KANSA BEHERA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1096 · Decided: 12-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
KANSA BEHERA 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
APRIL 12, 1987 
[V.' KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Indian ·Penal Code-Section 302-Conviction on circumstantial 
evidence-When valid-Circumstance of accused being with the 
deceased on the evening of occurrence-Whether sufficient to convict 
,,1.. 
accused. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3 and 14-Circumstantia/ 
evidence-Conviction based on-When valid-Circumstance of accu-
sed being with deceased on the evening of occurrence-Whether suffi-
cient when other accused from whom instrument of offence recovered is 
acquitted. 
The prosecution alleged that the deceased had some land dispute 
with one of the accused and his two brothers, that the deceased was 
done away through the instrumentality of the appellant and that his 
body with the throat cut was found by the road-side. The brother-in-
law of the deceased identified the dead body and lodged information 
E with the police. After investigation, the appellant and the other accused 
were arrested. The weapon of offence was produced by the other 
accused. Both the accused were remanded to judicial custody for the 
alleged murder of the deceased. The appellant escaped and was 
declared as absconder. The other accused was discharged for want of 
prima facie case against him. 
F 
After a long lapse of time, the appellant was apprehended and was 
committed to sessions. On the basis of circumstantial evidence that the 
appellant was seen with the deceased on the evening preceding the day 
on which the deceased was found dead, that a dhoti and shirt, stained 
with human blood, were recovered from his possession when he was 
G arrested and that an extra-judicial confession was made by him when he 
was arrested after absconding, he was convicted under Section 302 of 
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The High 
Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence, the appellant. 
appealed to this Court. 
H 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
1096 
.... 
K. BEHllRA v. St A 1'E OF ORI SSA 
1097 
HELD: 1. It is li settled rule of circumstantial evidence that each A 
one of the cirtillnstances bas to be established beyond doubt and all the 
circumstances put together hlilst lead to the only inference and that is of 
the guilt of the accused. [l101E] 
2.l(a) It is not in dispute that the appellant was seen with the B 
deceased on the evening preceding the night when the deceased Is 
alleged to have been killed. this fact has been established by the 
evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 and the appellant himself has admitted it, 
even though his case was that the throat of the deceased was cut by the 
other accused, Even the wife of the deceased has deposed that the appel· 
lant had told her that her husband was lying dead. It is clear that only 
on the basl!i of this clrcmnstance the appellant could not have been C 
convicted. [1099C.f)j 
2.l(b) As regards recovery of a shirt and dhoti with blood stains, 
there iii no evldellce In the report of the Serologist about the blood 
group and, therefore, the evidence could not positively be connected 
with the deceased. the evidence of blood group is only conclusive to D 
connect the blood stains with the deceased. In the absence of such 
evidence, this could not be a circumstance on the basis of w,hich any 
inference could be drawn. [llOlB·Dl 
2.l(c) Regarding the extra-judicial confession by the appellant, E 
made after a long lapse of time, no reliance could be placed on It, 
especially in view of the circumstances in which the appellant 
was apprehended and the statement made, and also because of the 
denial by one of the two witnesses that the appellant had made by 
confession. [llOOF·llOIA] 
2.2 The only circumstances which could be said to have been F 
established is of the appellant being with the deceased in the evening 
and on that circumstance alone the Inference of guilt could not be 
drawn especially in the circumstances of the case where another ac· 
cosed person from whom an instrument of offence was recovered 11nd 
who had a grudge against the deceased, had been let off. [llOlF] 
3. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are 
set aside. [llOlG] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal. 
No. 323 of 1978. 
G 
H 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1976 of the Orissa High 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1of1974. 
N.K. Agarwal for the Appellant. 
Ms:Mona Mehta and R.K. Mehta for the Resp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.