Moral Conviction Not Substitute For Legal Verdict Based On Facts & Law: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing Adoptive Parents In 1996

The Orissa High Court has acquitted a man who was convicted for allegedly killing his adoptive parents in the year 1996.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by the accused challenging the Trial Court’s Judgment which found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

A Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed, “In our opinion, the legal duty to separate the grain from the chaff has been abandoned by the learned trial Court and therefore, the entire approach is faulty and fallible which deserves to be rectified and upturned. Law is well settled that the fouler the crime, the higher should be the proof. In the absence of legal proof of a crime, there can be no legal criminality. Moral Conviction regarding the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime cannot be a substitute for a legal verdict based upon facts and law.”

The Bench said that the conviction seems to be based more on surmise and conjecture than on any reliable evidences from which an irresistible conclusion about the complicity of the accused in committing the murder, can at all be drawn.

Advocate Sashibhusan Das appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Partha Sarathi Nayak appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, the deceased couple (D1 and D2) had adopted the Appellant-accused who was the son of the sister of D2, in the year 1993 as their son and executed a registered deed of adoption. The accused along with his first wife was residing with the deceased couple in their house. The accused deserted his first wife and married the co-accused. He brought her to the house of the deceased couple at the teeth of their opposition sowing the seeds of discord. There was also bickering amongst them as the accused was insisting for recording the properties of the adoptive father in his name. The accused with his co-accused wife started living in a separate mess in the same house where the deceased couple was also residing.

In August 1996, the accused and his second wife allegedly attacked the deceased couple in their bedroom killing D1 instantaneously and critically injuring D2 who lost her sense. Thereafter, the accused lodged an FIR stating that the deceased couple often used to assault each other and on the day of incident, they had a round of quarrels over preparation of cakes to celebrate ‘Chitalagi Amabasya’, in course of which they had sworn to kill each other. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) found the complicity of the accused and his wife in the crime for which he lodged an FIR in 1997. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that suspicion, howsoever strong, should not be allowed to take the place of proof. A moral opinion howsoever strong or genuine and suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute a legal proof. A very careful, cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to the plane of ‘must be true’.”

The Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to establish any motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime by adducing clinching evidence and therefore, it has to scrutinize the materials available on record carefully to see as to how far the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the other incriminating circumstances and whether the chain of circumstances is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt of the accused.

“The chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the Court in drawing an inference and thus the task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abandoned caution”, it added.

The Court emphasised that the prosecution has a bounden duty to lead an impenetrable chain of evidence suggesting the guilt of the accused and it must stand on its own leg without borrowing credence from falsity of defence evidence.

“A false plea set up by the defence can at best be considered as an additional circumstance against the accused provided that the other evidence on record unfailingly point towards his guilt”, it elucidated.

The Court remarked that the circumstances have not been established with clinching evidence and the circumstances taken together do not form a complete chain.

“The motive behind the commission of the crime has not been proved by the prosecution. The conduct of the appellant after the occurrence was very natural and cannot lead to any inference of guilt. The inconsistent plea taken by the appellant coupled with his presence in the spot house in another room in the night of occurrence and his absconding after registration of the second F.I.R. cannot be the sole factor to find him guilty of the offences charged”, it said.

Conclusion

The Court further observed that the assessment of the evidence has not been done in accordance of law by the Trial Court and no conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence since adduced in the case.

“The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant and the reasonings assigned for arriving at such conclusion is not borne out of the record and it seems that the learned trial Court has proceeded pedantically without making an in-depth analysis of facts and circumstances and the evidences laid in the trial”, it also added.

The Court, therefore, held and concluded that the case against the accused has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha (Case Number: CRA No.229 of 2000)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Sashibhusan Das, Biplab S., and S. Padhi.

Respondent: AGA Partha Sarathi Nayak

Click here to read/download the Judgment