May vs Must: Orissa High Court acquits 3 men in 28-year-old murder of widow, slams ‘suspicion-based’ conviction

Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sashikanta Mishra noted that none of the circumstances listed by the trial court can be treated as incriminating in the least.

“There are some materials which are capable of arousing a suspicion that the accused may have killed the deceased but, unless the ‘may’ becomes a ‘must’, it would not be safe to hold him guilty conclusively. While ‘may’ connotes a mere possibility, ‘must’ confers a definiteness to such possibility, in the absence of which, no person can be held guilty,” the Orissa High Court’s judgment dated March 19 read.

Conviction

• After the 70-year-old victim went missing, her son lodged a missing report at the local police station.
• It was stated that while leaving home, the deceased was carrying her pension book, some clothes in a plastic bag, Rs 4,000 cash, and was wearing several gold ornaments.
• Two days later, a body was found floating in the main canal of the Upper Kolab Dam Project near Minaguda.
• The victim’s sons identified the body as that of their mother.
• Following this, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered and the three appellants were arrested for the murder.
• In 2001, the trial court convicted all the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment.
• Aggrieved, they approached the Orissa High Court.

Court’s observations

• The deceased was aged about 70 years and was a widow. Though nothing is on record to suggest her state of health, yet, considering her advanced age, it strikes as somewhat odd that such a lady would leave house alone even in day time wearing valuable ornaments and carrying cash with her.
• The incriminating circumstance noted by the trial court is that the victim’s body was found floating in the canal and that gold ornaments and cash were not found on her.
• There is no evidence to show that she was carrying cash.
• Without other supporting evidence, the discovery of the body in the canal by itself cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance.
• It is evident that from the date of seizure, the articles (ornaments) were with the investigating officer himself and not in proper custody, such as at the police malkhana (storage room).
• This is a very significant omission that shakes the very foundation of the case. So, even if it is accepted for a moment that the officer had indeed made some seizures, unless it is further shown that the seized articles were kept in proper custody, such evidence loses its importance and so also the evidence relating to the conduct of the test identification parade.

Question of ‘motive’

• Regarding the motive of the accused for committing the crime, the whole case projected by the prosecution – that the victim was at the house of the accused – appears doubtful.
• For a person with a motive of robbery, it is surprising that he would bring his victim to his house and make her sit on the veranda for quite some time and thereafter kill her inside the house and rob the valuables.
• None of the circumstances listed by the trial court can be treated as incriminating in the least, considered individually or jointly. The fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence enjoins upon the court to accept evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
• We are conscious that any fanciful doubt or speculation, imagination, etc, cannot be treated as reasonable doubt but then, if the doubt as such is capable of shaking the foundation of the case, the same cannot be used to hold the accused guilty.