The Supreme Court has acquitted four accused persons in a 2001 murder case from Odisha, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found material inconsistencies in the alleged eyewitness accounts and held that the prosecution could not establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the accused.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeals filed by the accused and set aside the judgments of the Orissa High Court and the trial court convicting them under Sections 148, 506 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case arose from an incident dated May 14, 2001, when, according to the prosecution, one of the accused allegedly visited the informant's house at around 4 PM and threatened to kill Dhruba Pradhan.
Later that evening, at around 7 PM, a group of accused persons allegedly arrived armed with weapons and searched for the deceased. Subsequently, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle, he was allegedly intercepted at Agi Chhak and forcibly taken to a nearby paddy field.
The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased with weapons including a laterite stone, iron rod and bhujali, resulting in his death. His motorcycle was allegedly thrown into a pond.
An FIR was registered at around 2 AM on May 15, 2001. The investigation resulted in a chargesheet against 18 accused persons. After one accused died and three others were declared absconders, 14 accused faced trial.
The trial court ultimately convicted six accused persons under Sections 148, 506 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹3,000 each. Eight accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
The Orissa High Court subsequently upheld the convictions, though it discarded the direct eyewitness testimony and held that the prosecution had established the case through circumstantial evidence. During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, two of the six convicted accused died, leaving four appellants before the Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution case primarily relied upon the testimonies of PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 26. All of these witnesses were related to the deceased.
The Court found significant inconsistencies regarding who had actually witnessed the incident. PW-3, who lodged the FIR, had stated that only PW-17 and PW-26 had witnessed the occurrence. However, PW-4 subsequently claimed that he, along with PW-3 and the other witnesses, had been observing the accused persons during the incident.
The Court also examined the circumstances in which the alleged identification took place.
It noted that the incident occurred on a pitch-dark night, with the witnesses allegedly positioned about 60 cubits away. The Court observed that the High Court itself had found that it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to witness the incident in such conditions or identify the assailants merely from the sound of the assault.
The Supreme Court further referred to its earlier decision in Tamilselvan v. State, observing that where the assailants themselves were carrying torches, it would be difficult for witnesses to identify them because the light could partially blind the witnesses rather than assist their identification.
The Court consequently held that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses could not safely be relied upon.
Once the eyewitness testimony was discarded, the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court referred to the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and reiterated that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established, must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and must form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
The Court also reiterated that strong suspicion cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court examined the circumstances relied upon by the High Court, including the alleged threat issued by one accused, the presence of armed persons near the deceased's house, the search for the deceased, his alleged identification with torchlight, identification through voice, the alleged waiting of the accused near the place of occurrence and recovery of certain articles.
However, the Court found material inconsistencies in the evidence concerning the presence of witnesses and their alleged observation of the incident.
The Court also found the alleged identification of the appellants unreliable because it was not possible to safely conclude that the witnesses had seen the occurrence in the pitch-dark night or identified the assailants merely from the sounds of the assault.
The Court further noted that the prosecution failed to establish how the alleged 53-kg laterite stone had been brought to the spot and observed that the stone allegedly used in the offence had not been recovered.
The Supreme Court reiterated that each circumstance relied upon in a case based on circumstantial evidence must be established beyond doubt and that the circumstances, taken collectively, must point towards the guilt of the accused.
In the present case, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants.
The Court held that the evidence left substantial gaps creating reasonable doubt regarding their involvement. It therefore concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeals and quashed and set aside the Orissa High Court's judgment dated May 6, 2009, as well as the trial court's judgment dated January 28, 2004 convicting and sentencing the accused.
The pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Case: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2026 INSC 1015
Criminal Appeal Nos.: 1047-1048 of 2010, along with Criminal Appeal No. 2223 of 2010
Representation:-
For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Philomon Kani, Adv. Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Adv. Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. J.k. Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das, Adv. Mr. Reyansh Naarang, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vishnu Kant, AOR Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Singh, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy