TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 2045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Under Section 203 as well but were acquitted thereof by the Trial Court. Though an appeal was preferred by the State against such acquittal, the High Court has affirmed their exoneration as well. 3. We have heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Shibashish Misra for the Respondent. 4. The prosecution case unfolds with a written information lodged by Premananda Behra (PW12) with the police on 20.2.2000, whereby the unnatural death of his brother Santosh Behera by hanging from the roof of a shed adjacent to his (deceased) house, was reported. In the course of the investigation, following the registration of said information, Niranjan Behera (PW1) disclosed to Daitari Behera (PW5) that the Appellant along with the co-accused Pravati Behera had in the intervening night of 19/20.2.2000 murdered the deceased in his house and thereafter had suspended his dead body from the roof of the nearby shed. PW1 claimed to have witnessed the incident of murder. Following this information, the investigation took a different turn. The Appellant and the co-accused were arrested and eventually, charge-sheet was laid against them. 5. Notably, on 26.2.2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offences for which they had been charged. 8. Both the Appellant and co-accused preferred separate appeals before the High Court and as hereinbefore stated, by the decision assailed, their conviction Under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded thereupon was affirmed. The High Court, in determining so, sustained the prosecution's plea of motive of murder founded on extra-marital relationship between the Accused persons and arrived at the conclusion drawing sustenance from the evidence of PW1 as well as PW3, the mother of the deceased, who testified to have rebuked both of them for their deplorable conduct. The High Court, as well believed the version of the incident, as narrated by PW1 and disclosed to PW5, PW6 and PW8 albeit after a lapse of three days. The High Court accepted the explanation of PW1 for the delay in such disclosure that the Appellant had threatened him with dire consequences, if he did so. 9. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant has emphatically urged that as the testimony of PW1, the sole eye witness, as claimed by the prosecution, is wholly unbelievable, the conviction of the Appellant is palpably illegal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence/post-mortem report, also are inconsistent and contradictory in description, thus rendering the prosecution version highly improbable. The learned Counsel emphasised that the evidence on record by no means convincingly establish the illicit relationship between the Accused persons and that the High Court did fall in error in accepting the same. The following decisions were cited in endorsement of the arguments advanced. 1. Anil Phukhan v. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282 2. Ramji Surya Padvi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 3 SCC 629 3. Chuhar Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 879 4. State of A.P. v. Patnam Anandam (2005) 9 SCC 237 5. Mahamadkhan Nathekhan v. State of Gujarat (2014) 14 SCC 589 6. Budha Satya Venkata S. Rao and Ors. v. State of A.P. 1994 Supp(3) SCC 639 7. Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal (2010) 6 SCC 525 8. Nagraj v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu (2015) 4 SCC 739 10. In refutation, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-state has asserted that the evidence of the sole eye witness PW1 is coherent, consistent and cogent and is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ths' prior to the incident. The witness stated that he informed about this to the mother of the deceased, who rebuked the Accused persons. He stated that in the night of occurrence at 9.30 p.m., he had gone to witness a video show in the village, where the children of Parvati Behra, the co-accused were also present. According to him, in the course of the show, the Appellant asked him to accompany him for liquor and though the witness initially resisted, he eventually left the video show with the Appellant. He stated further that they then went to the house of Baisakhu Behera, where the Appellant purchased liquor and consumed the same and forced the witness as well to drink. The witness stated that they then proceeded towards their respective homes and when they were nearing their houses, the Appellant concealed himself in a lane near the house of the witness. PW1 stated that at that time, he saw the deceased and Pravati Behera coming out of their house to ease themselves. On their way back to the house, Pravati Behera entered first and when the deceased was about to enter, the Appellant struck him twice from the back, as a result of which, he (deceased) fell down. According to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t death was due to asphyxia by pressing of neck and was not due to hanging by rope. PW12, as already alluded to hereinabove, stated on oath that on 20.2.2000, he had gone to the house of the deceased to hand over the keys of his Sweet Meat Shop, where the deceased was employed, but was told by his wife from inside the house that he (deceased) had gone out by locking the door from outside. The witness stated that it was then 5/5.30 a.m. and when he returned with his torch light, he detected the dead body of Santosh Behera hanging from the roof of adjacent shed by a rope. He then requested PW5 to write a report which he thereafter lodged with the police. S.I. Narendra Kumar Sarangi (PW16) is the Investigating Officer, who enumerated the steps taken by him during the investigation and proved amongst others Ex P-11, the spot map. 15. The Accused persons in response to the questions, laying the incriminating evidence against them denied the correctness thereof and stood by their plea of innocence. 16. Before recording the final conclusions on the basis of the evidence on record, beneficial it would be to briefly note the legal propositions enunciated in the authorities cited at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words "proved", "disproved" and "not proved" lays down the standard of proof, namely, about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The Section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, "believe it to exist" and secondly in which though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The Act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the court believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man and now we come to the third stage where in the view of a prudent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shriek or raise any alarm either to prevent the occurrence or to muster assistance from the inhabitants in the locality. This is more so as he admitted that there were about 150 to 200 inhabitants, lodging nearby apart from the fact that the houses of his relatives as well of the deceased were almost in the same campus. His plea that he did not disclose the incident to others immediately as he had been threatened by the Appellant does not explain or justify in any manner whatsoever his inexplicable silence or indifference during the time of commission of occurrence. In the overall scenario, the plea of the defence that the evidence of PW1 is highly improbable, absurd and doubtful, cannot be lightly brush aside more particularly in view of the test of essentiality of the degree of certainty, necessary to accept that the facts narrated by this witness as proved. To recall, the incident at the first place had been registered as a case of unnatural death and was after six days of the occurrence converted into one Under Sections 302/203/34 Indian Penal Code against the Appellant and the co-accused on the disclosures made by PW1, PW5, PW6 and PW8. Apart from the fact that testimony of PW....