Holding

A conviction cannot be based on circumstantial evidence when only one circumstance is established beyond doubt and the other alleged circumstances are unreliable.

Summary

The appellant Kansa Behera was charged with the murder of Bhatal Majhi, who was found dead with his throat cut after a land dispute with another accused, Jitrai Majhi. The prosecution relied on three pieces of circumstantial evidence: the appellant was seen with the deceased on the evening before the murder, blood‑stained dhoti and shirt recovered from the appellant, and an alleged extra‑judicial confession made after a long lapse. The Supreme Court held that the blood‑stain evidence could not be linked to the victim due to the absence of blood‑group analysis, and the confession was unreliable because one witness retracted it and it was obtained under dubious circumstances. Moreover, the sole proven circumstance—being with the deceased—was insufficient to infer guilt, especially since the weapon was recovered from a co‑accused who had been discharged. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and life sentence, ordering the appellant’s release.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
Whether blood‑stained clothing without blood‑group identification can be considered a reliable circumstance of guilt.
Whether an extra‑judicial confession made after a long lapse and contradicted by a witness can be relied upon.
Whether the presence of another accused from whom the weapon was recovered, but who was discharged, affects the inference of guilt.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 14, s. 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

circumstantial evidencemurderextra‑judicial confessionblood evidenceIPC Section 302Indian Evidence Actconviction set asideland dispute

Judgment

A KANSA BEHERA
v.
STATE OF ORISSA

APRIL 12, 1987

B [V.' KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]

Indian ·Penal Code-Section 302-Conviction on circumstantial
evidence-When valid-Circumstance of accused being with the
deceased on the evening of occurrence-Whether sufficient to convict ,,1..
accused.
c Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 3 and 14-Circumstantia/
evidence-Conviction based on-When valid-Circumstance of accu-
sed being with deceased on the evening of occurrence-Whether suffi-
cient when other accused from whom instrument of offence recovered is
acquitted.
D
The prosecution alleged that the deceased had some land dispute
with one of the accused and his two brothers, that the deceased was
done away through the instrumentality of the appellant and that his
body with the throat cut was found by the road-side. The brother-in-
law of the deceased identified the dead body and lodged information
E with the police. After investigation, the appellant and the other accused
were arrested. The weapon of offence was produced by the other
accused. Both the accused were remanded to judicial custody for the
alleged murder of the deceased. The appellant escaped and was
declared as absconder. The other accused was discharged for want of
prima facie case against him.
F
After a long lapse of time, the appellant was apprehended and was
committed to sessions. On the basis of circumstantial evidence that the
appellant was seen with the deceased on the evening preceding the day
on which the deceased was found dead, that a dhoti and shirt, stained
with human blood, were recovered from his possession when he was
G arrested and that an extra-judicial confession was made by him when he
was arrested after absconding, he was convicted under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The High
Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence, the appellant.
appealed to this Court.

H Allowing the appeal by special leave,
1096
K. BEHllRA v. StA1'E OF ORISSA 1097

HELD: 1. It is li settled rule of circumstantial evidence that each A
one of the cirtillnstances bas to be established beyond doubt and all the
circumstances put together hlilst lead to the only inference and that is of
the guilt of the accused. [l101E]

2.l(a) It is not in dispute that the appellant was seen with the B
deceased on the evening preceding the night when the deceased Is
alleged to have been killed. this fact has been established by the
evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 and the appellant himself has admitted it,
even though his case was that the throat of the deceased was cut by the
other accused, Even the wife of the deceased has deposed that the appel·
lant had told her that her husband was lying dead. It is clear that only
on the basl!i of this clrcmnstance the appellant could not have been C
convicted. [1099C.f)j

2.l(b) As regards recovery of a shirt and dhoti with blood stains,
there iii no evldellce In the report of the Serologist about the blood
group and, therefore, the evidence could not positively be connected
with the deceased. the evidence of blood group is only conclusive to D
connect the blood stains with the deceased. In the absence of such
evidence, this could not be a circumstance on the basis of w,hich any
inference could be drawn. [llOlB·Dl

2.l(c) Regarding the extra-judicial confession by the appellant, E
made after a long lapse of time, no reliance could be placed on It,
.... especially in view of the circumstances in which the appellant
was apprehended and the statement made, and also because of the
denial by one of the two witnesses that the appellant had made by
confession. [llOOF·llOIA]

2.2 The only circumstances which could be said to have been F
established is of the appellant being with the deceased in the evening
and on that circumstance alone the Inference of guilt could not be
drawn especially in the circumstances of the case where another ac·
cosed person from whom an instrument of offence was recovered 11nd
who had a grudge against the deceased, had been let off. [llOlF]
G
3. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are
set aside. [llOlG]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal.
No. 323 of 1978.
H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1976 of the Orissa High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1of1974.
\.,-
N.K. Agarwal for the Appellant.
r ·
Ms:Mona Mehta and R.K. Mehta for the Respondent. ·
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C
OZA, J, Tl)is appeal has been filed after obtaining leave from
this Court by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302
and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by Sessions Judge,
Mayurbharj, Kenjhar, Baripada by his order dated 8th December
1973 and maintained by High Court of Orissa by its judgment dated
.A, -
9th March, 1976.

The prosecution case in short was that the deceased Bhatal
Majhi had some land dispute with Jitrai Majhi and his brothers. It is
D alleged that Jitrai Majhi did away with the deceased through the
instrumentality of the present appellant. The incident is alleged to be
at the night intervening between 13th and 14th December 1968. Bhatal
Majhi was found dead in the morning of 14th December, 1968 by the
road-side near a weekly market known as Joka Hata with his throat
cut. Bishnu Majhi the brother-in-law of the deceased P.W. 1 identified
E the dead body and lodged the information to Bangriposi Police Station
the same da~xt. 3. The assailant was reported to be unknown.
'
P.W. JO, the Second Officer attached to the said Police Station
investigated into the case, held an inquest, despatched the dead-body
for post-morten examination seized certain incriminating articles and
F finally arrested the appellant on 15.12.68 at lJ a.m. The same day 3
a.m. he arrested accused Jitrai Majhi. The weapon of offence a razor
M.O. IV was produced by accused Jitrai Majhi which was seized under
Ext. 5 Investigating Officer, P.W. JO forwarded both the accused Jitrai
Majhi and Kansa Behera, present appellant, in custody to CoLrt, the
appellani escaped as the lock up was defectiVe and he could not be
G traced. Finally a charge sheet was submitted against both Jitrai and
Kansa indicating the appellant as absconder. Jitrai was discharged by
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baripada vide his order dated
27 .2.1970 for want of prima facie case as against him. So the case as
against him needs no consideration. Later, after the apprehension of
the appellant on 22.8.72, he was committed to the Court of Sessions on
H 28.6.1973.
K. BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA (OZA, J.] 1099

The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and nobody was exami- A
ned in defence. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The learned
courts below convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. The circumstances established against the appellant are: i)
that he was last seen with the deceased on the evening of 13th Dec.
1968 when it is alleged that he and deceased took liquor together; ii)
that a dhoti and shirt were recovered from the possession of the appel- B
!ant when he was arrested on 15.12.68 and these articles were found to
be stained with human blood; and iii) that P.Ws 7 and 8 have deposed
to about an extra-judicial confession made by this appellant when he
was ultimately arrested after absconding in Bihar.

- ,A So far as the first circumstance that the appellant was seen with c
the deceased on the evening preceding the night when the deceased is
alleged to have been killed is not in dispute. This fact has been
~ established by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and the appellant himself
in his statement also admitted that he was there although his case was
that the deceased throat was cut by Jitrai Majhi who also was an
accused and was discharged on the basis of police papers by the Sub D
Divisional Magistrate. It is clear that only on the basis of this circum- ,
stances the appellant could not have been convicted and as this cir-
cumstance is not in dispute, in our opinion, it is not necessary to go
into this question.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the E
-. circumstances appearing in evidence indicate that the deceased and
Jitrai Mejhi had some trouble about land. It is alleged that the
deceased land was pledged with Jitrai and the possession of the land
was given to him. When the deceased offered him to repay the Joan so
that he may get back his land, it is alleged that Jitrai refused to give
possession on the plea that the land was purchased by him. Ultimately F
it is alleged that the deceased ltook forcible possession of the land from
Jitrai and therefore Jitrai bore a grudge against the deceased. It was
also contended that the razor, the alleged instrument of offence was
recovered at the instance of Jitrai when he was arrested and that was
also found stained with blood. It was contended by learned counsel
that in fact the appellant's case is that it wasJitrai who cut the throat of G
the deceased and this also is born out from a circumstance that next
morning the appellant went to the wife of the deceased and informed
her that ther husband was lying dead at the place of occurrence.

It was also contended by learned counsel that the two witnesses
who deposed about the dying declaration are P. Ws 7 and 8 but in fact H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1987) 2 S.C.R.

A P. W. 8 in cross-examination has gone back on that statement. It was
contended that even otherwise the dying declaration is a weak piece of
evidence. :W-
As regards the recovery of a shirt and dhoti which are alleged to
be stained with human blood, it was contended that there is no clear
B evidence to indicate that the appellant was wearh1g dhoti at \he time of
the incident. As regards shirt it was contended that although the
seriologist report indicate that it is stained with human blood but blood ,l.._
grouping is not there, In this view of the matter the presence of some
stains of human blood after somtime could not be a circumstance on
the basis of which any conclusive infetence could be drawn. It was
,.,, ...
therefore contended that in view of these circumstances it could not be
c held that the circumstances point to the only conclusion of the guilt of
the appellant.
'y
., It is significant that the wife of the tleceased who has been
examined as a witness deposed that next morning the appellant went to
her and told her that her husband was lying dead, but she did not
D
believe him and later Phudan Ma jhi came and told her that her
husband was-ill and wanted her to accompany him without taking food
and she stated that she went alongwith him and found her husband
lying dead with his throat cut. It is interesting that this Phudan Majhi
who came and told her a false story has not been examined. -f-
E The three circumstances otl the basis of which the appellant has
been convicted· have to be considered. The last one i.e. the extra-
judicial confession is proved by.P.Ws 7 _and 8. A perusal of the evi-
dence of P. W. 8 discloses that this witness in cross-examination went
-
\
back and denied any confession having been made by the appellant. -t
The other witness is P. W. 7 who no doubt has spoken about an extra-
F judicial confession made by the appellant. This is after a long lapse of
time as· admittedly this appellant absconded after his arrest on 15.12.68 ~
and was later arrested on 22.8.72 and this extra-judicial confession
therefore appears to have been made after a long lapse of time. The
circumstances in which this appellant was apprehended and this state-
ment is alleged to have been made also is rather interesting. In Bihar
G this appellant was apprehended for having committed theft and that he
was produced before the Mukhiya of the Village P. W. 7 and thf
Mukhia wanied him to be handed over to the police. That it is alleged ~
that the appellant said that I am wanted in connection with a murder
case and I am hiding from the police and therefore requested not to be
handed over to the police and in this background it is alleged that he
H made a statement that he has killed one Bhatal Majhi.
K. BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA [OZA, J.) - 1101

Such an extra-judicial confession for proving which two witnes-
A
ses were produced. One of these witnesses has gone back on that

J statement and this statement is alleged to have been made after a long
lapse of time, in our opinion, is a piece of evidence on which no
reliance could be placed and under these circumstances, in our opi-
nion, this piece of evidence has to be le,ft out of consideration.
B
As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with blood stains
which according to the serologist report were stained with human
-"' blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about the

- A
group of the blood and therefore it could not positively be connected
with the deceased. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer or in
the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to what were the dimensions
of the stains of blood. Few small blood stains on the cloths of a person c
may even be of his own blood especially if it is a villager putting on
~ these clothes and living in villages. The evidence about the blood
group is only conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased.
That evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our opinion,
even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any inference D
could be drawn.
So far as the appellant being with the deceased in the evening is
concerned, it is not in dispute. But it is also significant that the instru-
ment of the offence was recovered at the instance of one Jitrai Majhi
t who has been discharged and under these circumstances therefore the
E
.... evidence about the appellant having been seen in the evening with the
deceased also is of no consequence. It is a settled rule of circumstantial

... evidence that each one of the circumstances have to be established
beyond doubt and all the circumstances put together must lead to the
only one inference and that is of the guilt of the accused. As discussed
above the only circumstance which could be said to have been
F
established is of his being with the deceased in the evening and on that
circumstance alone the inference of guilt could not be drawn especially
in the circumstances of the case where one another accused person
from whom an instrument of offence was recovered, who had a grudge
against the deceased has been let off.
In the light of the discussions above therefore 1 in our opinion, G
the courts below were wrong in convicting the appellant on these facts.
The appeal is therefore allowed, the conviction and sentence passed
against the appellant are set aside. It is reported that he is'in custody.
He shall be set at liberty forthwith.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed. H