THE STATE OF ODISHA versus BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 612 · Decided: 12-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 612
THE STATE OF ODISHA
v.
BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/201 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case
was that the victim-deceased was found dead in shop of accused
with a swollen belly and deep burn injury on right foot and blood
was oozing out of his mouth and nostrils – In the FIR lodged by
complainant-wife of the deceased, she had stated that on the fateful
day, the first accused-respondenthad come to her house and told
her that the deceased was lying motionless and not responding to
calls and thereafter younger son of first accused also came and
gave similar information – Complainant alleged that first accused
and his son committed murder of her husband by applying electric
shock after administering poisonous substances to him – As per
post mortem report, cause of death was electric shock, suffered by
the deceased within 24 hours from the time of examination – The
post mortem doctor opined that the deceased was intoxicated with
alcohol and the death was either accidental, or homicidal, but not
suicidal – Acquittal by trial court – High Court dismissed state’s
application for leave to appeal on the ground of delay of 41 days
but after considering the merits of application for leave to appeal –
State’s appeal against acquittal – Held: The mere fact that the
deceased was lying dead at a room held by accused respondent
No.1 and that the accused had informed the complainant that the
deceased had been lying motionless and still, and not responding
to shouts and calls, would not establish that the respondents
murdered the deceased – The post mortem report suggests that the
death could have been accidental – Of the nine prosecution
witnesses, three witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution
– There were apparent inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent
improbabilities in the statements of witnesses – Prosecution miserably
failed to establish the guilt of the accused Respondents – The
impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the
612
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
ground of delay did not call for interference under Art.136 of the
Constitution of India.
Appeal against acquittal: An appeal against acquittal has
always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal
against conviction – In an appeal against acquittal, where the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced,
the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only
when there is perversity – In this case, it cannot be said that the
reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the
accused were flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse
appreciation of evidence.
Criminal law: Case based on circumstantial evidence – Before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of
the accused – There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as
not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution appears to have examined 9
witnesses. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The
deceased had apparently died in a room held by the Accused
Respondent No.1. The Accused Respondents did not abscond.
The Accused Respondents themselves informed the complainant
that the deceased was lying still and motionless, not responding
to calls. [Para 14][618-E-F]
1.2 The post mortem Report of the deceased reveals that
the cause of death was electric shock, suffered by the deceased
within 24 hours from the time of examination. On post mortem
examination, the Doctor found food particles including meat in
the stomach of the deceased, and also detected smell of alcohol.
The post mortem doctor opined that the deceased was intoxicated
with alcohol and the death was either accidental, or homicidal,
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
but not suicidal. There is no conclusive evidence that the death
was homicidal. [Para 15][618-F-H]
1.3 The compl

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