MANJU ALIAS MOHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, it was alleged, committed the murder of Ghana Behera (hereinafter referred to as the deceasedT) during the night of the 5th/6th June, 1980 near village Talabeda in the district of Dhenkanal by means of a Katari (M.O. I) belonging to the appellant because some time prier to this occurrence, the deceased had, in a state of drunkenness, quarrelled with the appellant and had hit his head by a bottle which broke into pieces causing a bleeding injury on the person of the appellant as noticed by the doctor (P.W. 1) for which the appellant had kept a grudge and had the atened to see the deceased where after in the following morning, the dead body of the murdered deceased was seen by the side of the road with M.O. I and its handle (M.O. II) lying near that spot with a banian (M.O. III) stained with blood said to be belonging to the appellant kept in a bush nearby. To bring home the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses while he appellant, who had denied the charge, had not examined any witness in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had established its case and accordingly the appellant was convicted for the offence with which he stood charged and sentence the under to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) Mr. S.K. Padhi, appearing for the appellant, has contended that the circumstances on which the prosecution sought reliance had not been established and even assuming that they had been, the circumstances taken together could not lead to but one conclusion that the appellant was the author of the crime. Mr. Mohanty, appearing for the State, has submitted that the motive on the part of the appellant and the recovery of M.O. I near the spot would indicate that it was he who had killed the deceased.

(3.) In a case depending on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established and the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and incompatible with his innocence. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. Speaking for the Supreme Court, V. R. Krishna Iyer, ]., dealing with the probative value of circumstantial evidence, has observed in the case of Dharma Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh.Every evidentiary circumstance of a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out with certainty.. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of sure guilt, binding the accused. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again may manacle the accused inescapably. Only then can a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. Short of that is insufficient. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has observed and held: A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfined before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: