the eyewitness testimony on the ground that the identification of the assailants on a pitch-dark night was not possible, but upheld the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, two of the six convicts died, leaving four appellants before the Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocates Rajdipa Behura and JK Das argued for the appellants that once the High Court itself discarded the eye-witness testimony as unreliable, the conviction could not survive on such a weak foundation. It was also contended that the eyewitnesses were interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, that their versions were mutually contradictory, and that the deceased had a history of 13 criminal cases including rape and murder, raising a reasonable possibility of false implication given that 200-250 villagers had a grudge against him. It was further submitted that no recovery was made at the instance of any appellant, and that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness despite claiming that the hundreds of persons were searching for the deceased.

Per contra, the respondents submitted that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstances, supported by consistent testimony of the threat, the armed search, and the interception of the deceased, corroborated by medical and recovery evidence. It was also argued that under Section 149 IPC, once a common subject of the unlawful assembly is proved, individual overt acts need not to be shown, and that related witnesses testimony should not be discarded merely for a relationship where it is natural and corroborated.

Considering the submissions, the Supreme Court found “considerable merit” in the appellants submissions and disagreed with the High Court's view.

Examining the eyewitness testimony, the Court noted a material inconsistency as PW 3 stated in the FIR that only PW 17 and PW 26 had witnessed the occurrence, PW 4 sought to portray PW 3 and others as also being present at the scene.

The Court observed as

“Thus, while PW 3's version indicates that he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence, PW 4's testimony seeks to portray PW 3, along with the other prosecution witnesses, as being present and witnessing the incident, giving rise to a significant inconsistency in the prosecution case.”

Relying on the State of UP v. Ashok Kumar and Tamilselvan v. State, the bench noted that in the present case the only light source was the torch carried by the accused themselves, making identification even less plausible than in cases involving moonlight. On this, the Court held that, “considering this very aspect. A categorical finding was recorded by the High Court that it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have witnessed the incident on a pitch-dark night or to identify the assailants merely on the basis of sound of the assault. The testimony of the alleged witness cannot be relied upon.”

Turning to the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the High Court, the Court applied the “panchsutra” principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra and Kamal v State (NCT of Delhi) that circumstances “must or should” and not “may be” established. Referring to Abdul Nassar v State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that each circumstance must be proved individually before a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence.

The Court found that circumstances relating to the threat, the armed search, and the identification of the accused all rested on the same discredited eye-witness testimony. It also noted the absence of any evidence as to how a heavy stone was brought to the scene, and that the stone was never recovered or sent for medical opinion. The Medical Officer (PW 18) had deposed that no weapon, including the alleged laterite stone, was ever sent to him for examination.

Applying the aforesaid, the Court held:

“Viewed cumulatively, the prosecution has failed to establish a complete consistent chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants. The evidence on record leaves substantial gaps which create a reasonable doubt as to their involvements. In criminal jurisprudence, where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.”

The Supreme Court, thus, set aside the judgement and order of the High Court and that of the trial court, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt.

Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr Etc. v The State of Odisha

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 959

Click here to read the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mrs Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv.; Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR; Mr. Philomon Kani, Adv.; Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Adv.; Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv.

Mr. JK. Das, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR; Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, Adv.; Mr. Reyansh Naarang, Adv.; Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent: :Mr. Vishnu Kant, AOR; Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv.; Mr. Sarthak Singh, Adv.


Tags: