Case: Sonia Bahera Vs. State of Orissa

then after going to the place where the dead body was lying, he went to the police station and lodged the information at about 4 p. m. PW 3 stated before the police that he suspected the appellant as the person who was responsible for the unnatural death of the deceased as the appellant, who was a washerman had stated twice before that he was suffering because the deceased who was also a washerman, was washing the cloth of the villagers of Kanji Pani village which was his village. Curiously even though he had no idea of the weapon that was used for killing the deceased, he stated in the first information that an axe which belongs to him was missing from his house for about four days. It may be stated here that the case of prosecution is that the axe (MO 1) which was used in the commission of the offence belonged to PW 3. After the receipt of the first information police went to the place of occurrence and examined some persons in the course of investigation. PWs 1 and 2 were no doubt amongst the persons who were examined by the police. PW 1 who stated before the court that he had seen the appellant attacking the deceased with an axe in the morning of January 31, 1969 did not disclose that such an incident had taken place to anybody on that day. He further stated that he disclosed the fact relating to the occurrence to Baneswar Pradhan and Kandunia Pradhan in the morning of February 1, 1969. Baneswar Pradhan and Kandunia Pradhan have not been examined in the case. PW 2, Rosani is the wife of PW 3. Markanda who gave information to the police. She no doubt stated before the Court that she was present at the time of occurrence and saw the appellant attacking the deceased. She too did not disclose that such an incident had taken place to anybody in the village. Her husband, according to her, returned to the village on next day from the place called Gonasika to which he had gone earlier. She did not tell him that such an incident had taken place after his return on the next day, and according to her she did not mention the fact to him out of fear. She further stated that about four days prior to the occurrence of the incidence the appellant had taken the axe (MO 1) from her house and had not returned it. PW 3 Markanda, as mentioned earlier, came to know about the death of the appellant from his son. He admitted that the axe (MO 1) belonged to him and that it was missing from his house for about 4 days prior to the date of occurrence. He also says that he asked both Jatia (PW 5) who had accompanied him to the police station when he gave the information about the incident and also the appellant and that both of them had denied having taken the axe from his house. The reference to an axe belonging to PW 3 in the first information assumes importance in this case in assessing the evidence of the PWs and in particular of PWs 2 and 3 because that was a weapon belonging to them. Ordinarily, one would expect that the person who is the owner of the weapon that is used in committing a crime would be suspected or would be associated with the crime. Before the police when he gave the first information specifically referred to the missing of MO 1 from his house even though he had no idea of the particular weapon that had been used for killing the deceased. If PW 3 Markanda was really upset on account of the missing of the MO 1 he would normally first enquire the member of his household including his wife. PW 2 as to what had happened to it. While PW 2 stated that the appellant had taken it from her house and not returned it, PW 3 stated that he had no idea about the whereabouts of the axe. Introduction of the story about the missing axe into the first information creates a good deal of suspicion about the truth of the prosecution case. The prosecution further relied upon the extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused to PW 3 Markanda and PW 5 Jatia. This extra-judicial confession is stated to have been made by the appellant after their return from the police station. The police do not appear to have examined PW 5 after the alleged extra-judicial confession was made. This appears to be so, although the High Court has taken a contrary view on this question, from the deposition of PW 5 in which he stated in answer to a question put by the court that he was not examined by the police in the village after he returned from the police station. We are of the opinion that the extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the appellant in the circumstances of this case, right in relying upon it as a circumstance against the appellant. In view of what has been stated earlier, the recovery of MO 1 pursuant to a statement made by the appellant loses all importance in this case when it is admitted that MO 1 belonged to PWs 2 and 3 and not to the appellant. The evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 is discrepant as pointed out by the Sessions Judge. Their conduct in not telling anybody about the incident on the date of the incident also makes their evidence not worthy of acceptance. The other material before the court is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. This was not a case in which it could be said that the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Judge was either perverse or that only one opinion, namely, that the appellant was guilty of the offence was possible.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]While PW 2 stated that the appellant had taken it from her house and not returned it, PW 3 stated that he had no idea about the whereabouts of the axe. Introduction of the story about the missing axe into the first information creates a good deal of suspicion about the truth of the prosecution case. The prosecution further relied upon theconfession stated to have been made by the accused to PW 3 Markanda and PW 5 Jatia. Thisconfession is stated to have been made by the appellant after their return from the police station. The police do not appear to have examined PW 5 after the allegedconfession was made. This appears to be so, although the High Court has taken a contrary view on this question, from the deposition of PW 5 in which he stated in answer to a question put by the court that he was not examined by the police in the village after he returned from the police station. We are of the opinion that theconfession stated to have been made by the appellant in the circumstances of this case, right in relying upon it as a circumstance against the appellant. In view of what has been stated earlier, the recovery of MO 1 pursuant to a statement made by the appellant loses all importance in this case when it is admitted that MO 1 belonged to PWs 2 and 3 and not to the appellant. The evidence of thes PW 1 and PW 2 is discrepant as pointed out by the Sessions Judge. Their conduct in not telling anybody about the incident on the date of the incident also makes their evidence not worthy of acceptance. The other material before the court is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. This was not a case in which it could be said that the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Judge was either perverse or that only one opinion, namely, that the appellant was guilty of the offence was possible. In these circumstances, the High Court was in error in reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.