LexKUNA@ SANJAYA BEHERA versus THE STATE OF ODISHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] l l S.C.R. 179
KUNA@ SANJAYA BEHERA
v.
THE STATE OF ODISHA
(Criminal Appeal No. 677 of20 IO)
NOVEMBER 17. 2017
[N. V. RA.MANA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ. J
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 203 rlw. s.34 - Alleged extra-
marital relationship between appellant-accused and the co-accused
A
B
- Dead body of husband of co-accused found hanging from the
C
roof of a shed adjacent to deceased's house - PWJ (deceased'.~
nephew) was the sole eye-witness - Trial court convicted the
appellant and co-accused uls.302 !PC rlw s.34, however, discarded
the prosecution case of illicit relationship between accused persons
and the same being the motive of murder - High Court affirmed the
conviction, accepting the prosecutions plea of motive of murder D
founded on extra-marital relationship between accused persons -
On appeal, held: Testimony of PW/ with regard to illicit relationship
between the accused persons lacks in persuasion - Evidence of
PW/ is unacceptable being fraught with improbabilities, doubts and
oddities inconceivable with normed human conduct and, tlms cannot
be the basis of conviction - In the present case, the incident at the
fir.st place was registered as a case of wmatural death and ajier six
days of the occurrence it was converted into one 11/s. 3021203134,
on aie disclosures made by PWJ, PW5, PW6 and PW8 - Testimony
E
F
of PW5, PW6 and PW8 cannot be construed as substantive in nature,
these witnesses having derived the knowledge from PWI -
Prosecution has failed to prove JI licit relationship between appellant
and co-accused and therefore, t/1e motive for the murder by them -
Dehors the testimony of PW/ and the alleged motive, there is no
other tangible and clinching material 011 record in support of.the
charge against the appellant and the co-accused - Contrary view
G
taken by the Courts below is againsr the evidence on record -
Inference of motive drawn by the High Court is flawed - Appellant
is entitled to benefit of doubt and is acquitted.
Evidence Act. 1872 - s.3 - Fact -''proved", disproved" and
"not proved""- Standard of proof" required for - Discussed.
179
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] ll S.C.R.
A
Evidence- Of sole eye-witness - Held: Conviction can be
B
c
based on the testimony of a single eye willless if he or she passes
the rest of reliability - It is not the number of witnesses but the
quality of evidence that is important.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.I Conviction can be based on a testimony of a
single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and it
is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is
important. In a case where the charge is sought to be proved
only on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part
in order to tilt the scale.(Paras 17, 18](190-D-F)
Mahamadkhan Nathekhan v. State of Gujarat {2014)
14 SCC 589: (2014) 7 SCR 777 - relied on.
1.2 The expression "proved", "disproved" and "not
proved", lays down the standard of proof, about the existence or
D
non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a
prudent man, so much so that while adopting the said requirement,
as an appropriate concrete standard to measure "prool'', full effect
has to be given to the circumstances or wnditions of probability
or improbability. It is this degree of certainty, existence of which
E
should be arrived at from the attendant circumstances, before a
fact can be said to be proved. (Para 2111192-B-C)
F
G
H
2.1 PWI is related both to the deceased and the accused-
appellant. Whereas the deceased was his uncle, the appellant is
his cousin brother. He claimed to have accompanied the appellant
from the video show till the place of occurrence. At the relevant
time, he was admittedly intoxicated. The incident, as per the
prosecution version, occurred between la.m. to 2a.m. in the
intervening night in the house of the deceased which was located
about 15 cubits from the compound where the house of PWl was
situated. The spot map prepared by the l.O. docs not mention
about any source of light in the locality. It docs not even indicate
as to whether the area was lighted at the time of the incident so
as to make the viewing of the incident possible by PWl from the
place, where he was locatt•d. Though PWl claimed that the
KUNA@ SANJAYA BEHERA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA
181
duration of the incident was about one hour, he did not utter a
A
sound or make a shriek or raise any alarExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.