Conviction solely based on recovery of weapon from open place would not be tenable: Supreme Court acquits life convict in murder case
Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta [30-04-2024]

Read Order:JASOBANTA SAHU v. STATE OF ORISSA[SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2022]

Tulip Kanth 

New Delhi, May 1, 2024:In a case of murder where some of the witnesses turned hostile and it was doubtful as to whether the witnesses had actually witnessed the incident or not, the Supreme Court has acquitted a convict sentenced to life. The Top Court also noted that the recovery of the weapon was made from an open space and conviction couldn’t be solely based on it.

On October 9, 1988, an oral information was received to the effect that Laxminarayan Sahu had been murdered. On the basis of the oral information, the Office In-Charge (IO) registered a First Information Report (Exhibit-1) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The IO also arrested the appellant and thereafter, the appellant led to discovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., knife. He also made a query to the doctor and sent the incriminating articles for chemical examination.

The prosecution case was that the appellant and deceased were having strained relationship on account of property dispute. Laxminarayan Sahu (deceased), one BrajabandhuSahu and Bhagaban Sahu (PW-14) were brothers. The appellant is the son of BrajabandhuSahu. There was a partition of family properties between the three brothers and their mother, in which their mother was allotted Ac.1.80 decimals of land for her maintenance. She was staying mostly either with PW14-Bhagaban Sahu or with the deceased. 

After her death, about four years prior to the date of occurrence, BrajabandhuSahu wanted to divide the landed property belonging to his mother, which was objected to by the other brothers. Disputes thus arose between BrajabandhuSahu and the appellant on one side and the other two brothers on the other side. This led to litigations between the parties. On October 9, 1988, Laxminarayan Sahu (deceased) went to his land to plough, the appellant reached there at about 12:30 PM and stabbed Laxminarayan Sahu repeatedly by using a knife, as a result of which Laxminarayan Sahu died at the spot.

On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The criminal appeal, before the Top Court, challenged the final judgment of the Orissa High Court, Cuttack affirming the judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

From the perusal of the evidence on record, the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the Trial Court and the High Court had basically rested the conviction on the basis of the testimonies of PW1-Kirtan Sahu, PW2-Nagendra Pradhan and PW3-Hrusikesh Sahu. The High Court also believed the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant to PW6-Purna Chandra Pradhan, who is a co- villager.

Another incriminating circumstance that the Trial Court and the High Court found against the appellant was with regard to the recovery of knife, as proved in the depositions of PW5-Harihar Behera and PW20-Choudhury Sasmal. Going through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the Bench observed that a serious doubt arose from the conduct of PW1 and PW2 as to whether they were really the eyewitnesses to the incident or not.

PW1 admitted that his statement was recorded 4-5 days after the date of the incident. The conduct of PW2 was more abnormal, particularly, when his son himself is a Police Havildar. 

It was noticed that after seeing such a gruesome incident, he chose to go to his Taila, which was about 2 miles away from the place of occurrence, and he returned from his Taila after 5 days and voluntarily gave his statement to the I.O. The I.O.s not going to his Taila to record his statement cast a serious doubt on the question as to whether this witness (PW2) was really an eyewitness or not.

Considering that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the Bench opined that it was doubtful as to whether both these witnesses had actually witnessed the incident or not.Moreover PW15 and PW16, who were also the eyewitnesses to the incident, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.

Though PW-6 referred to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant to him, however, on a perusal of his evidence, it was revealed that his evidence was full of improvements.

“The evidence of the I.O. and the Panch witnesses i.e., PW5 and PW20, would reveal that the recovery of weapon was made from an open place. The recovery is made from a Bhalupadi Bush of Naga Sahu Mango Tope of Village Uggi. As such, much reliance cannot be placed on such recovery. In any case, the conviction, solely based on such recovery, would not be tenable”, the Bench said.

The Bench found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Top Court acquitted the appellant of all the charges.