Holding

The prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC is upheld.

Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC after the dead body of the deceased was found near the Hati River. The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, such as the last sighting of the accused and the deceased together, recovery of blood‑stained clothing, the missing gold chain, and forensic reports linking the blood group of the stains to the deceased. Both the trial court and the Orissa High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and rejected the accused's defence of total denial. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether any inconsistencies warranted setting aside the conviction. The Court concluded that the cumulative evidence, including forensic analysis, unambiguously pointed to the accused’s guilt and there was no ground to interfere with the conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the life imprisonment sentence upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Whether any discrepancies in the evidence affect the validity of the conviction
Whether the forensic findings and recovery of the gold chain constitute conclusive proof of the accused's involvement
Whether the appellate court can set aside the conviction on the basis of alleged evidential gaps

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 15, s. 27, s. 9
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidencelife imprisonmentforensic analysisblood groupgold chainconviction upheld

Judgment

BIBHACHHA v. STATE [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 547

638 of 1998. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.97 of the Orissa High Court in
Crl. A. No. 185 of 1991.

S.C. Patel for the Appellant.

Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondent.
B

The Judgment of the Court was deliver~d by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment
of the High Court of Orissa confirming the judgment of conviction and order
sentencing the appellant to suffer life imprisonment. The appellant was the C
sole accused.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 16.11.1989 Damodar Patel
(PW-I) while had gone to respond the call of nature found one dead body
lying on the sandy riverbed of Hati River. There was only chaddi on the dead D
body, The pant and shirt were lying at a distance from the dead body and
one motorcycle was kept by the side of the pillar ()f the bridge. PW-I came
to the village and told about the same to one Madho Naik. Both of them went
to police station at Jaipatna and orally reported the incident in the police
station at iaipatna. The report was reduced to writing. A U.D. case No. 9/89
was registered. The investigating Officer held inquest of the dead body and E
the same was sent to post-mortem. The dead body was identified to be of the
deceased. After completion. of the investigation, charge- sheet was laid. The
appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC in the Sessions
Court. The defence of the appellant was .one of total denial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 39 witnesses. F
The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence only. PW-1 is the
informant. Siba Sankar Padhi (PW-2) is the father of the deceased who identified
the dead body of the deceased and found that gold chain, which the deceased
was usually wearing, was missing. Binayak Behera (PW-8) deposed that the
deceased and accused were moving together on 15.11.1989 on motor vehicle G
and that the deceased had told him that he was to purchase a revolver from
the accused. Udayanath .Panigrahi (PW-9) also found the accused and the
deceased together taking tea in the shop of PW-8 on 15.ll.1989. Malaya
Chandra Maher (PW-13) stated that the accused purchased a soap at about
-~
9.15 P.M. on 15.11.1989 and Pradumna Kumar Mehar (PW-14), who
accompanied him, found the accused washing his cloth. PW-15 is the hotel H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A keeper. The accused and the deceased were last seen by him on 15 .11.1989.
He found that the deceased was wearing a gold chain. PW-16 identified the
pant of the accused. PW-19 stated that one Rama Saraf offered him to
purchase one gold chain for Rs. 4,400 on 16.11.1989. Kusa alias Sona Mehar
(PW-20) deposed that Chasiram Meher came with a gold chain and weighed
B it and received the gold chain on payment of Rs.4,400/- on 17 .11.1989; the
gold chain (M.O.l.) was given to Ramachandra Saraf after coming to know
_that it was involved in a murder case. The gold chain was seized in the
presence of PW-21. PW-22 is a Medical Officer, who held post-mortem of the
· deceased. PW-23 is a witness to the seizure of shawl, pant and shirt stained
with blood. PWs-25, 26 and 27 are the witnesses for seizure. PW-29 is a
C witness to the discovery of Kati (M.O.VII) seized from inside the sandy
waterbed ofHati River. PW-31 is one of the I.Os., who recorded the F.l.R. and
PW-32 is the 1.0., who sent other articles for chemical examination. PW-33 is
a witness who saw the deceased and the accused going towards Jaipatna at
about 6.00 P.M. on 15.11.1989. PW-34 . is one of the I.Os., who seized Kati and
gold chain. The learned Sessions Jtidge having appreciated the evidence on
D record summed up in para 20 thus: -

"The evidence of PWs. are cogent and consistent to bring about a
conviction on the evidence are unimpeachable in character and have
shown unerringly the guilt of the accused. The accused had
E intentionally committed murder of the deceased which is fourid in the
evidence of movements of the accused OQ 15.11.1989 in and without
the company of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased was
found on the next day of the occurrence with the injuries cm the
deceased and missing of M.O. I from the person of the deceased,
recovery ofM.O. IV, V and VI and the blood stains found in M.O. VI,
F IV and V and·the blood stains found in M.O. VI and recovery of the
M.O. VII from inside water from river bed and the recovery ofM.0.
I of 1he deceased which was disposed of by sale aftet the occurrence
have completed the chain of circumstances leading to a definite
conclusion that the accused intentionally colllIILitted murder of the
deceased. There are some discrepancies in the evidence which do not
G
have any adverse impact on the charge of the prosecution."

The.High Court on re-appreciation and analysis of the evidence in the light
of the submissions made at the Bar, concluded that the prosecution has been
able to prove, such of the circumstances relied 1on by it to complete the chain
H of circumstances against the accused to bring home the -charge beyond all
'
t

BIBHACHHA v. STATE [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 549
reasonable doubt. In this view, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order A
~ of conviction recorded by the trial judge, dismissed the appeal by the impugned
~ judgment.

';:-
The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the prosecution has
failed to establish its case to sustain the order of conviction; the prosecution
case depends on the circumstantial evidence only and the circumstances are B
not established so as to point only to the accused that he is guilty. According
to him the chain of circumstances is not. complete and there are several
doubts and discrepancies in the prosecution case. Per contra, the learned
)
counsel for the respondent-State made-submissions supporting the impugned
judgment. He submitted that both the courts on proper and objective c
assessment and appre9iation of evidence have found the appellant guilty of
offence under Section 302 IPC and this Court under the circumstances may
not upset the impugned judgment.

It is no doubt true that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial
evidence only. The circumstances as unfolded during the trial and as reflected D
in the judgments of the Sessions Court as. well as the High Court broadly
_..,.___
stated are the following: -

1. The accused and the deceased were last seen together on
15.11.1989 as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses.
E
2. Recovery of one yellow colour full shirt (M.0. IV), Ash colour
full pant (M.O. V) and one shawl (M.O. VI) at the instance of
the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 18.11.1989
under Exbt. 13 in the presence of PWs 23, 25 and 30 and one
Ishwar Panigrahi. PWs-7 and 15 stated that the shirt (M.O. IV)
and pant (M.O. V) were worn by the accused on 15.11.1989. The F
apparels seized under Exbt. 13 contained blood stains.

3. Recovery of the gold chain by PW-34 from one Sardar Kar Saraf
on 30.11.1989 under E~bt. 9 in the presence of PWs-21 and 26 .
.-
4. PWs-4 and 15 stated that the gold chain (M.O. I) was being
G
worn by the deceased.

5. The statements of PWs-19, 20 and 27 made in connection with

- ~

6.
the transaction, sale of the gold chain at the request of the
accused.

The recovery of Kathury (Kati) (M.O. VII) by the 1.0. at the H

)
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A instance of the accused under Exbt. 15 in the presence of PW-
29.
7. The opinion of the doctor, PW-22, who conducted autopsy on
the possibility of injuries of deceased by weapon like kati (M.0.
Vil).
B 8. Presence of human blood on clothes seized.

These circumstarn;:es are ·supported· and established by acceptable
evidence as rightly held by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.

Both the courts on proper appreciation of evidence have concurrently
C recorded· the _findings that the accused is guilfy. We may add that as per the
report of the chemical examiner of State Forensic Science Laboratory, one
white chaddi, worn by the deceased, marked as 'E' and sample sand marked
as 'F', 'H' and- 'J' were extensively stained with blood. A few small patches
of blood stains were also detected on shawl marked as 'C'. Blood stains were
D not detected on iron kati. It may be stated here itself that the same was
discovered from bed of flowing river. It is evident from the report of Serologist
(Exbt. 19) that portion of shawl and portion of chaddi were stained with
human blood, so also sample of sand. The High Court has also noticed that
the chemical examiner foti_nd that th_e blood stains found on the shawl (M.0.
VII) was of group ·,B' and that. the blood. group of the deceased was also of·
E group 'B'.

Thus having regard to all these aspects we are of the view that the
. prosecution has proved that each one of the circumstances aforementioned
point to the guilt of the accused and the cumulative effect of all the
circumstances too undoubtedly indicate guilt of the accused excluding any
F other hypothesis. More so, in this case when the defence of the accused is
one of total denial. We have no good reason or valid ground to interfere with
the imi;-ugned judgment.

In view of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
G Hence it is dismissed.
S.VK. Appeal dismissed.