RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant faced trial in the Court of Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 14/664 of 2002 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of one Pabitra Kumar Samantray (hereinafter 'the deceased') on 27/28.6.2002 night at about 2 a.m. at Nua bazaar & also under Section 379 I.P.C. for committing theft of the motorcycle of the deceased bearing Regn. No. OR -13 -3419. The Learned Trial Court vide impugned Judgment & Order Dated 23.7.2004 convicted the Appellant under Section 302, I.P.C., & sentenced him to under go R.I. for imprisonment for life & also convicted him under Section 379 I.P.C. & sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On 28.6.2002 one Dhusasan Samantray (P.W. 7), who is the natural father of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer -in -Charge of Gop Police Station stating therein that on 27/28.6.2002 night at about 2.00 a.m. he received a telephone call from one Braja Kishore Routray (P.W. 5) that the Appellant after committing theft of the motorcycle of the deceased bearing Regn. No. OR -13 -3419 from the cashew nut camp, Nua bazaar was proceeding on that motor cycle & on the way he met an accident at Balighai square & leaving the motor cycle at the accident site, he escaped. Getting such news, P.W. 7 proceeded to the spot i.e., the cashew nut camp site, Nuabazar & found on the way that the motorcycle of the deceased was lying at Balighai square. He then proceeded to Nuabazar camp site & found the deceased lying there with bleeding injuries. A vegetable cutter & a laterite stone having bloodstains were also lying close to the deceased at the spot. The deceased was immediately shifted by Pravakar Chhotray (P.W. 18) & Prasanta Kumar Patsahani @ Abua (P.W. 15) to District Headquarters Hospital, Puri on a motorcycle. The informant ascertained from inquiry that during the evening hours on 27.6.2002 the deceased along with P.W. 15, P.W. 18, Kalandi Singh (P.W. 3), Padmanav Singh (P.W. 4), Sanjaya Singh (P.W. 2) & the Appellant had organized a feast which lasted upto 11 O'clock in the night & thereafter the Appellant & the deceased slept in the camp house & others returned back to their camps. The Appellant after committing theft of the motorcycle of the deceased was proceeding towards Balighai at a fast speed & on the way near F.C.I., Bazar, he was obstructed by one Kartik Singh & Bijaya Singh but he did not stop there & proceeded ahead & ultimately met with an accident at Balighai square. Suspecting that the Appellant had committed murder of the deceased by means of the vegetable cutter & laterite stone & also committed theft of the motorcycle of the deceased, the F.I.R. was lodged. At the time of lodging of the F.I.R., the deceased was hospitalized in a critical condition at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack.

(2.) THE defence plea was one of denial & it was pleaded by the Appellant that due to previous enmity with Kalu Singh (P.W. 3), he has been falsely entangled in the case.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY in this case there is no direct evidence as to who committed the crime, when it was committed or how it was committed. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. It is aptly said that "man may tell lies, but circumstances do not" but we should not forget that circumstances can be created/concocted/planted in order to falsely entangle a person on mere suspicion. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra reported in : AIR 1984 SC 1622, their Lordships have laid down five golden principles so as to constitute "Panchsheel" in the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence which are as follows: