Setting aside the concurrent convictions rendered by the trial court and the Orissa High Court, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that an accused cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence unless every incriminating link is individually proved and cumulatively forms an unbroken chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence. In a case arising from a pitch-dark night assault where eyewitness testimony had already been discarded, the Court ruled that witnesses could not have identified assailants merely by the sound of assault or torchlight flashed by the assailants themselves, thereby granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident that took place on May 14, 2001. According to the prosecution, accused Narendra @ Narahari Behera visited the house of the informant (PW-3) at about 4:00 PM, used obscene language, and threatened to kill Dhruba Pradhan. Later that evening, at around 7:00 PM, a group of armed accused persons arrived at the informant’s house searching for the deceased, threatened him again, and departed toward Abhayapur.
Around the same time, the deceased was traveling by motorcycle when he was intercepted at Agi Chhak. As he attempted to escape, the accused persons caught him, lifted him into an adjacent cultivable paddy field, and assaulted him using a laterite stone, thenga, iron rod, and bhujali, leading to his death. His motorcycle was subsequently thrown into a pond. The First Information Report (FIR No. 128 of 2001) was lodged by PW-3 at 2:00 AM on May 15, 2001.
Following an investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against 18 persons. The case against one accused abated following his death, and proceedings against three absconding accused were split up. Fourteen accused faced trial before the Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 158/14/26 of 2002 under Sections 148, 506/149, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On January 28, 2004, the Trial Court convicted six accused persons under Sections 148, 506, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 each, while acquitting eight others by extending the benefit of doubt.
On appeal, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack discarded the ocular testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, holding that the assailants could not have been identified in the pitch-dark night merely by the sound of the assault. Nonetheless, the High Court sustained the convictions on the premise that circumstantial evidence had proved the charges. The six convicts approached the Supreme Court; during the pendency of the appeals, appellants Upendra Sethi and Madhu Pradhan passed away, leading to the abatement of their appeals, leaving four appellants before the apex court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocates Mrs. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. J.K. Das, appearing for the appellants, argued that once the High Court had discredited the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses (PWs 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 26) due to the pitch-dark conditions and distance, upholding the conviction on the remaining weak evidence was unsustainable. They highlighted material contradictions among these related witnesses, noting that PW-17’s version contradicted the others.
Counsel also pointed out the reasonable possibility of alternative suspects, citing admissions by PW-3 and the Investigating Officer (PW-24) that the deceased had a history of 13 criminal cases involving serious offenses like murder and rape, causing widespread local enmity. Witnesses had stated that nearly 200 to 250 persons were searching for the deceased that night. Regarding appellant Haladhar Rout, counsel emphasized that prosecution witnesses admitted he had cordial relations with the deceased’s family, thus disproving motive. Furthermore, the recovery of items was limited to the spot rather than at the instance of the appellants, and no independent witnesses were examined despite hundreds being present.
Opposing the appeals, Mr. Vishnu Kant, counsel for the State of Odisha, submitted that concurrent findings of guilt rested upon an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. He contended that the sequence began with an open threat at 4:00 PM, followed by an organized, armed search at 7:00 PM, and the subsequent interception and assault at Agi Chhak. Counsel argued that under Section 149 IPC, individual overt acts need not be established once a common object is demonstrated. He asserted that medical evidence confirmed a brutal homicidal death and that the failure of the accused to explain what transpired after forcibly taking the deceased away supplied a missing link, justifying the life sentences.
The Court’s Analysis and Key Findings
The Supreme Court observed that although the medical evidence clearly confirmed homicidal death, the prosecution had failed to establish the appellants’ authorship of the crime.
Examining the witness depositions, the bench noticed marked discrepancies. While PW-3 did not claim in the FIR to have seen the incident himself—naming only PW-17 and PW-26 as eyewitnesses—PW-4 claimed that he, along with PW-3 and four sisters-in-law, had witnessed the occurrence. The Court further observed that PW-3 exhibited unnatural conduct by failing to specify weapons and returning home for two hours without informing family or villagers.
On the question of identification in the dark, the bench referred to State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, where it was held improbable for witnesses to identify assailants at night even under moonlight, quoting:
“In the first place, we find it difficult to believe that after Ashok Kumar had given a call and fired, the witnesses would dare to flash the torch light and expose themselves to the risk of being shot themselves. Secondly, even if torches were lighted, in view of the large distance, it would not be possible for the witnesses to identify the respondents with absolute certainty.”
The Court also invoked Tamilselvan v. State, observing that when assailants carry torches, the light tends to blind witnesses rather than assist them in identification:
“In fact due to the torches of the assailants the prosecution witnesses would have been partially blinded by the light of the torchlight, and would not have been able to identify anybody.”
Agreeing that the ocular version was rightly discarded, the Supreme Court evaluated the remaining circumstantial evidence against established legal benchmarks. The bench referred to the foundational panchsutra laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that circumstances must be fully established, conclusively pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
Citing Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the bench underscored that circumstances must pass the test of certainty:
“It has been held that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’.”
The Court further noted:
“It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Applying the principles from Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, which requires that each circumstantial link be proved individually, the bench analyzed the eight circumstances relied upon by the High Court. It found that the allegations of prior threats and assembly rested on inconsistent and interested testimonies, while identification by voice and sound of assault in pitch darkness remained wholly unproved.
Additionally, the Court found no merit in the prosecution’s claim that the deceased was killed with a 53 kg laterite stone. There was no evidence as to who brought such a heavy stone or how it was brought, nor was the stone ever recovered. The medical officer (PW-18) had deposed that no weapon of offense, including the laterite stone, had been forwarded to him for an expert opinion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to forge a complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence, leaving substantial gaps in the evidence. Holding that where two reasonable views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail, the Court set aside the convictions.
The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated May 6, 2009, as well as the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence dated January 28, 2004, were quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Kartika @ Kirtan @ Kirtan Charan Jena & Anr. Etc. Versus The State of Odisha
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1047-1048 of 2010 with Criminal Appeal No(s). 2223 of 2010
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date: September 18, 2026
