LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the State’s appeal against acquittal on the grounds of delay and whether the Trial Court was correct in acquitting the accused in the absence of sufficient evidence.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: The State of Odisha vs. Banabihari Mohapatra and Anr.
Judgment Date: 12th February 2021
Date of the Judgment: 12th February 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on circumstantial evidence alone? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal against a High Court order that had upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The case revolved around the death of a man found in the premises of the accused, with the prosecution alleging murder by electric shock. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute proof. The bench comprised Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta, who delivered a unanimous verdict.
Case Background
The case began with the death of Bijay Kumar Tadu, a Home Guard, who was found dead in a room belonging to the first accused, Banabihari Mohapatra. On June 23, 2014, the complainant, Gitanjali Tadu, the deceased’s wife, was informed by the accused that her husband was lying motionless. Upon reaching the location, she found her husband dead with signs of electric shock. The complainant alleged that the accused, along with his son, had murdered her husband by administering electric shock after poisoning him. She also stated that her husband was wearing a gold chain and two gold rings, and was carrying Rs. 5,800 in cash, all of which were missing.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 22, 2014 | Deceased left home around 10:00 AM, reportedly to visit his aunt’s house. He was wearing a gold chain, two gold rings, and carrying Rs. 5,800. |
| June 22, 2014 (Evening) | Deceased’s brother found his motorcycle in front of the shop of the accused. |
| June 23, 2014 (7:30 AM) | First accused informed the complainant that the deceased was lying motionless. |
| June 23, 2014 | Complainant found her husband dead in a locked room with signs of electric shock. |
| June 24, 2014 (1:00 PM) | Post-mortem examination conducted, revealing the cause of death as electric shock. |
| January 14, 2020 | Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, acquitted the accused. |
| November 2, 2020 | High Court of Orissa dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal due to a delay of 41 days. |
| February 12, 2021 | Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the acquittal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, acquitted the accused, Banabihari Mohapatra and his son Luja @ Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra, of charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the State’s appeal against this acquittal due to a delay of 41 days. The State then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 302: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 201: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished…” This section deals with the offense of causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to protect an offender.
- Section 34: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” This section defines the principle of common intention in criminal acts.
Arguments
Petitioner (State of Odisha) Arguments:
- The State argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal based on a delay of only 41 days, especially considering the serious nature of the charges, including murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Respondent (Accused) Arguments:
- The accused did not make any specific arguments before the Supreme Court, as the High Court had already dismissed the State’s appeal.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| State’s Argument |
|
| Accused’s Argument |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the State’s appeal on the grounds of delay, and whether the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused was correct based on the evidence presented.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal based on delay? | The Supreme Court found that while the High Court had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay, it had also considered the merits of the case. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision. |
| Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused was correct? | The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s acquittal, stating that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, which was not the case here. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P., 2016 (4) SCC 357 | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to reiterate that an appeal against acquittal is on a different footing than an appeal against conviction. The appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal when there is perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment. |
| Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 158 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to outline the principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must be firmly established, point unerringly towards guilt, and form a complete chain excluding any other hypothesis. |
| Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to reinforce the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof and that an accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight that if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| State’s submission that High Court erred in dismissing appeal due to delay. | The Court noted that while the High Court dismissed the appeal due to delay, it also considered the merits of the case. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P., 2016 (4) SCC 357 | The Court used this case to emphasize that appeals against acquittal are different from appeals against conviction, requiring a higher standard of review. |
| Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 158 | The Court used this case to establish the principles for convicting an accused based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 | The Court used this case to reiterate that suspicion cannot replace proof and that the accused is presumed innocent. |
| Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 | The Court used this case to highlight that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the murder. The court noted that the prosecution’s case was based on suspicion rather than solid proof. The court also highlighted the possibility of the death being accidental, given the deceased was intoxicated and the post-mortem report indicated the death could have been due to accidental contact with a live wire.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the murder | 40% |
| Prosecution’s case based on suspicion rather than proof | 30% |
| Possibility of accidental death due to electric shock while intoxicated | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Deceased found dead with electric shock
Prosecution alleges murder by accused
Trial Court acquits accused due to lack of evidence
High Court dismisses State’s appeal due to delay
Supreme Court upholds acquittal, emphasizing lack of proof
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence and the possibility of an accidental death.
The Court reasoned that the circumstances did not conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. The court noted that the post-mortem report indicated the death could have been accidental, or homicidal, but not suicidal. The court also highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s witnesses’ statements and the lack of a clear motive.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “In a criminal case involving the serious offence of murder, the Courts do not ordinarily dismiss an appeal against a judgment and order of the Trial Court, whether of conviction or of acquittal, on the sole ground of some delay. This is to prevent miscarriage of justice.”
- “Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.”
- “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta delivered a unanimous verdict.
Key Takeaways
- Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace concrete evidence in criminal cases.
- Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
- The benefit of doubt should always be given to the accused.
- Appeals against acquittal are on a different footing than appeals against conviction, requiring a higher standard of review.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that leads to the conclusion that the accused, and no one else, committed the crime. The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused and that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof. There is no change in the previous positions of law but rather a reiteration of the existing principles.
Conclusion
In the case of *The State of Odisha vs. Banabihari Mohapatra*, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence and the possibility of an accidental death. The court reiterated the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt and the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases. This judgment underscores the high standards of proof required for convictions, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.