The Orissa High Court stated that not trying to find out where a deceased person is, or why they didn’t come home, is not enough for a conviction without strong evidence.
The Orissa High Court noted that if someone does not make an effort to find out where a missing person is and fails to report this to the police, it is not enough for a conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without strong evidence. This statement was made during appeals by the accused against a Trial Court’s decision that convicted them in a murder case. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, stated, “The testimonies of the deceased’s three children and appellant Nibedita Panda do not provide enough evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy. Even if we accept that appellant Syama Choudhury visited their home on the day of the incident and spoke with their mother, and that she stayed with their mother after the deceased went missing, and even if we accept that Nibedita Panda did not try to find out where the deceased was after sending him with appellant Katiki on December 12, 2007, and did not report this to the police for over a month, these suspicious actions alone, without any other strong evidence, are not enough to convict her of criminal conspiracy.”
According to the prosecution, an unidentified male body, aged around 25-30 years, was found burned and lying on a road. The body was near some bushes, mostly naked, with only small pieces of a shirt and pants remaining. Blood was coming from the nose, eyes, ears, and mouth, and there were injuries on the left eyebrow. The skin was peeled, and water bubbles were visible on the body. An FIR was filed, and during the investigation, a photograph of the body was identified.
The accused individuals, Syama Choudhury and Nibedita Panda (the deceased’s wife), were taken into custody for questioning. Other suspects were also identified. They were charged under Section 201 along with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly burning the deceased’s body to hide evidence of murder and avoid legal consequences, acting on a shared intention. The Trial Court acquitted the other co-accused but found the Appellants guilty under Sections 302, 34, 201, 511, and 120-B of the IPC. Dissatisfied with the verdict, they appealed to the High Court. The High Court observed that while there were some suspicions regarding Syama Choudhury’s actions, the evidence presented did not meet the legal standard required for a criminal conviction, which is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court stated that there is no evidence showing that the Appellant Syama Choudhury was involved in hiding evidence. A witness testified that Syama gave him a bottle to get kerosene, which he did, but then he left the house. The doctor confirmed that the burn injuries on the deceased were post-mortem and caused by dry heat with a kerosene-like substance. However, there is no proof that the kerosene obtained by Syama was used to inflict those injuries.
The Court mentioned that while a wooden stick, referred to as ‘Muli Thenga’ (M.O.I), was found near the village Ramadihi at Syama’s direction, and the doctor indicated it could cause ante-mortem injuries, these facts do not clearly indicate Syama’s guilt. Therefore, the prosecution did not successfully prove the charges against him under sections 302/34 and 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to his acquittal.
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the Appellant Katiki did not present any witnesses to support his claim of visiting a girl with the deceased. The timing of when they were last seen together and when the body was discovered, along with other circumstantial and medical evidence, indicated that he failed to meet his burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As a result, the High Court acquitted Syama and Nibedita but upheld Katiki’s conviction.
Cause Title: Syama Choudhury & Anr. v. State of Odisha
