Orissa High Court
Sadhu Charan Mahanta vs State Of Orissa on 17 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
JCRLA No.61 of 2006
An appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. from the judgment and
order dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial Case No.133 of 2005.
-------------------------
Sadhu Charan Mahanta ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Sanjit Kumar Das,
Advocate (OHCLSC)
For Respondent: - Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan
Addl. Standing Counsel
-------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 17.06.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
By the Bench: The appellant Sadhu Charan Mahanta faced trial in
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in
Sessions Trial Case No.133 of 2005 for commission of offences
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 1 of 25
punishable under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that during the
intervening night of 05/06.04.2005, he committed murder of his
wife Kuni @ Basanti Mahanta (hereinafter 'the deceased') in his
house situated at village Batapalasa and having reason to believe
that the murder had taken place, he caused the evidence of the
said offence to disappear by burying the dead body of the
deceased on the river bank of 'Budhi Nai' with intention to screen
himself from the commission of offences.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 12.05.2006 found the appellant guilty of both the
charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life
under section 302 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years under section 201 of the I.P.C. and
both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run
concurrently.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information
report (hereinafter 'F.I.R.')(Ext.2) lodged by Bhuban Mohan
Mahanta (P.W.3), in short, is that the deceased was his younger
sister and there was love affair between the appellant and the
deceased and they got married about twelve to thirteen years
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 2 of 25
prior to the death of the deceased. The appellant was working as
a Gramrakhi under Karanjia Police Station and the appellant and
the deceased were having two children, the son was aged about
six years and the daughter was about four years.
It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R.
that the deceased was regularly coming to the house of her
brother (P.W.3) and complaining against the appellant that he
was insisting for a second marriage and over this issue, there
used to be quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as
the deceased was not agreeable to such an alliance and proposal
of the appellant. It is further stated that the deceased had come
to the house of P.W.3 during the Makar festival and stayed there
for about four days and during that period, she disclosed before
P.W.3 that the appellant was assaulting her.
It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R.
that on 08.04.2005 at about 9 o'clock in the morning, while
P.W.3 was in his house, his cousin brother informed him that the
appellant after committing the murder of the deceased, had
concealed the dead body somewhere. Receiving such intimation,
P.W.3 came to the village of the appellant and there he found
that the inquiry relating to the death of the deceased had
already commenced and the police was interrogating the
appellant. The appellant disclosed before the police about
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 3 of 25
burying the dead body of the deceased in the river bed.
Accordingly, the police along with the Magistrate, villagers and
the family members of the appellant so also the informant
(P.W.3) went to the place of burial where the body was
disinterred from the burial place. Inquest over the dead body
was held in presence of the witnesses and it was sent to S.D.
Hospital, Karanjia for post-mortem examination. P.W.3 came to
know from the relatives and others that there was a quarrel
between the appellant and the deceased in the night of Tuesday
and the appellant killed the deceased by strangulating her and
thereafter buried the dead body to conceal the evidence and to
cause disappearance of the evidence.
On receipt of the written report presented by P.W.3,
Karanjia P.S. Case No.59 dated 08.04.2005 was registered under
sections 498(A)/302/201 of the I.P.C. by P.W.9 Gurubari
Hembram, W.S.I., Karanjia Police Station in absence of the I.I.C.
Prior to the registration of the F.I.R., it appears that
P.W.9 received a written report vide Ext.8 from P.W.1, Alekh
Chandra Mahanta and registered Karanjia P.S. U.D. Case No.09
dated 08.04.2005 and took up inquiry. During the course of
inquiry, she prepared the spot map and sent requisition to the
Sub-Collector, Karanjia, to depute an Executive Magistrate to
remain present at the time of holding inquest over the dead body
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 4 of 25
of the deceased. The appellant disclosed in presence of the
villagers and the Executive Magistrate that he had killed the
deceased and buried the dead body in the river bed of 'Budhi
Nai' near his village and thereafter P.W.9 along with the
Executive Magistrate, Karanjia and the villagers went to the spot
where at the instance of the appellant, the dead body of the
deceased was disinterred by digging earth. P.W.9 held inquest
over the dead body in the presence of the witnesses and also the
Executive Magistrate and prepared inquest report vide Ext.1. The
dead body was identified by the appellant, his brother and the
villagers and it was sent to S.D. Hospital, Karanjia for post-
mortem examination.
After registration of the case on the basis of written
report presented by P.W.3, P.W.9 took up investigation of the
case, arrested the appellant on 08.04.2005 and at the instance
of the appellant, three napkins were seized from his house as per
seizure list Ext.11. P.W.9 also seized torn sarees and one saya of
the deceased from the house of the appellant as per seizure list
Ext.12. On 09.04.2005, she handed over the charge of
investigation to P.W.8, the I.I.C. of Karanjia Police Station.
During the course of investigation, P.W.8 examined
the witnesses, sent the appellant to S.D. Hospital, Karanjia for
medical examination and collection of his nail clippings and blood
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 5 of 25
sample. P.W.8 received the injury report, blood sample and nail
clippings etc. of the appellant from the hospital through the
Havildar and seized the same as per seizure list Ext.5 and
forwarded the appellant to the Court. He received the post
mortem report, examined the witnesses, sent the seized
properties to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through
S.D.J.M., Karanjia and also received the chemical examiner
report marked as Ext.7. On completion of investigation, P.W.8
submitted chargesheet under sections 498(A)/302/201 of I.P.C.
on 19.06.2005 against the appellant.
Framing of Charges:
3. After submission of the charge sheet, the case was
committed to the Court of Session after complying due
formalities. The learned trial Court framed charges against the
appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the
charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions
trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his
guilt.
Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits and Material Objects:
4. During the course of the trial, in order to prove its
case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 6 of 25
P.W.1 Alekh Chandra Mahanta is the elder brother of
the appellant. He deposed that the appellant along with the
deceased and their children were living in a separate house by
the time of the occurrence. He further stated that about one year
back at about 7 p.m. to 8 p.m., when he returned to his house
from the weekly market, the appellant came and told him that
the deceased had died. He advised the appellant to call some
persons of their village for cremation of the dead body of the
deceased, however the appellant told him that he had already
buried the dead body of the deceased in the river bed of 'Budhi
Nai'. On being advised by the co-villagers, P.W.1 came to
Karanjia Police Station and reported the matter to the police. He
further stated that at times there used to be quarrel between the
appellant and the deceased.
P.W.2 Khetra Mohan Mahanta is a co-villager of the
appellant before whom the appellant had confessed that he had
buried the dead body of the deceased in the river bed of 'Budhi
Nai'. He stated to have advised the appellant as well as P.W.1 to
report the matter before police.
P.W.3 Bhuban Mohan Mahanta is the brother of the
deceased and he is the informant in this case. He stated that
about twelve to thirteen years back, the appellant had married
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 7 of 25
the deceased in Baripada Court and after seven to eight years of
the marriage, dispute arose between the deceased and the
appellant as the appellant was insisting to marry for the second
time. He came to know about such dispute from the deceased
when she came to his house during Makar Festival. He further
stated that he received a telephone call and came to know that
the deceased had been killed on Tuesday and her dead body had
been concealed somewhere. Thereafter, he went to the village
Batapalasa on the same day and found that police were inquiring
about the death of the deceased and on being asked by the
police, the appellant told to have buried the dead body of the
deceased in the river bed of Budhi Nai. He further stated that the
appellant by digging the earth brought out the dead body of the
deceased.
P.W.4 Kasturi Mahanta is the wife of P.W.1. She
stated that there was dispute between the appellant and the
deceased, as the appellant wanted to marry another girl and for
such dispute, a panchayati was convened in the village.
P.W.5 Trilochan Mahanta is a co-villager of P.W.1. He
stated that prior to three months of the death of the deceased,
there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased. He
further stated that the appellant had disclosed before him that
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 8 of 25
the deceased had died and he had buried her dead body. He
further stated that at the instance of the appellant, the dead
body was disinterred from its burial place in the river bed and it
was identified to be that of the deceased. He further stated
regarding the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased
and one napkin from the house of the appellant and the
preparation of seizure list by police in that respect.
P.W.6 Basudev Nayak was working as a Revenue
Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Karanjia. He stated about the
confession of the appellant regarding the killing of his wife in the
night and burying her dead body in the river bed of 'Budhi Nai'
and about the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased
by the police after it was disinterred by digging earth.
P.W.7 Ashis Ranjan Mahanty was working as a
Specialist in O & G., S.D. Hospital, Karanjia, who conducted the
post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.
He stated that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to
throttling. He proved the post mortem report marked as Ext.3.
P.W.8 Nrusingha Charan Swain was working as the
I.I.C. of Karanjia Police Station and P.W.9 Gurubari Hembram
was working as W.S.I. of Karanjia Police Station and they are the
Investigating Officers of the case.
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 9 of 25
The prosecution exhibited twelve documents. Ext.1 is
the inquest report, Ext.2 is the written report (F.I.R.), Ext.3 is
the post mortem examination report, Ext.4 is the requisition for
collection of nail clippings and blood sample of the appellant,
Ext.5 is the seizure list, Ext.6 is the forwarding letter of M.Os. to
S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, Ext.7 is the C.E. report, Ext.8
is the written report of Karanjia U.D. Case No. 19/05, Ext.9 is
the spot map, Ext.10 is the dead body chalan, Exts.11 & 12 are
the seizure lists.
Defence Plea:
5. The defence plea of the appellant is that he was the
Grama rakhi in Karanjia police station and on the date of
occurrence, he was on duty at village Saralapada, Panasapal and
Tentuliposi and he returned back home in the night at about 9
o'clock and found the deceased was lying on a cot and he came
to know from his children that the deceased fell down and since
the deceased was very weak and used to fall sick every time and
he found that the deceased was not responding to his call, he got
confirmed that she had died. Since on the next day, Puja was
going to be observed in the village, the villagers told him to
cremate the dead body immediately otherwise the villagers
would not be able to celebrate the Puja and would also face
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 10 of 25
immense difficulty. Accordingly, the appellant stated to have
buried the dead body hurriedly.
The son of the appellant and the deceased, namely,
Jayakrushna Mahanta was examined as D.W.1 in support of the
defence plea.
Findings of the Trial Court:
6. The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as
well as the documentary evidence on record, came to hold that
in view of the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.9 as well as the
doctor (P.W.7), the prosecution has successfully established that
the deceased died a homicidal death. The learned trial Court
culled out the circumstances borne out of the record against the
appellant, which are as follows:-
(i) the deceased was living with the appellant
by the time of the occurrence;
(ii) there were quarrels and disputes between
the appellant and the deceased as the appellant
wanted to marry for the second time and for the
same, panchayati was held in the village few
months prior to the occurrence;
(iii) the appellant buried the dead body of the
deceased in the night of 05/06.04.05 in the river
bed of 'Budhi Nai' near his village without
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 11 of 25
informing anybody about the death of the
deceased;
(iv) in the night of 07.04.05, the appellant for
the first time disclosed about the death of the
deceased before P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5 & others and also
admitted before them to have buried the dead
body of the deceased in the river bed of 'Budhi
Nai';
(v) The appellant on 08.04.05 made a
confession before P.W.6, police and the villagers
that he killed the deceased in the night of
05.04.05 and buried her dead body in the river
bed of 'Budhi Nai';
(vi) The appellant brought out the dead body of
the deceased by digging earth in the river bed of
'Budhi Nai' before P.W.6 and others;
(vii) P.W.7 who conducted post mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased
on police requisition, opined that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to throttling and time
since death was within 36 hours to 4 days at the
time of post mortem examination.
The learned trial Court has held that all the
circumstances have been proved against the appellant. The
learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of D.W.1 as his
evidence runs contrary to the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) in
as much as the evidence of D.W.1 is that his mother fell down
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 12 of 25
due to head reeling and died, which was disbelieved in view of
the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) which shows that the cause of
death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on account of
throttling. The learned trial Court also took into account the
statement of the appellant made in the accused statement where
he has admitted to have brought out the dead body of the
deceased by digging the earth and held that since the appellant
has buried the dead body of the deceased hurriedly in the river
bed of 'Budhi Nai' near his village without informing anybody in
the village and even not reporting the matter to the police being
a Grama rakhi, such conduct of the appellant has strengthened
the prosecution case. The learned trial Court held that the
appellant committed the murder of the deceased in his house in
the intervening night of 05/06.04.2005 at village Batapalasa and
accordingly found him guilty under sections 302/201 of I.P.C.
Contentions of the Parties:
7. Mr. Sanjit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant argued that the evidence of D.W.1 should not have
been disbelieved as he was the son of the appellant and the
deceased and was present in the house when the occurrence had
allegedly taken place and that he has specifically stated that the
deceased fell down due to head reeling and died. The learned
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 13 of 25
counsel further argued that in view of the pressure caused by
the co-villagers to bury the dead body on account of Puja which
was to be observed on the next day, the appellant had to bury
the dead body without any intimation to the family members of
the deceased as there was no time. Learned counsel for the
appellant urged that in view of the available materials on record,
it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete
that it unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant and
therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be
extended in favour of the appellant.
Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan, learned Additional
Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha, on the other
hand, argued that the learned trial Court has rightly culled out
seven circumstances appearing on record against the appellant
and on each of the circumstances, number of witnesses have
deposed to against the appellant and the circumstances, if taken
together, completes the sequential chain. The learned counsel
further argued that the evidence of D.W.1, the son of the
appellant and the deceased that there was head reeling of the
deceased for which she fell down and died has been rightly
disbelieved by the learned trial Court in view of the evidence of
the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination and
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 14 of 25
found that the thyroid cartilage was broken and cause of death
was due to asphyxia due to throttling, which was sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned counsel
further argued that the plea of the appellant that he was on duty
in other villages has not been proved by producing any oral or
any documentary evidence and even no suggestion was given to
the two investigating officers of Karanjia Police Station i.e.
P.Ws.8 & 9 in that regard. The learned counsel urged that when
the deceased was in the house of the appellant and she met a
homicidal death as per the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) and
the appellant admittedly buried the dead body of the deceased
without intimating anyone and at his instance, the dead body
was recovered from the place of burial and the appellant had
given false declarations before the co-villagers regarding the
cause of death of the deceased, the chain is complete and
therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and
the appeal should be dismissed.
Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death i.e.
Circumstance no.(vii)?:
8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, let us first examine the
available materials on record as to how far the prosecution has
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 15 of 25
successfully proved that the deceased met with a homicidal
death.
At the outset, it appears from the evidence of P.W.1
that when the appellant was asked about the cause of death of
the deceased in presence of the others, he stated that the
deceased might have died by taking medicine or by committing
suicide. Similarly, the son of the appellant and the deceased
being examined as D.W.1 has stated that his mother (deceased)
fell down in the house due to her head reeling and thereafter
died. This evidence adduced by D.W.1, and as was disclosed by
the appellant before P.W.1 and others so also the plea taken by
the appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 of
Cr.P.C. regarding the cause of death of the deceased is falsified
by the evidence of P.W.7, who conducted the post-mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased on 08.04.2005
in S.D. Hospital, Karanjia and found the following external
injuries:-
(i) The dead body was swollen with blisters
seen at places;
(ii) Rigor mortis was absent on all four limbs;
(iii) Tongue protruded and frothy discharge seen
at nose and mouth;
(iv) Vagina and anus protruded;
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 16 of 25
(v) Post mortem abrasion seen over legs;
(vi) Face was deeply cyanosed;
(vii) Left sternocleidomastoid muscle was torn in
its middle part with extravasation of blood;
(viii) Projections of thyroid cartilage were found
broken;
(ix) Larynx was oedematous and hyperaemic;
(x) Both lungs were congested and
oedematous;
(xi) Right chamber of heart was filled with blood
and left chamber was empty.
The doctor has opined that the cause of death was
due to asphyxia on account of throttling and the time since death
was within 36 hours to four days of the post-mortem
examination and that asphyxia due to throttling is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor has
proved the post-mortem report marked as Ext.3. In the cross-
examination, the defence has brought out that all the symptoms
found in the dead body could not be caused in any other mode of
death due to asphyxia.
Thus, the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) has
remained unchallenged. In view of the evidence of P.W.7 coupled
with the inquest report vide Ext.1 which was conducted in the
presence of the Magistrate and the post-mortem report findings
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 17 of 25
vide Ext.3, we are of the humble view that the learned trial Court
is quite justified in holding that the prosecution has successfully
proved that the deceased met with a homicidal death. Thus, the
circumstance no.(vii) has been proved by the prosecution.
Other circumstances against appellant:
9. The circumstance no.(i) is that the deceased was
living with the appellant by the time of occurrence. P.Ws.1, 2, 3
and 4 have deposed in that respect and in fact, the appellant has
not challenged this evidence.
So far as circumstance no.(ii) is concerned, the
evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 are very material. P.W.3, the informant
who is also the brother of the deceased has stated that after
seven to eight years of marriage, a dispute arose between the
appellant and the deceased as the appellant wanted to marry for
the second time as the deceased was unable to see properly due
to her poor eyesight. He further stated that during Makar
festival, the deceased had come to his house and told him about
such dispute. P.W.4 has also stated that six months prior to the
death of the deceased there was a dispute between the appellant
and the deceased as the appellant wanted to marry another girl
and for such dispute, there was a pachayati in the village.
Nothing could be elicited from the sustained cross-examination
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 18 of 25
of these two witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, it
can be said that the circumstance no.(ii) has been proved by the
prosecution and according to the prosecution, this circumstance
also proves the motive behind the commission of the crime.
The circumstance no.(iii) regarding the appellant
burring the dead body of the deceased in the river bed of Budhi
Nai without giving any intimation to anybody, the appellant has
taken a plea in the accused statement that the day when he
buried the dead body was a day prior when a Puja was going to
be observed in the village and some of the co-villagers pursued
him to cremate the dead body otherwise the villagers would face
difficulty in observing the Puja. No villagers have been examined
in support of such plea who allegedly pursued the appellant to
bury the dead body. In view of the evidence of P.W.3, the
informant, it is very clear that no information has been given by
the appellant to the family members of the deceased either
about the death of the deceased or in getting their consent to
bury the dead body. Therefore, the circumstance no.(iii) has
been established by the prosecution successfully.
So far as the circumstances nos. (iv), (v) and (vi) are
concerned, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are very relevant
in this respect. P.W.1 has stated that the appellant told him that
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 19 of 25
he had buried the dead body of the deceased in the river bed of
'Budhi Nai' in the presence of three co-villagers, who advised him
to report the matter before the police station and accordingly, he
reported. P.W.2 has also stated that the appellant told him that
he buried the dead body in the river bed of 'Budhi Nai'. P.W.4
has stated that the appellant came to his house and told him
that the deceased died on the previous Tuesday and that he
buried the dead body in the river bed of 'Budhi Nai'. P.W.5 has
stated that the appellant came to his house and told him that the
deceased had died and he buried the dead body. The evidence of
these witnesses is further strengthened by the evidence adduced
by the investigating officer, P.W.9, who has stated that the
appellant told her in presence of the villagers and the Executive
Magistrate that he had killed his wife and buried her dead body
in the river bed of 'Budhi Nai' near his village. The Executive
Magistrate being examined as P.W.6 has also stated that the
appellant told in presence of the police and the villagers that he
had killed the deceased and buried the dead body in the river
bed of 'Budhi Nai'. The statement given under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is further fortified that the appellant led the police
party, the Executive Magistrate and the witnesses to the river
bed, where the dead body was disinterred by digging the earth.
The inquest report (Ext.1) has been prepared which also
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 20 of 25
indicates about the recovery of the dead body at the instance of
the appellant. The appellant was put a pertinent question in the
accused statement recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. that he along
with others including P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9 came to
'Budhi Nai', where he brought out the dead body of the deceased
by digging the earth and after the dead body was brought out,
the witnesses like P.W.3, P.W.5 and others identified the dead
body as that of the deceased. The appellant has answered in the
affirmative. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned trial
Court has rightly held that the circumstances nos.(iv), (v) and
(vi) have been proved by the prosecution sans any doubt.
Whether defence plea relating to cause of death of
deceased is acceptable?:
10. The defence plea of the appellant is that he was not
present in the house on the date of occurrence and had been to
the village Saralapada, Panasapal and Tentuliposi on duty and
returned in the night at about 9.00 p.m. We find that no
documentary evidence has been proved in that respect regarding
his duty. Two of the investigating officers (P.W.8 and P.W.9) who
were examined by the prosecution belonged to Karanjia Police
Station, where the appellant was Grama rakhi and they have not
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 21 of 25
even suggested that the appellant was on duty on the date of
occurrence in the aforesaid three villages.
The evidence of D.W.1, the son of the appellant and
the deceased is that the deceased fell down in the house due to
head reeling and thereafter she died, is not getting any
corroboration from the medical evidence and the doctor (P.W.7)
has not noticed any such injury which could be possible by fall
rather the cause of death has been opined due to asphyxia on
account of throttling. Therefore, the evidence adduced by D.W.1
and the plea taken by the appellant that the deceased died due
to fall on account of head reeling has rightly been disbelieved by
the learned trial Court.
The evidence of P.W.1 is that when the appellant was
questioned about the death of the deceased in presence of the
co-villagers, he stated that the deceased might have died by
taking medicine or by committing suicide. This statement which
the appellant has made before P.W.1 is nothing but false in view
of the medical evidence.
The normal principle in a case based on
circumstantial case is that the circumstances from which an
inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and
firmly established, that the circumstances should be of a definite
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 22 of 25
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; that
the circumstances taking cumulatively should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused
and those circumstances should be incapable of explanation on
any hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellant and
inconsistent with his innocence. A false plea taken by the
accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is an additional link
in the chain of circumstances (Ref: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
-Vrs.- State of Maharashtra : (1984) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 116).
Therefore, the inconsistent pleas that are taken by
the appellant from time to time further strengthens the
prosecution case. In view of the provision under section 106 of
the Evidence Act, the appellant is required to discharge the
burden of proof which was especially within his knowledge as the
deceased was staying in his company and she had met a
homicidal death and the appellant had buried the dead body in
the river bed hurriedly without disclosing to anyone. The
appellant has not been able to discharge this burden.
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 23 of 25
Conclusion:
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the
humble view that even though there is no direct evidence in the
case, but the circumstances available on record if taken together
clearly form a complete chain and it excludes every possible
hypothesis regarding the innocence of the appellant and it
substantiate that the appellant alone is the author of commission
of the murder of the deceased and that after committing the
murder, he had also buried the dead body of the deceased. The
appellant has miserably failed to dislodge the incriminating
evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case and
hence, we are of the opinion that his conviction and sentence
through the impugned judgment and order does not require any
interference by us and resultantly, we find no merit in the appeal
which for the said reason is dismissed with the affirmation of
appellant's conviction and sentence. The appellant has been
directed to be released on bail by the order of this Court dated
19.04.2019. The appellant shall surrender within a period of four
weeks from today to undergo the sentence, failing which, he
shall be taken into judicial custody.
Accordingly, the JCRLA, being devoid of merits,
stands dismissed.
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 24 of 25
Before parting with the case, we would like to put on
record our appreciation to Mr. Sanjit Kumar Das, learned counsel
appearing for OHCLSC by rendering his valuable help and
assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned.
This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance
provided by Mr. Sarat Kumar Pradhan, learned Additional
Standing Counsel.
The trial Court records with a copy of this judgment
be communicated to the concerned Court forthwith for
information and necessary action.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
…………………………..
S. S. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 17thJune 2025/Ashok/Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Jun-2025 10:58:54
JCRLA No.61 of 2006 Page 25 of 25