THE STATE OF ODISHA versus BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 612, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 612
THE STATE OF ODISHA
v.
BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1156 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/201 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case
was that the victim-deceased was found dead in shop of accused
with a swollen belly and deep burn injury on right foot and blood
was oozing out of his mouth and nostrils – In the FIR lodged by
complainant-wife of the deceased, she had stated that on the fateful
day, the first accused-respondenthad come to her house and told
her that the deceased was lying motionless and not responding to
calls and thereafter younger son of first accused also came and
gave similar information – Complainant alleged that first accused
and his son committed murder of her husband by applying electric
shock after administering poisonous substances to him – As per
post mortem report, cause of death was electric shock, suffered by
the deceased within 24 hours from the time of examination – The
post mortem doctor opined that the deceased was intoxicated with
alcohol and the death was either accidental, or homicidal, but not
suicidal – Acquittal by trial court – High Court dismissed state’s
application for leave to appeal on the ground of delay of 41 days
but after considering the merits of application for leave to appeal –
State’s appeal against acquittal – Held: The mere fact that the
deceased was lying
dead at a room held by accused respondent
No.1 and that the accused had informed the complainant that the
deceased had been lying motionless and still, and not responding
to shouts and calls, would not establish that the respondents
murdered the deceased – The post mortem report suggests that the
death could have been accidental – Of the nine prosecution
witnesses, three witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution
– There were apparent inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent
improbabilities in the statements of witnesses – Prosecution miserably
failed to establish the guilt of the accused Respondents – The
impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the
612
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
ground of delay did not call for interference under Art.136 of the
Constitution of India.
Appeal against acquittal: An appeal against acquittal has
always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal
against conviction – In an appeal against acquittal, where the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced,
the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only
when there is perversity – In this case, it cannot be said that the
reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the
accused were flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse
appreciation of evidence.
Criminal law: Case based on circumstantial evidence – Before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of
the accused – There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as
not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution appears to have examined 9
witnesses. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The
deceased had apparently died in a room held by the Accused
Respondent No.1. The Accused Respondents did not
abscond.
The Accused Respondents themselves informed the complainant
that the deceased was lying still and motionless, not responding
to calls. [Para 14][618-E-F]
1.2 The post mortem Report of the deceased reveals that
the cause of death was electric shock, suffered by the deceased
within 24 hours from the time of examination. On post mortem
examination, the Doctor found food particles including meat in
the stomach of the deceased, and also detected smell of alcohol.
The post mortem doctor opined that the deceased was intoxicated
with alcohol and the death was either accidental, or homicidal,
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
but not suicidal. There is no conclusive evidence that the death
was homicidal. [Para 15][618-F-H]
1.3 The complaint lodged by the complainant is apparently
based on suspicion. Since the Accused Respondents had informed
the complainant that the deceased was lying still and motionless,
not responding to calls and the body of the deceased was found
at the premises of the Accused Respondent No.1, the complainant
has assumed that the Accused Respondents killed the deceased.
[Para 16][619-A-B]
1.4 In evidence, the complainant said that the Accused
Respondent No.1, Banabihari, had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/-
from the deceased which he had not repaid even though the
deceased had asked him to repay the amount. Significantly, there
is no whisper in the FIR, of any loan taken by the Accused
Respondent No.1 from the deceased. The reference to the alleged
loan appears to be an afterthought, in an attempt to insinuate a
motive for killing the deceased. [Para 17][619-B-C]
1.5 The mere fact that the deceased was lying dead at a
room held by the the Accused Respondent No.1 and that the
Accused Respondents had informed the complainant that the
deceased had been lying motionless and still and not responding
to shouts and calls, does not establish that the Accused
Respondents murdered the deceased. The post mortem report
suggests that the death could have been accidental. [Para 18]
[619-C-E]
2.1 All the three witnesses related to the
deceased, that is
the second Prosecution Witness, being the wife of the deceased,
the first Prosecution Witness, being the younger brother of the
deceased and the fourth Prosecution Witness, being the sister of
the deceased have more or less reiterated what has been stated
in the FIR with embellishments. There are, however, apparent
inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent improbabilities in the
statements of these witnesses. These three witnesses deposed
that they suspected that the accused Respondents had killed the
deceased as the deceased was asking the Accused Respondents
to repay Rs.20,000/- which the deceased had advanced to the
Accused Respondents by way of loan. However, there is no
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
whisper of the alleged loan in the FIR lodged by the complainant
wife being the second Prosecution Witness. [Paras 25, 26]
[620-G-H; 621-A-B]
2.2 The Medical Officer found electrical wounds in the leg
which were sufficient to cause death. He opined that the injuries
sustained by the deceased might have been due to contact with
live electric wire. He opined that the contact was prolonged. The
injuries were ante mortem. This witness was of the opinion that
the death may have been accidental or homicidal, but not suicidal.
Nothing significant has emerged from the oral evidence of the
Investigating Officer, to establish the guilt of the Accused
Respondents. In her deposition, the Investigating Officer also
said that some local persons had stated that the first Accused
Respondent, out of animosity, killed the deceased by applying
electric current. The oral evidence of the Investigating Officer
in this regard is totally vague and devoid of particulars. The
Investigating Officer had neither named the local persons nor
enquired into the source of their information if any. The local
persons have not been examined as witnesses. The Prosecution
miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Accused Respondents.
The Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents.
[Paras 30, 32, 33][622-D-E; 623-A-C]
3. An appeal against acquittal has always been on an
altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction.
In an appeal against acquittal, where the
presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate
court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there
is perversity. In this case, it cannot be said that the reasons given
by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the accused are
flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse appreciation of
evidence. [Para 34][623-C-E]
4. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be
established and the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a
chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must
have been done by the Accused. [Para 35][623-E-F]
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. 2016 (4) SCC 357 :
[2016] 1 SCR 913; Shanti Devi  v. State of Rajasthan
(2012) 12 SCC 158 : [2012] 9 SCR 226; Sujit Biswas
v. State of Assam AIR 2013 SC 3817 : [2013]  3
SCR 830; Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR
1973 SC 2773 : [1974] 1 SCR  722 –relied on. 
Case Law Reference
[2016] 1 SCR 913  
relied on
Para 34
[2012] 9 SCR 226 
relied on
Para  36
[2013]  3 SCR 830  
relied on
Para 38
[1974] 1 SCR 722 
relied on
Para  39
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.1156 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2020 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLLP No. 14 of 2020.
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ankit Agarwal, Advs. for the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha is against
a final judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissing an application for leave to
appeal being CRLLP No.14 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner State, against
a judgment dated 14th January, 2020 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents
from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of
the Indian
Penal Code (IPC).
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner State
forcefully contended that the High Court committed gross error in
dismissing the application for leave to appeal filed by the Petitioner State
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
on the ground of delay of 41 days, even though, there were serious
charges against the Accused Respondents, including charges of murder
under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. It is true that the appeal has, by the impugned judgment and
order dated 2nd November 2020, been dismissed on the ground of delay
of only 41 days in filing the CRLLP.
4. In a criminal case involving the serious offence of murder, the
Courts do not ordinarily dismiss an appeal against a judgment and order
of the Trial Court, whether of conviction or of acquittal, on the sole
ground of some delay. This is to prevent miscarriage of justice.
5. However, in this case the application of the Petitioner State, for
leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of the
Respondent Accused, has been rejected on the ground of delay, but
after considering the merits of application for leave to appeal.
6. We have considered the contentions of the State of Odisha
being the petitioner before us. As per an FIR lodged with the police by
one Gitanjali Tadu, hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”, her
husband Bijay Kumar Tadu, hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”,
had been working in the Home Guard, Chandabali and deputed at
Chandabali Police Station.
7. According to the Complainant, the deceased used to move
around with the first accused, Banabihari Mohapatra, who had an electric
sales and repairing shop styled “Raja Electricals” at the Ferry Ghat area
near the Chandabali bus stand.
8.
In the FIR, it is alleged that the first accused came to the
residence of the deceased at around 7.30 a.m. on 23rd June, 2014 and
told the Complainant that the deceased had been lying motionless and
still, not responding to calls. Later his younger son Luja alias Smruti
Ranjan Mohapatra being the second Respondent also came and informed
the complainant that the deceased was lying motionless.
9. On hearing this, the Complainant along with her family members
went to the Ferry Ghat near the Chandabali Bus Stand and found her
husband lying dead inside a room which was locked, with a swollen belly
and a deep burn injury on his right foot which was apparently caused by
electric shock. The body of the deceased appeared black and blood was
oozing out from the mouth and nostril of the deceased.
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
10. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged that on 22nd June,
2016, the deceased had left the house to go to the house of a relative.
He had been wearing a gold chain on his neck and two gold rings on his
fingers, and had been carrying Rs.800 for purchase of a new pair of
pants and shirt and Rs.5,000/- for purchase of articles for a marriage.
11. On making enquiries the complainant learnt that the deceased
had not visited the house of the relative on that day. The complainant
has alleged that the Accused No.1 Banabihari Mohapatra, his son Luja
alias Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra, being the Accused No.2, and other
accomplices committed murder of her husband by applying electric shock
to him after administering some poisonous substances to him.
12. The Sessions Judge Bhadrak framed charges against the
Accused Respondents Banabihari Mohapatra and Luja @ Smruti Ranjan
Mohapatra alleging that, together they had intentionally caused the death
of the deceased, thereby committing murder and had caused
disappearance of evidence and thus been guilty of offences under Sections
302/201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
13. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Sessions
Judge, Bhadrak, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the
charges against the Accused Respondents or either of them under
Section 302, or Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and acquitting
them under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.
14. The
prosecution appears to have examined 9 witnesses. There
are no eye witnesses to the incident. The deceased had apparently died
in a room held by the Accused Respondent No.1. The Accused
Respondents did not abscond. The Accused Respondents themselves
informed the complainant that the deceased was lying still and motionless,
not responding to calls.
15. The post mortem Report of the deceased reveals that the
cause of death was electric shock, suffered by the deceased within 24
hours from the time of examination. On post mortem examination, the
Doctor found food particles including meat in the stomach of the
deceased, and also detected smell of alcohol. The post mortem doctor
opined that the deceased was intoxicated with alcohol and the death
was either accidental, or homicidal, but not suicidal. There is no conclusive
evidence that the death was homicidal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
16. The complaint lodged by the complainant is apparently based
on suspicion. Since the Accused Respondents had informed the
complainant that the deceased was lying still and motionless, not
responding to calls and the body of the deceased was found at the
premises of the Accused Respondent No.1, the complainant has assumed
that the Accused Respondents killed the deceased.
17. In evidence, the complainant said that the Accused Respondent
No.1, Banabihari, had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased
which he had not repaid even though the deceased had asked him to
repay the amount. Significantly, there is no whisper in the FIR, of any
loan taken by the Accused Respondent No.1 from the deceased. The
reference to the alleged loan appears to be an afterthought, in an attempt
to insinuate a motive for killing the deceased.
18. The mere fact that the deceased was lying dead at a room
held by the the Accused Respondent No.1 and that the Accused
Respondents had informed the complainant that the deceased had been
lying motionless and still and not responding to shouts and calls, does not
establish that the Accused Respondents murdered the deceased. At the
cost of repetition it is reiterated that the post mortem report suggests
that the death could have been accidental.
19. We have perused the evidence of the nine Prosecution
Witnesses, namely, the first Prosecution Witness Dhanjaya Tadu, younger
brother of the deceased, the second Prosecution Witness
Gitanjali Tadu,
wife of the deceased, the third Prosecution Witness, Ajay Sahoo, a Shop
Keeper at the locality where dead body of the deceased was found, the
fourth Prosecution Witness, Smt. Bijayalaxmi Tadu, sister of the
deceased, the fifth Prosecution Witness, Bailochan Bej, a Barber by
profession who knew the complainant and the deceased as also the
accused persons who resided in the Chandabali Police Station area, the
sixth Prosecution Witness, Manmohan Sutar, an auto driver, the seventh
Prosecution Witness, Aswini Kumar Nayak, a cultivator residing at
Nayahat in the Chandabali Police Station area of Bhadrak, the 8th
Prosecution Witness, Dr. Bhisma Parida, being the Doctor who conducted
the autopsy/ post mortem examination of the deceased and the ninth
Prosecution Witness Smt. Kumari Behera, Sub Inspector of Police, who
was the Investigating Officer.
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
20. Of the nine Prosecution Witnesses, three witnesses namely,
the third Prosecution Witness, Ajay Sahoo, the fifth Prosecution Witness,
Bailochan Bej and the seventh Prosecution Witness, Durga Charan Nayak
were declared hostile by the Prosecution.
21. The third Prosecution Witness said that he had only seen the
police shifting the dead body of the deceased and knew nothing more
about the case. Nothing has emerged from his cross-examination by the
Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the defence, he said there
was no electric connection in the house from which the body of the
deceased was brought out. He even said that the Accused Respondents
did not own any shop dealing with electric appliances. No credence can
be given to this witness.
22. The fifth Prosecution Witness, Bailochan Bej, denied
knowledge of the case. He said that the police had not examined him,
nor recorded any statement made by him. In cross-examination by the
prosecution, he only said that he had a saloon at Chandabali Police Station,
Bhadrak. He categorically denied having made the statements attributed
to him by the police.
23. The seventh Prosecution Witness, Durga Charan Nayak only
said that he had seen the body of the deceased in the rented place near
the Chandabali bus stand with bleeding injury on his right leg and blood
oozing from his mouth and nostrils. He said he did not know how the
deceased suffered the injury or died. Nothing
significant has emerged
from his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor.
24. The sixth Prosecution Witness, Manmohan Sutar deposed that
he knew the informant, the deceased as also the Accused Respondents.
In a nutshell, he only confirmed that the dead body was in the shop of
the Accused Respondents in Home Guard uniform. Inquest of the body
was conducted in his presence. He identified his signature in the Inquest
Report. He also said he had noticed a bleeding injury in the right foot of
the deceased and blood oozing from the mouth and nostrils.
25. All the three witnesses related to the deceased, that is the
second Prosecution Witness, being the wife of the deceased, the first
Prosecution Witness, being the younger brother of the deceased and the
fourth Prosecution Witness, being the sister of the deceased have more
or less reiterated what has been stated in the FIR with embellishments.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
There are, however, apparent inconsistencies, inaccuracies and inherent
improbabilities in the statements of these witnesses.
26. These three witnesses deposed that they suspected that the
accused Respondents had killed the deceased as the deceased was asking
the Accused Respondents to repay Rs.20,000/- which the deceased had
advanced to the Accused Respondents by way of loan. However, as
observed above, there is no whisper of the alleged loan in the FIR lodged
by the complainant wife being the second Prosecution Witness.
27. That apart, the first and fourth Prosecution Witnesseshave
admitted in cross-examination that they did not have first hand knowledge
of the loan alleged to be advanced by the deceased to the Accused
Respondent No.1. The first Prosecution Witness said that the complainant
(PW2) had told him that the Accused Respondent No.1 had not repaid
loan of Rs.20,000/- to the deceased. The fourth Respondent said she
had heard about the loan from her deceased brother. Though she said
that the loan was given to the Accused Respondent No.1 at the time of
his daughter’s marriage she could not say how long ago the loan was
given. She could not even tell the approximate date or year of marriage
of the Accused Respondent No.1’s daughter.
28. From the evidence of the first and the second Prosecution
Witnesses it transpires that the deceased had left his house at around
10.00 a.m. on 22nd June 2014, to go to his Aunt’s house in connection
with his Aunt’s
daughter’s marriage. He was wearing a gold chain and
two gold rings and carried Rs.800/- with him for buying a pair of trousers
and shirt and Rs.5000/- for articles for the marriage. Enquiries, however,
revealed that he had not gone to his Aunt’s house. It is, however, difficult
to understand why the deceased should have been wearing his home
guard uniform if he were going to visit his Aunt in connection with the
marriage of his Aunt’s daughter. There is evidence to show that the
deceased was found in his home guard uniform. The relevance of the
plan of the deceased to go to his Aunt’s house or his plan to buy clothes
etc. is also not clear. This is in no way linked to the incident of death of
the deceased. Prosecution has failed to show a link between the proposed
visit of the deceased to his Aunt’s house with the guilt, if any, of the
Accused Respondents.
29. The evidence of the first Prosecution Witness Dhanjaya Tadu,
brother of the deceased, that he had found the motor cycle of the
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
deceased in front of the shop of the accused persons on the evening of
the 22nd June 2014, is difficult to accept. He said he had asked the
second accused about whereabouts of his brother to which the second
accused had expressed ignorance, but on the next day, the second
Accused Respondent and his father informed them that his brother was
lying senseless. It seems rather unnatural that this witness, who was the
brother of the deceased, should have chosen not to make any inquiry
either in the police station or in the neighbourhood, even after seeing the
motor cycle of the deceased in front of the shop, and after being told his
brother was not in the shop. No attempt was made to look for the deceased
even though he did not return home all night.
30. The eighth Prosecution Witness, Dr. Bhisma Parida, who had
at the time of death of the deceased been posted as Medical Officer at
CHC Chandabali and had conducted the autopsy/post mortem
examination of the deceased at around 1.00 p.m. on 24th June 2014,
deposed that the deceased died due to electrical injury, suffered within
24 hours of the autopsy. The stomach of the deceased was full of food
particles including meat and there was smell of alcohol. The deceased
had been intoxicated with alcohol. The Medical Officer found electrical
wounds in the leg which were sufficient to cause death. He opined that
the injuries sustained by the deceased might have been due to contact
with live electric wire. He opined that the contact was prolonged. The
injuries were ante mortem. This witness was of the opinion that the
death may have been accidental or homicidal, but not suicidal.
31. Nothing significant has emerged from the oral evidence of the
ninth Prosecution Witness, Smt. Kumari Behera, the Investigating Officer,
to establish the guilt of the Accused Respondents. She only stated that
the fifth Prosecution Witness had in course of examination stated before
her that the first Accused Respondent and the deceased used one of the
quarters where they regularly took tiffin and they were both present
there on the date of the incident in Court. The fifth Prosecution Witness,
however, denied having made any such statement to the Police and
remained unshaken in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. He
only admitted that he had a saloon in the area, but denied knowing the
deceased, the Accused Respondents or the informant. The fifth
Prosecution Witness said that the Police had neither examined him, nor
recorded his statement.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
32. In her deposition, the Investigating Officer also said that some
local persons had stated that the first Accused Respondent, Banabhihari
had, out of animosity, killed the deceased by applying electric current.
The oral evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard is totally
vague and devoid of particulars. The Investigating Officer (PW-9) had
neither named the local persons nor enquired into the source of their
information if any. The local persons have not been examined as
witnesses.
33. The Prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the
Accused Respondents. The Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused
Respondents. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court,
that calls for interference
34. As held by this Court in Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P.
reported in 2016 (4) SCC 357, an appeal against acquittal has always
been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction.
In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere
with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. In this case, it
cannot be said that the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the
conviction of the accused are flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse
appreciation of evidence.
35. Before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which
the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt
of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not
to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability,
the act must have been done by the Accused.
36. In Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12
SCC 158, this Court held that the principles for conviction of the accused
based on circumstantial evidence are:
“10.1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.
10.2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
THE STATE OF ODISHA v. BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA
[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
10.3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain
so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused
and none else.
10.4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
37. Keeping the above test in mind, we have no iota of doubt that
the Trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused Respondents. There is a
strong possibility that the accused, who was as per the opinion of the
doctor who performed the autopsy, intoxicated with alcohol, might have
accidentally touched a live electrical wire, may be while he was asleep.
The impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the
ground of delay does not call for interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
38. It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of
this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof.
An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas
v. State of Assam reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817.
39. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR
1973 SC 2773, this Court observed:-
“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which
is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has
a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is
sought is to be established by circumstantial evidence.”
40. For the reasons discussed above, we find no ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition
is dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Petition dismissed.