Appeal
Appeal against the conviction under sections 302 & 109 IPC
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 the murder of Dhaneswar Kata and his wife, Nirupama Kata, during the intervening night of 31.05.2013 and 01.06.2013.
Facts
Deceased died of gunshot injuries in the terrace
The case of the prosecution, as reflected in First Information Report 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.
Analysis
No particular person named as culprit in FIR and the witnesses have not deposed about any offence committed nor hear any gunshots
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.
PW4 who was sleeping with the deceased in the terrace also not named the perpetrators
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.
Doctor deposed that the bullet was not fired from close range but PW5 & 7 deposed the bullets were fired from a close range
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 (PW7), the bullets were fired from a close range after Prabhulal had climbed onto the terrace to commit the offence.
Ballistic report opined that two bullets found in the bodies were not sufficient for comparison with the test fired bullets
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.
Guilt of the appellant not stands proved and established beyond reasonable doubt
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.
The appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, shall be released from jail forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case.
Party
Siba Nial @ Trilochan (Appellant) and The State of Odisha (Respondent) – Crl.A. 674 of 2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9244/2024 – 2025 INSC 206 – February 11, 2025.
