HEADING: Grave Suspicion or Bitter Enmity Cannot Substitute Legal Proof in Absence of Reliable Eye-Witness Testimony

The deceased, Shyam Singh, was allegedly attacked and killed on 05.01.1979 at 6:30 A.M. by four accused persons (Ranvir, Omkar, Mangey Ram, and Hem Raj) using knives and country-made pistols.

The prosecution alleged the motive followed long-standing civil and criminal litigation between the families.

An F.I.R. was lodged within 30 minutes at a station two miles away.

The Trial Court convicted all accused under Section 302/34 IPC on 26.07.1984.

During the pendency of the appeal, three appellants died, leaving Omkar as the sole surviving appellant.

1. Whether the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the recovery of personal articles (muffler, cap, waist-cloth) from the spot was conclusively linked to the appellant.

3. Whether the prosecution's failure to examine a material witness (Jhabbar) created a fatal gap in the case.

The Court applied Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding murder and common intention.

The Court relied on the evidentiary principle that "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof," as established in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam.

State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra

The court applied the principle from Sushil v. State of U.P. and State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh that enmity is a "double-edged weapon" which may provide a motive for both crime and false implication.

The Court scrutinized the ocular evidence and found the witnesses (PW-7 to PW-10) unreliable. PW-7 was found to be a hearsay witness who was not present at the spot.

The court observed that the 6:30 A.M. winter timing in January would likely involve dense fog, making visibility and identification doubtful.

The testimonies of PW-8, PW-9, and PW-10 contained major improvements and contradictions compared to their Section 161 CrPC statements.

The Court found the conduct of the witnesses unnatural, as they neither attempted to intervene nor raised an alarm to nearby residents during the 4-minute assault.

The prosecution failed to examine Jhabbar, the primary informant at the scene, and failed to prove that the generic clothing found at the site exclusively belonged to the appellant, Omkar.

Given the bitter history of litigation, the Court inferred a strong possibility of false implication.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding that suspicion alone cannot sustain a conviction.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and life sentence of the surviving appellant, Omkar, were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. The Court ordered the cancellation of his bail bonds and discharge of sureties.