SABITRI SAMANTARAY versus STATE OF ODISHA

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
SABITRI SAMANTARAY
v.
STATE OF ODISHA
(Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017)
MAY 20, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 304(II) – Prosecution case
that victim-deceased was strangulated to death by the appellants
(husband and wife) along with their daughter in their house and
an attempt was made to conceal identity of deceased by pouring
acid over the dead body – Trial Court convicted appellants and
their daughter for the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced
them to rigorous imprisonment for life – However, the High Court
acquitted daughter of all the charges and upheld the conviction of
the appellants – The conviction of the appellants was modified
u/s.304(II) IPC and sentence term was reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for a term of five years – On appeal, held: In the
instant case, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the
intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence – Such
an intention, when analyzed in light of the statements made by all
the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased
at the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case
that death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants –
Therefore, once the prosecution had successfully established the
chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it
otherwise – The appellants had failed to offer any credible defense
– The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of the appellants
– No error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge – The Section in no way exonerates the prosecution
from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it
merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an
intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus
of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not
on the prosecution – If the accused had a different intention than
the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. From the statement of PW 9, it can be inferred
that at the time of death of the deceased, only the accused
appellants were present inside the house. Furthermore, the
contention of the appellants that the gathered mass of people
had in fact assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face, has
rightly been rejected by the High Court as being devoid of any
material evidence made in support of the claim. Deceased’s sister
(PW 12) in her statement, further stated that prior to his death,
deceased had left the house exclaiming that he would either come
back along with the daughter of the appellants or would get his
money back. This statement was further confirmed by PW-7 and
8, who were the friend and cousin brother of the deceased,
respectively. It was therefore rightly observed by the High Court
that the statement of these second set of witnesses clearly spells
out a motive for the commission of offence. It also establishes
that the claim made by the accused appellants that the deceased
was not known to them is also false, especially considering that
their daughter (accused no. 3) has admitted in her deposition
that the deceased used to visit the house of the appellants. [Paras
21 & 22][284-F; 285-A-C]
2. In the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded
in establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of
the offence. Such an intention, when analyzed in the light of the
statements made by all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries
sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time, certainly
makes out a strong case that death of the deceased was indeed
caused by the appellants. Therefore, once the prosecution had
successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on
the appellants to prove it otherwise. Thus, the High Court rightly
observed that in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
onus was now on the appellants to disclose how the deceased
lost his life. Having regard to the above facts and reasons stated
therewith, it can be deduced that the entire sequence of events
strongly point towards the guilt of the accused appellants, and
that the appellants have failed to offer any credible defense in
this regard. The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of
the appellants. [

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