HC expounds: Testimony of one Ocular Witness is sufficient to complete the chain of Circumstantial Evidences [Read Judgment]

On 19 March 2021, the High Court of Orissa in the case of Benga v. the State of Orissa comprising of division Bench Justice S.K. Panigrahu and Justice S. Panda expounds that the Testimony of one Ocular Witness is sufficient to complete the chain Circumstantial Evidence.

Factual Background

The deceased was a fish vendor at Unit-IV Fish Market, Bhubaneswar and used to reside nearby. The appellant used to sell mutton in the said market. The appellant was married to the sister (Ranju) of the deceased and they had one son and two daughters. Ranju allegedly deserted the appellant and left with another man, whereafter, the appellant refused to take care of the children. The mother of the deceased who also used to reside in the same colony brought the children to her house and started looking after them. Thereafter, there was regular quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the maintenance of the children.

On 31.07.2001 at 8:15 P.M., there was a heightened quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, in course of which the appellant attempted to strike at the abdomen of the deceased with a knife (M.O.-1) but the blow struck his thigh just below the abdomen as the latter tried to ward it off. The appellant charged again and this time struck the deceased on his forehead. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased (P.W.6) came to the rescue of her husband and wrenched away the knife (M.O.I) from the appellant and threw it on the ground and in the process she sustained injuries on her right palm.

Appellant Submissions

Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.

The Appellant in its submissions submits before the Court that,

1. out of the two eye-witnesses, the brother of the deceased has turned hostile. He even denied to have lodged the F.I.R. and given any statement to the Investigating Officer.
2. Conviction cannot be established only on the basis of the sole testimony of P.W.6 without any proper corroboration from any other independent witness.
3. the depositions and evidences of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other.
4. the accused be entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt.

State Submissions

The State in its submissions contends that

1. the report of the Medical Officer reveals that the deceased suffered homicidal death due to the injury inflicted by the seized weapon (M.O.I).
2. the prosecution has sufficiently proved the motive of the accused in committing such a heinous crime.
3. the prosecution has been successful in establishing the truth beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant herein is the author of the crime and that the present appeal ought to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

Court Findings and Observation

The High Court of Orissa in its findings stated that the “learned Court below, in order to bring home the culpability of the appellant, has relied upon the following  circumstances namely (I) Statement of eye-witnesses (II) Corroboration of witnesses’ depositions. While doing so, the Trial Court has proceeded to hold that these circumstances establish a complete chain which prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased.”

The Court in its findings expounds that the, fact of related witness cannot always be negated if it is sufficiently corroborated by other witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the occurrence.

But in the instant case, the circumstantial evidence is intercepted by the testimony of one ocular witness which itself is sufficient to complete the chain without any ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ or any kind of hypothetical premise.

Lastly, the court stated that the “learned Court below has maintained a positive judicial attitude towards victim justice, and while considering the credibility of evidence or testimonial, the court has also exercised due care and caution to arrive at the truth.” There seems to be absence of any bias or presumptions while connecting the chain and have perfectly corroborated with the circumstantial evidence.

Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.

Court Judgment

The High Court of Orissa in its judgment dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant and further stated that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby upheld.