'Conviction Based On Surmise & Conjecture': Orissa High Court Acquits Man Held Guilty For Murder Of Adoptive Parents In 1996

The Orissa High Court has recently acquitted a man held guilty by the trial Court for murder of his adoptive parents in the year 1996. While terming the conviction to be based on “surmise and conjecture”, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –

“The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant and the reasonings assigned for arriving at such conclusion is not borne out of the record and it seems that the learned trial Court has proceeded pedantically without making an in-depth analysis of facts and circumstances and the evidences laid in the trial. In our opinion, the legal duty to separate the grain from the chaff has been abandoned by the learned trial Court and therefore, the entire approach is faulty and fallible which deserves to be rectified and upturned.”

On the night of 13/14.08.1996, the appellant discovered the dead body of the deceased Jadu Sahu (D-1) and severely injured Pitei Sahu (D-2). He immediately called his neighbours and proceeded to the police station for lodging an FIR. In the written complaint, he mentioned that the deceased persons used to be a squabbling couple, who often fought with each other. He further alleged that they had a heated quarrel the previous night during which they sworn to kill each other. Based on such allegations, the FIR was registered arraying D-2 as accused.

However, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) got credible evidence indicating involvement of the appellant in commission of the crime. Thus, a second FIR was registered arraying the appellant as well as his second-wife as accused persons. Though the wife was arrested, the appellant absconded.

Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his wife. In his absence, the trial was held against the appellant's wife wherein she was acquitted. Subsequently, the appellant surrendered and a separate trial was held against him. He was found guilty for commission of offences under Sections 302/201 IPC. Being aggrieved, he filed the present criminal appeal.

After perusing the inquest reports and examining the testimonies of the doctors who conducted post-mortem examinations over the dead bodies of the deceased couple, the Court was satisfied that the deaths were homicidal in nature. However, from the evidence on record, no motive on the part of the appellant could be proved by the prosecution.

The conduct of the appellant was alleged to be doubtful. It was highlighted that though D-2 was severely injured, instead of admitting her in hospital, the appellant preferred to visit the police station in order to lodge the FIR. Further, after registration of the second FIR against him, he absconded. Therefore, the prosecution contended that such conducts are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. But the Court did not find such evidence to be relevant.

“An approach by a Court in discarding the evidence on the ground of absence of a particular type of reaction of a person, may be a witness or an accused would be wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. It depends upon the upbringing of the person, his capacity to deal with adverse situation in life, his feelings and emotions,” it said.

Inconsistent pleas raised by the appellant were also underlined. At first in the FIR, the appellant alleged that the couple attacked and killed each other. Subsequently, he took the plea that the persons, who had previously killed his brother, might have killed the deceased couple. Such inconsistency was also found to be insignificant by the Court, which held –

“Even if the plea taken by the appellant relating to the death of the deceased couple was inconsistent, but that itself would not be a factor to prove the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution cannot derive any advantage from the falsity or other infirmities of the defence version, so long as it does not discharge its initial burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.”

So far as abscondence of the appellant is concerned, the Court cited Sekaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1052 wherein the Apex Court observed that abscondence by a person against whom an FIR has been lodged and who is under anticipation of being apprehended is not very unnatural and thus, mere absconding by the appellant after alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for a long time itself cannot establish his guilt or guilty conscience.

Similarly, presence of the appellant and his wife in the house of occurrence was never disputed. However, the Court was of the view that mere presence would not place burden on the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain his innocence, especially when the foundational facts remain unproved by the prosecution.

The Bench also opined that the prosecution failed to rule out the probable involvement of an intruder in the alleged crime. Thus, it was of the firm opinion –

“We are of the view that the assessment of the evidence has not been done in accordance of law by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, no conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence since adduced in the case. The conviction seems to be based more on surmise and conjecture than on any reliable evidences from which an irresistible conclusion about the complicity of the appellant in committing the murder, can at all be drawn.”

Resultantly, the criminal appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all the charges. Considering the fact that he is already on bail since 23.04.2001, his bail and surety bonds were also discharged.

Case Title: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRA No. 229 of 2000

Date of Judgment: October 09, 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sashibhusan Das, Dr. Biplab S. & Mr. S. Padhi, Advocates

Counsel for the State: Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 130

Click Here To Read/Download Order