Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently acquitted a man accused in the 2013 murder of an inter-caste couple, citing deficiencies and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The case stemmed from a property dispute, which the prosecution had alleged as the motive for the crime.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar set aside the Orissa High Court’s judgment, allowing an appeal filed by Siba Nial alias Trilochan against his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

The case originated from a First Information Report lodged on June 1, 2013, at Police Station – IIC, Boden, District - Nuapada, Odisha. The FIR stated that Dhaneswar Kata and his wife Nirupama Kata were found dead on the terrace of their house in the morning, having suffered gunshot injuries. The couple had gone to sleep the previous night on the terrace along with other family members, including Dhananjaya Kata, who was examined as a prosecution witness, and Kishor Bachha, who was not examined.

The bench noted that Dhananjaya Kata, in his court deposition, did not claim to have seen the person who had shot dead Dhaneswar Kata and Nirupama Kata. This was also confirmed by the informant, Hrushikesh Kata, who did not name any particular person as a culprit in the FIR. Dalimba Kata, the wife of the informant, Hrushikesh Kata, deposed on similar lines and did not name the culprit. None of these witnesses deposed about how the offence was committed and why they did not hear any gunshots.

The appellant, Siba Nial alias Trilochan, and the co-accused Prabhulal, who is the son-in-law of Hrushikesh Kata, were arrested on June 9, 2013, nearly nine days after the occurrence. The appellant, Siba Nial alias Trilochan, was the nephew of Prabhulal, the co-accused. Prabhulal absconded after being released on bail and has not been arrested to date.

To prove its case against the appellant, Siba Nial alias Trilochan, the prosecution primarily relied upon the testimonies of Manoranjan Behera and Krutibash Chhatria, who were neighbours residing in the vicinity. They deposed that, during the intervening night of May 31, 2013, and June 1, 2013, they had seen the appellant, Siba Nial alias Trilochan, and the co-accused, Prabhulal, on a motorcycle near the house where the deceased were staying. They alleged that while the appellant remained near the motorcycle, Prabhulal went up, and thereafter, they heard the sound of two bullets being fired. Later on, the appellant and the co-accused, Prabhulal, drove away on the motorcycle.

After going through the prosecution’s version, the bench said, "What is intriguing and makes the versions of Manoranjan Behera and Krutibash Chhatria doubtful and debatable is their silence from June 01, 2013 till June 09, 2013. This is significant given the fact that the locality must have been shaken on coming to know that Dhaneswar Kata and his wife, Nirupama Kata, had been shot dead."

The court pointed out that the FIR did not name any culprit or perpetrator.

It noted that Dhananjaya Kata, who was sleeping with both the deceased persons on the terrace of the house, had also not named the perpetrators, though he was the person who would have seen the persons committing the crime, given the fact that both Manoranjan Behera and Krutibash Chhatria had deposed that there was the sound of gunshots being fired, not once but twice.

In the case, the prosecution also relied upon the disclosure statement of the appellant, Siba Nial alias Trilochan, which led to the recovery of the pistol, along with the magazine, which was seized by a seizure memo. These recoveries were made on June 9, 2013.

On this, the bench said, "The postmortem report, and the deposition of Dr Jitender Kumar Soren as well as the ballistic report, however, are ambiguous and do not support the prosecution’s version."

In fact, the postmortem report and the deposition of Dr Soren indicated that the external injury on the head could have been due to a rifle firearm bullet that was not fired from close range. However, as per the depositions of Manoranjan Behera and Krutibash Chhatria, the bullets were fired from a close range after Prabhulal had climbed onto the terrace to commit the offence, the bench said.

Going by the ballistic report, the bench said, it was not possible to compare the firing pin marks on the cartridge cases found at the spot with the test-fired cartridge cases.

In the case, Dhananjaya Kata, the witness who was sleeping with the deceased on the terrace, in his deposition, did refer to motive, as there was statedly a property dispute between the deceased, Dhaneswar Kata, and the co-convict, Prabhulal.

However, he also deposed that his brother, Dhaneswar Kata, had gotten married to Nirupama, who was from a different caste, being a Brahmin, and there was opposition to their marriage from both sides, that is, from the families of Dhaneswar Kata as well as Nirupama Kata, the court pointed out.

"In view of the discussion highlighting the deficiencies and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the guilt of the appellant, Siba Nial alias Trilochan, does not stand proved and established beyond reasonable doubt," the bench said.

The court set aside the impugned judgment, which had confirmed the conviction of the appellant. It directed the release of Siba Nial alias Trilochan from jail forthwith, unless he was required to be detained in connection with any other case.

Case Title: Siba Nial @ Trilochan Vs State of Odisha