SABITRI SAMANTARAYversusSTATE OF ODISHA

276                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 276               [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A                         SABITRI SAMANTARAY
                                        v.
                              STATE OF ODISHA
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017)
B                                MAY 20, 2022
             [N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
                         HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 304(II) – Prosecution case
      that victim-deceased was strangulated to death by the appellants
C     (husband and wife) along with their daughter in their house and
      an attempt was made to conceal identity of deceased by pouring
      acid over the dead body – Trial Court convicted appellants and
      their daughter for the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced
      them to rigorous imprisonment for life – However, the High Court
      acquitted daughter of all the charges and upheld the conviction of
D     the appellants – The conviction of the appellants was modified
      u/s.304(II) IPC and sentence term was reduced to rigorous
      imprisonment for a term of five years – On appeal, held: In the
      instant case, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the
      intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence – Such
E     an intention, when analyzed in light of the statements made by all
      the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased
      at the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case
      that death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants –
      Therefore, once the prosecution had successfully established the
      chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it
F     otherwise – The appellants had failed to offer any credible defense
      – The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of the appellants
      – No error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
             Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Burden of proving fact especially
      within knowledge – The Section in no way exonerates the prosecution
G     from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it
      merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an
      intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus
      of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not
      on the prosecution – If the accused had a different intention than
      the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
H
                                       276
        SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA                         277


      Dismissing the appeals, the Court                               A
      HELD: 1. From the statement of PW 9, it can be inferred
that at the time of death of the deceased, only the accused
appellants were present inside the house. Furthermore, the
contention of the appellants that the gathered mass of people
had in fact assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face, has        B
rightly been rejected by the High Court as being devoid of any
material evidence made in support of the claim. Deceased’s sister
(PW 12) in her statement, further stated that prior to his death,
deceased had left the house exclaiming that he would either come
back along with the daughter of the appellants or would get his
money back. This statement was further confirmed by PW-7 and          C
8, who were the friend and cousin brother of the deceased,
respectively. It was therefore rightly observed by the High Court
that the statement of these second set of witnesses clearly spells
out a motive for the commission of offence. It also establishes
that the claim made by the accused appellants that the deceased       D
was not known to them is also false, especially considering that
their daughter (accused no. 3) has admitted in her deposition
that the deceased used to visit the house of the appellants. [Paras
21 & 22][284-F; 285-A-C]
       2. In the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded     E
in establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of
the offence. Such an intention, when analyzed in the light of the
statements made by all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries
sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time, certainly
makes out a strong case that death of the deceased was indeed
caused by the appellants. Therefore, once the prosecution had         F
successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on
the appellants to prove it otherwise. Thus, the High Court rightly
observed that in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
onus was now on the appellants to disclose how the deceased
lost his life. Having regard to the above facts and reasons stated    G
therewith, it can be deduced that the entire sequence of events
strongly point towards the guilt of the accused appellants, and
that the appellants have failed to offer any credible defense in
this regard. The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of
the appellants. [Paras 24 & 26][285-E-F; 286-C-D]
                                                                      H
278            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A           Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
            10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Ashok v. State
            of Maharashtra (2015) 4 SCC 393 : [2015] 6 SCR
            375 – relied on.
            Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [1956] SCR 199;
B           Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla,
            (2005) 9 SCC 15 : [2004] 2 SCR 459; Mohan Singh v.
            Prem Singh and Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 236 : [2002] 3
            Suppl. SCR 5; Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
            (2003) 10 SCC 21 : 2003 (1) Suppl. JT 150 – referred
C           to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [1956] SCR 199               referred to            Para 8
      [2004] 2 SCR 459             referred to            Para 10
D
      [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 5        referred to            Para 10
      [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156       relied on             Para 15
      [2015] 6 SCR 375              relied on             Para 25
E           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      988 of 2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2016 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in CRL A. No. 202 of 2015.

F           With
            Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2022
            Ms. Amrita Panda, Kanishk Aggrawal, Debesh Panda, Udbhav
      Gady, Advs. for the Appellant.
G           Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Ms. Anindita Pujari,
      Siddhartha Srivastava, Azad Bansala, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advs. for
      the Respondent.


H
         SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA                               279


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             A
      KRISHNA MURARI, J.
      1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3881
of 2017.
       2. Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order        B
dated 08.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Odisha at Cuttack in
Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2015. The Appellants herein, namely Sabitri
Samantaray and Bidyadhar Praharaj are wife and husband respectively.
The two have been arrayed as accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 in FIR
No. 120 of 2008. The Appellants herein along with their daughter (accused    C
no. 3) had been charged with offences under Sections 302, 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
Sessions Court Jajpur, in C.T. Case No. 76 of 2010 convicted accused
no. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34
IPC, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further sentence of     D
six months in case of default in payment of fine. Their daughter i.e.
Accused No. 3 was convicted under Sections 302, 109 read with Section
34 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs. 10,000/-, and further sentence of six months in case of default in
payment of fine. Subsequently, the High Court vide order impugned herein
                                                                             E
acquitted the daughter of the appellants of all charges, but upheld the
conviction of the Appellants. The conviction of the appellants under
Section 302 IPC, however, was modified to conviction under Section
304 (II) IPC and, therefore, sentence term was reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and an
additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in case of default.           F
      Factual Matrix
       3. The accused appellants herein were tenants of one Mayadhar
Mohapana. The said landlord on 21.07.2008, lodged an FIR stating that
an unknown person had attacked the accused appellants at around 7:30
PM while he was watching television in his house. The landlord stated        G
that he had heard a loud cry from the portion of his house which was
rented to the appellants, and as he rushed to inquire what had happened,
he saw an unknown person assaulting the appellants with a “Kata”.
Consequently, the landlord cried for help, and as other people gathered
                                                                             H
280            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     around the house, he rescued the couple through an inter-connected
      door.
             4. This unknown person remained inside the appellants’ house.
      Police arrived at the spot, searched all rooms, whereafter, the person
      was found dead inside the kitchen of the house. It was initially suspected
B     that he had committed suicide by consuming poison. Subsequently, the
      body was sent for autopsy, and was thereafter preserved for identification.
      On 24.07.2008, one Ranjan Rana identified the deceased to be Sanjay
      Rana. He further disclosed that the deceased had a love relationship
      with the daughter of the appellants.
C            5. Post-mortem examination of the body was also conducted and
      it was opined by the doctor that death was caused by compression on
      lower part of the neck, resulting in blockage of upper end of the trachea.
      It was further opined that the deceased victim was assaulted by two or
      more persons with acid and blunt objects. Thus, death was homicidal in
      nature. In consequence thereof, charge sheet was submitted against the
D     accused appellants and their daughter (accused no. 3) for offences under
      Sections 302, 201, 109 and 34 IPC.
             6. The accused appellants on the contrary maintained that the
      unknown person had forcibly entered into their house and locked it from
      inside. He first encountered accused no. 1 (i.e. Bidyadhar Praharaj) and
E     threatened to kill him, should he refused to hand over entire money and
      valuables. Subsequently, both the appellants were assaulted by the
      deceased, which resulted in injuries. They were eventually rescued, and
      thereafter police implicated them in a false case.
             7. The Sessions Court, vide its judgment dated 30.03.2015, held
F     that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond
      reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted the accused appellants and
      their daughter under above said Sections. Aggrieved, appellants and their
      daughter challenged the judgment of the Trial Court before the High
      Court. Vide impugned judgment, the High Court acquitted the daughter
G     of all charges, as she was not present at the scene of offence. It was
      observed that she had no role in the actual incident and therefore cannot
      be termed as an abettor to the crime. On the contrary, the conviction of
      the accused appellants was confirmed by the High Court. The High
      Court observed that something had transpired between the appellants
      and the deceased, which ensued in an assault. It was further observed
H
           SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA                             281
                     [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

that thereafter, it appeared that the deceased was somehow overpowered       A
by the appellants and was unarmed. Thereafter, both the appellants
throttled him to death and poured acid on him to impede identification.
However, as there was a strong possibility of existence of grave and
sudden provocation, which was discernible from adduced evidence, the
conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to conviction under
                                                                             B
Section 304 (II) IPC, and both the accused were thereby sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.
         Contentions made by the Appellants
       8. The Appellants herein contend that reliance placed on Section
106 of the Evidence Act is misconstrued, in absence of clear evidence        C
pointing to the guilt of the appellants accused. That the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and has therefore failed
to discharge its burden of proof. In the absence of the prosecution having
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court cannot
supplant Section 106 of the Evidence Act to discharge the burden of
proof incumbent upon the prosecution. The judgment impugned herein is        D
therefore in contravention to the law laid down by this Court in Shambu
Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer1.
       9. Further, the High Court erred in convicting the appellants by
entirely relying upon circumstantial evidence. Additionally, in absence of
any eye-witness, the High Court also erred in dismissing the contention      E
of the appellants regarding the disputed time of death of the deceased.
       10. It is also contended that the High Court failed to appreciate
that as per the post-mortem report submitted by the Doctor, death of the
deceased happened when the appellants were admitted to the hospital,
because of the injuries they had suffered from being assaulted by the        F
deceased. Moreover, reliance placed upon answers given by the
appellants in their statements under Section 313 of CrPC is misplaced,
as answers to questions under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible as
evidence and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution.
      [See, Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla,                 G
(2005) 9 SCC 15 and Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr., (2002)
10 SCC 236.]


1
    1956 SCR 199                                                             H
282               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A            11. Lastly it was submitted that the High Court failed to rely upon
      any individual incident which would indicate the appellants’ participation,
      resulting in the death of the deceased. Thus, the judgment lacks any
      prima facie finding which would indicate participation of the appellants
      in the event leading to the death of the deceased.
B              Contentions made by the Respondent – State
             12. It has been submitted by the Respondent herein, that the High
      Court relying upon admitted facts, creditworthy evidence, relationship
      between the parties, more specifically relationship between the deceased
      and daughter of the appellants, their telephonic contacts, exchange of
C     money between the deceased and appellant’s daughter, date, place and
      time of murder of the deceased, and the presence of accused appellants
      inside the tenanted portion of the house, has rightly observed that the
      incident did occur at the time and place alleged by the prosecution wherein
      appellants were definitely involved.
D            13. Further, it was rightly observed that the claim of the first set
      of witnesses failed to lay down a complete narration of the events.
      Additionally, vide judgment impugned herein, it was rightly observed that
      the version of the second set of witnesses was more convincing as it
      established the relationship between the deceased and the appellants,
      which, to an extent was accepted by the appellant’s husband herein and
E     the daughter.
             14. It is further contended that from a perusal of the facts and
      material on record it is evident that no one else except the appellants
      herein were present at the scene of the offence and therefore, on account
      of the appellants having special knowledge, reference to Section 106 of
F     the Evidence Act, has been rightly made. The Trial Court, while
      confirming the reliance placed by the prosecution on the judgment of
      this Court rendered in Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan2, has
      also referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, contentions
      made by the appellants that no reliance was placed by the prosecution
G     on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is incorrect.
             15. This Court in its judgment in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs.
      State of Maharashtra3 has also observed:-

      2
          (2003) 10 SCC 21
      3
H         (2006) 10 SCC 681
         SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA                                283
                   [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

      “15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy               A
      inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would
      undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and
      amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge
      cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of
      circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
                                                                              B
      comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the
      Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the
      inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how
      the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get
      away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation
      on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case           C
      lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all
      on an accused to offer any explanation.”
       16. Furthermore, it is submitted that as per the deposition of the
medical expert (PW 6), it is nowhere mentioned that the deceased had
died when the appellants were lying injured in the hospital. Additionally,    D
statements of all witnesses are consistent, and mere minor contradictions
cannot form the basis for rejecting the evidence produced by the
prosecution in its entirety. Thus, from a bare perusal of the facts, it can
be conclusively established that the prosecution has successfully
established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased
was strangulated to death by the appellants and upon his death, an attempt    E
was made to conceal his identity by pouring acid over the dead body.
      Analysis
       17. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by
the appellants and the respondent herein, in our considered opinion, the      F
key issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether the
prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof, and that the
chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract
application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
       18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of      G
proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is
on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the
prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an
intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of
                                                                              H
284             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the
      prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are
      specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
             19. Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the
      prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies
B     to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the
      prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the
      accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever
      an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either
      evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a
      response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. [See
C     Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC
      681]
             20. Coming to the case at hand, vide its judgment, the High Court
      has convicted both the appellants under Sections 304(II), 201 read with
      Section 34 of IPC. It was observed that the deceased was strangulated
D     to death by the appellants and an attempt was further made to conceal
      his identity, by pouring acid over the body. The relevant submissions of
      the parties and evidence adduced therewith has been discussed as follows:
             21. Firstly, reliance was placed on the statement of PW 9 (the
      landlord) which specifically mentioned that members of the police were
E     the first to enter into the house of the accused appellants, immediately
      after the accused appellants were rescued from the inter-linked door,
      while the deceased had remained inside. From the statement of PW 9, it
      can therefore be inferred that at the time of death of the deceased, only
      the accused appellants were present inside the house. Furthermore, the
F     contention of the appellants that the gathered mass of people had in fact
      assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face, has rightly been rejected
      by the High Court as being devoid of any material evidence made in
      support of the claim.
             22. Thereafter, further reliance is placed on the testimony of the
G     sister of the deceased – Gitanajali Rana (PW 12), who stated that the
      deceased was a jeweller having jewellery shop. She further stated that
      the deceased was in a love relation with the daughter of the appellants,
      and that he would often visit the house once or twice in a month. It was
      further stated that the deceased had given an amount of Rs. 70,000/- to
      the daughter of the appellants (accused no.3) as she had asked for his
H
            SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA                             285
                      [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

help. Deceased intended to marry accused no. 3, however upon getting          A
a job at a bank, the daughter started avoiding the deceased and his
frustrations grew. Deceased’s sister in her statement, further stated that
prior to his death, deceased had left the house exclaiming that he would
either come back along with the daughter of the appellants or would get
his money back. This statement was further confirmed by PW -7 and 8,
                                                                              B
who were the friend and cousin brother of the deceased, respectively.
It was therefore rightly observed by the High Court that the statement
of these second set of witnesses clearly spells out a motive for the
commission of offence. It also establishes that the claim made by the
accused appellants that the deceased was not known to them is also
false, especially considering that their daughter (accused no. 3) has         C
admitted in her deposition that the deceased used to visit the house of
the appellants.
       23. Furthermore, regard must also be had to the statement of the
medical expert (PW 6), which revealed that the cause of death of the
deceased was asphyxia due to compression of lower part of the neck            D
resulting in blockage of the upper end of the trachea. It was opined that
the deceased was assaulted by two or more persons and that the injuries
were homicidal in nature.
       24. In the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded in
establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence.   E
Such an intention, when analyzed in the light of the statements made by
all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased at
the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case that death
of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants. Therefore, once
the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, the
burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise. Thus, the High Court      F
rightly observed that in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
onus was now on the appellants to disclose how the deceased lost his
life.
    25. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Ashok Vs. State of
Maharashtra4 has observed:-                                                   G
         “12. From the study of above stated judgments and many
         others delivered by this Court over a period of years, the rule
         can be summarised as that the initial burden of proof is on
4
    (2015) 4 SCC 393                                                          H
286              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A            the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence pointing towards
             guilt of the accused. However, in case of last seen together,
             the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the
             incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge
             of the incident and thus, would have burden of proof as
             per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, last seen
B
             together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other
             circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between
             the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous
             history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc.
             non- explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a
C            presumption of guilt.”
             26. Therefore, having regard to the above facts and reasons stated
      therewith, it can be deduced that the entire sequence of events strongly
      point towards the guilt of the accused appellants, and that the appellants
      have failed to offer any credible defense in this regard. The entire chain
D     of events point towards the guilt of the appellants. Thus, we do not find
      any error in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The
      appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed.
             27. The bail bonds of the two accused stands cancelled and they
      are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two
E     weeks from today failing which they shall be taken into police custody
      for the said purpose.

      Ankit Gyan                                                Appeals dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

F




G




H