2025 INSC 206
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJIV KHANNA, CJI. AND HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.)
SIBA NIAL @ TRILOCHAN
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal No. 674 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9244 of 2024)-Decided on
11-02-2025
Criminal, Murder
Penal Code, 1860,
Sections 302 and 109 - Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Evidence of last seen – Motive –
Discrepancies in evidence – Disclosure statement - PW-4 in his Court
deposition, did not claim having seen the person(s) who had shot dead the two
deceased - This was also confirmed by the informant, PW-1, who did not name any
particular person as a culprit in the FIR - PW-2, the wife of the informant,
PW-1, deposed on similar lines and did not name the culprit - None of these
witnesses deposed about how the offence was committed and why they did not hear
any gunshots - Appellant, and the co-accused who is the son-in-law of PW-1, were
arrested nearly 9 days after the occurrence - The appellant, is the nephew of the co-accused who is absconding after release
on bail - Prosecution primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7,
who were neighbours residing in the vicinity - They deposed that, during the
intervening night of 31.05.2023 and 01.06.2023, they had seen the appellant and
the co-accused on a motorcycle near the house where the deceased people were
staying - While the appellant remained
near the motorcycle, co-accused had gone up and thereupon, PW-5 and PW-7 heard
the sound of two bullets being fired - Later on, the appellant, and the co-accused, drove away on the
motorcycle - Held that the versions of PW-5 and PW-7 is intriguing, doubtful
and debatable because of their silence from 01.06.2013 till 09.06.2013 - This
is significant given the fact that the locality must have been shaken on coming
to know that a couple in the neighbourhood had been shot dead - The postmortem
report, marked as Exhibit 10, and the deposition of Dr. PW-16 as well as the
ballistic report Exhibit 17 are ambiguous and do not support the prosecution’s
version - Postmortem report Exhibit 10 and the deposition of Dr. PW-16 indicate
that the external injury on the head could have been due to a rifle firearm
bullet that was not fired from close range - However, as per
the depositions of PW-5 and PW-7, the bullets were fired from a close
range after co-accused of the appellant had climbed onto the terrace to commit
the offence - PW-4, in his deposition, did refer to motive, as there was
statedly a property dispute between the deceased, and the co-convict – Held
that due to the deficiencies and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the
guilt of the appellant does not stand proved and established beyond reasonable
doubt - The impugned judgment, confirming the conviction of the appellant,
accordingly set aside.
(Para
3 to 10)
ORDER
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal by Siba Nial @ Trilochan challenges the judgment of affirmation by
the High Court confirming his conviction under Sections
302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[For short, “IPC.”], for the murder of Dhaneswar Kata and his wife,
Nirupama Kata, during the intervening night of 31.05.2013 and 01.06.2013.
3.
The case of the prosecution, as reflected in First Information Report[For short, “FIR.”] No. 72/2013
dated 01.06.2013 registered with Police Station – IIC, Boden, District -
Nuapada, Odisha, is that Dhaneswar Kata and Nirupama Kata were found dead on
the terrace of the house on the morning of 01.06.2013, having suffered gunshot
injuries. They had gone to sleep on the previous night on the terrace of the
house along with other family members, namely, Dhananjaya Kata, who was
examined as PW-4, and Kishor Bachha, who was not examined.
3.
Dhananjaya Kata (PW-4), in his Court deposition, did not claim having seen the
person(s) who had shot dead Dhaneswar Kata and Nirupama Kata. This was also confirmed
by the informant, Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1), who did not name any particular
person as a culprit in the FIR (Exhibit 1). Dalimba Kata (PW-2), the wife of
the informant, Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1), deposed on similar lines and did not
name the culprit. None of these witnesses deposed about how the offence was
committed and why they did not hear any gunshots.
4.
The appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, and the co-accused, Prabhulal, who is the
son-in-law of Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1), were arrested on 09.06.2013, that is,
nearly 9 days after the occurrence. The appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, is
the nephew of Prabhulal, the co-accused. Prabhulal, it is stated, absconded
after being released on bail and has not been arrested till date.
5.
To prove its case against the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, the prosecution
primarily relied upon the testimonies of Manoranjan Behera (PW-4) and Krutibash
Chhatria (PW-7), who were neighbours residing in the vicinity. They deposed
that, during the intervening night of 31.05.2023 and 01.06.2023, they had seen
the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, and the co-accused, Prabhulal, on a
motorcycle near the house where the deceased people were staying. While the
appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, remained near the motorcycle, Prabhulal had
gone up and thereupon, Manoranjan Behera (PW-4) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7)
heard the sound of two bullets being fired. Later on, the appellant, Siba Nial
@ Trilochan, and the co-accused, Prabhulal, drove away on the motorcycle.
6.
What is intriguing and makes the versions of Manoranjan Behera (PW-5) and
Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7) doubtful and debatable is their silence from
01.06.2013 till 09.06.2013. This is significant given the fact that the
locality must have been shaken on coming to know that Dhaneswar Kata and his
wife, Nirupama Kata, had been shot dead. As noticed above, the FIR (Exhibit 1)
does not name any culprit or perpetrator. We have already referred to the
depositions of Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1) and Dalimba Kata (PW-2), who had deposed on
similar lines. Dhananjaya Kata (PW-4), who was sleeping with both the deceased
persons on the terrace of the house, has also not named the perpetrators,
though he is the person who would have seen the persons committing the crime
given the fact that both Manoranjan Behera (PW-5) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7)
have deposed that there was the sound of gunshots being fired, not once but
twice.
7.
The prosecution also relied upon the disclosure statement of the appellant,
Siba Nial @ Trilochan, which led to the recovery of the pistol marked as
Exhibit M.O.I along with the Magazine marked as Exhibit M.O.II which were
seized vide seizure memo, Exhibit 4. These recoveries were made on 09.06.2013.
The postmortem report, marked as Exhibit 10, and the deposition of Dr. Jitender
Kumar Soren (PW-16) as well as the ballistic report (Exhibit 17), however, are
ambiguous and do not support the prosecution’s version. In fact, the postmortem
report (Exhibit 10) and the deposition of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Soren (PW-16)
indicate that the external injury on the head could have been due to a rifle
firearm bullet that was not fired from close range. However, as per
the depositions of Manoranjan Behera (PW-5) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7),
the bullets were fired from a close range after Prabhulal had climbed onto the
terrace to commit the offence.
8.
The ballistic report (Exhibit 17) records that a country-made semi-automatic
pistol, four rounds of cartridges and two magazines were sent for examination
on 22.07.2013. As recorded above, the pistol along with cartridges, etc., as
per the police version and the testimony of Salya Naik (PW-17), the
investigating officer, were recovered on 09.06.2013. Thereafter, another sealed
packet was received by the forensic laboratory from the Biology and Serology
Division on 13.11.2014. The result of the examination, as per the ballistic
report (Exhibit 17), was that the body wall of the cases were found bulged
indicating that they were fired from a country- made firearm. However, the
percussion caps of both the cartridge cases were missing. Thus, it was not
possible to compare the firing pin marks on the cartridge cases found at the
spot with the test-fired cartridge cases. With reference to the deformed,
jacketed bullets, on examination, the report opined that individual
characteristics of striation marks on the two bullets found in the bodies were
not sufficient for comparison with the test-fired bullets.
9.
Dhananjaya Kata (PW-4), in his deposition, did refer to motive, as there was
statedly a property dispute between the deceased, Dhaneswar Kata, and the
co-convict, Prabhulal. However, he also deposed that his brother, Dhaneswar
Kata, had gotten married to Nirupama, who was from a different caste, being a
Brahmin, and there was opposition to their marriage from both sides, that
is, from the families of Dhaneswar Kata as well as Nirupama Kata.
10.
In view of the aforesaid discussion highlighting the deficiencies and
discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the guilt of the appellant, Siba Nial
@ Trilochan, does not stand proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. The
impugned judgment, confirming the conviction of the appellant, Siba Nial @
Trilochan, is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.
11.
The appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, shall be released from jail forthwith,
unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case.
12.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------