# SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA

- **Citation:** [2022] 4 S.C.R. 276
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-05-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017
- **Bench:** N. V. Ramana, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sabitri-samantaray-v-state-of-odisha-36029
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 304(II) - Prosecution case
that victim-deceased was strangulated to death by the appellants
(husband and wife) along with their daughter in their house and
an attempt was made to conceal identity of deceased by pouring
acid over the dead body - Trial Court convicted appellants and
their daughter for the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced
them to rigorous imprisonment for life - However, the High Court
acquitted daughter of all the charges and upheld the conviction of
the appellants - The conviction of the appellants was modified
u/s.304(II) IPC and sentence term was reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for a term of five years - On appeal, held: In the
instant case, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the
intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence - Such
an intention, when analyzed in light of the statements made by all
the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased
at the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case
that death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants -
Therefore, once the prosecution had successfully established the
chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it
otherwise - The appellants had failed to offer any credible defense
- The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of the appellants
- No error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106 - Burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge - The Section in no way exonerates the prosecution
from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it
merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an
intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus
of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not
on the prosecution - If the accused had a different intention than
the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. From the statement of PW 9, it can be inferred
that at the time of death of the deceased, only the accused
appellants were present inside the house. Furthermore, the
contention of the appellants that the gathered mass of people
had in fact assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face, has
rightly been rejected by the High Court as being devoid of any
material evidence made in support of the claim. Deceased's sister
(PW 12) in her statement, further stated that prior to his death,
deceased had left the house exclaiming that he would either come
back along with the daughter of the appellants or would get his
money back. This statement was further confirmed by PW-7 and
8, who were the friend and cousin brother of the deceased,
respectively. It was therefore rightly observed by the High Court
that the statement of these second set of witnesses clearly spells
out a motive for the commission of offence. It also establishes
that the claim made by the accused appellants that the deceased
was not known to them is also false, especially considering that
their daughter (accused no. 3) has admitted in her deposition
that the deceased used to visit the house of the appellants. [Paras
21 & 22][284-F; 285-A-C]
2. In the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded
in establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of
the offence. Such an intention, when analyzed in the light of the
statements made by all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries
sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time, certainly
makes out a strong case that death of the deceased was indeed
caused by the appellants. Therefore, once the prosecution had
successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on
the appellants to prove it otherwise. Thus, the High Court rightly
observed that in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
onus was now on the appellants to disclose how the deceased
lost his life. Having regard to the above

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
SABITRI SAMANTARAY
v.
STATE OF ODISHA
(Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017)
MAY 20, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 304(II) - Prosecution case
that victim-deceased was strangulated to death by the appellants
(husband and wife) along with their daughter in their house and
an attempt was made to conceal identity of deceased by pouring
acid over the dead body - Trial Court convicted appellants and
their daughter for the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced
them to rigorous imprisonment for life - However, the High Court
acquitted daughter of all the charges and upheld the conviction of
the appellants - The conviction of the appellants was modified
u/s.304(II) IPC and sentence term was reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for a term of five years - On appeal, held: In the
instant case, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the
intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence - Such
an intention, when analyzed in light of the statements made by all
the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased
at the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case
that death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants -
Therefore, once the prosecution had successfully established the
chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it
otherwise - The appellants had failed to offer any credible defense
- The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of the appellants
- No error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106 - Burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge - The Section in no way exonerates the prosecution
from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it
merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an
intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus
of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not
on the prosecution - If the accused had a different intention than
the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. From the statement of PW 9, it can be inferred
that at the time of death of the deceased, only the accused
appellants were present inside the house. Furthermore, the
contention of the appellants that the gathered mass of people
had in fact assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face, has
rightly been rejected by the High Court as being devoid of any
material evidence made in support of the claim. Deceased's sister
(PW 12) in her statement, further stated that prior to his death,
deceased had left the house exclaiming that he would either come
back along with the daughter of the appellants or would get his
money back. This statement was further confirmed by PW-7 and
8, who were the friend and cousin brother of the deceased,
respectively. It was therefore rightly observed by the High Court
that the statement of these second set of witnesses clearly spells
out a motive for the commission of offence. It also establishes
that the claim made by the accused appellants that the deceased
was not known to them is also false, especially considering that
their daughter (accused no. 3) has admitted in her deposition
that the deceased used to visit the house of the appellants. [Paras
21 & 22][284-F; 285-A-C]
2. In the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded
in establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of
the offence. Such an intention, when analyzed in the light of the
statements made by all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries
sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time, certainly
makes out a strong case that death of the deceased was indeed
caused by the appellants. Therefore, once the prosecution had
successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on
the appellants to prove it otherwise. Thus, the High Court rightly
observed that in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
onus was now on the appellants to disclose how the deceased
lost his life. Having regard to the above facts and reasons stated
therewith, it can be deduced that the entire sequence of events
strongly point towards the guilt of the accused appellants, and
that the appellants have failed to offer any credible defense in
this regard. The entire chain of events point towards the guilt of
the appellants. [Paras 24 & 26][285-E-F; 286-C-D]
SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Ashok v. State
of Maharashtra (2015) 4 SCC 393 : [2015] 6 SCR
375 - relied on.
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [1956] SCR 199;
Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla,
(2005) 9 SCC 15 : [2004] 2 SCR 459; Mohan Singh v.
Prem Singh and Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 236 : [2002] 3
Suppl. SCR 5; Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
(2003) 10 SCC 21 : 2003 (1) Suppl. JT 150 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[1956] SCR 199 referred to
Para 8
[2004] 2 SCR 459 referred to
Para 10
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 5 referred to
Para 10
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156 relied on
Para 15
[2015] 6 SCR 375 relied on
Para 25
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
988 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2016 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in CRL A. No. 202 of 2015.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2022
Ms. Amrita Panda, Kanishk Aggrawal, Debesh Panda, Udbhav
Gady, Advs. for the Appellant.
Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Ms. Anindita Pujari,
Siddhartha Srivastava, Azad Bansala, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advs. for
the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3881
of 2017.
2. Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order
dated 08.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Odisha at Cuttack in
Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2015. The Appellants herein, namely Sabitri
Samantaray and Bidyadhar Praharaj are wife and husband respectively.
The two have been arrayed as accused no. 2 and accused no. 1 in FIR
No. 120 of 2008. The Appellants herein along with their daughter (accused
no. 3) had been charged with offences under Sections 302, 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as 'IPC').
Sessions Court Jajpur, in C.T. Case No. 76 of 2010 convicted accused
no. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34
IPC, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further sentence of
six months in case of default in payment of fine. Their daughter i.e.
Accused No. 3 was convicted under Sections 302, 109 read with Section
34 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs. 10,000/-, and further sentence of six months in case of default in
payment of fine. Subsequently, the High Court vide order impugned herein
acquitted the daughter of the appellants of all charges, but upheld the
conviction of the Appellants. The conviction of the appellants under
Section 302 IPC, however, was modified to conviction under Section
304 (II) IPC and, therefore, sentence term was reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and an
additional six months of rigorous imprisonment in case of default.
Factual Matrix
3. The accused appellants herein were tenants of one Mayadhar
Mohapana. The said landlord on 21.07.2008, lodged an FIR stating that
an unknown person had attacked the accused appellants at around 7:30
PM while he was watching television in his house. The landlord stated
that he had heard a loud cry from the portion of his house which was
rented to the appellants, and as he rushed to inquire what had happened,
he saw an unknown person assaulting the appellants with a "Kata".
Consequently, the landlord cried for help, and as other people gathered
SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
around the house, he rescued the couple through an inter-connected
door.
4. This unknown person remained inside the appellants' house.
Police arrived at the spot, searched all rooms, whereafter, the person
was found dead inside the kitchen of the house. It was initially suspected
that he had committed suicide by consuming poison. Subsequently, the
body was sent for autopsy, and was thereafter preserved for identification.
On 24.07.2008, one Ranjan Rana identified the deceased to be Sanjay
Rana. He further disclosed that the deceased had a love relationship
with the daughter of the appellants.
5. Post-mortem examination of the body was also conducted and
it was opined by the doctor that death was caused by compression on
lower part of the neck, resulting in blockage of upper end of the trachea.
It was further opined that the deceased victim was assaulted by two or
more persons with acid and blunt objects. Thus, death was homicidal in
nature. In consequence thereof, charge sheet was submitted against the
accused appellants and their daughter (accused no. 3) for offences under
Sections 302, 201, 109 and 34 IPC.
6. The accused appellants on the contrary maintained that the
unknown person had forcibly entered into their house and locked it from
inside. He first encountered accused no. 1 (i.e. Bidyadhar Praharaj) and
threatened to kill him, should he refused to hand over entire money and
valuables. Subsequently, both the appellants were assaulted by the
deceased, which resulted in injuries. They were eventually rescued, and
thereafter police implicated them in a false case.
7. The Sessions Court, vide its judgment dated 30.03.2015, held
that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond
reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted the accused appellants and
their daughter under above said Sections. Aggrieved, appellants and their
daughter challenged the judgment of the Trial Court before the High
Court. Vide impugned judgment, the High Court acquitted the daughter
of all charges, as she was not present at the scene of offence. It was
observed that she had no role in the actual incident and therefore cannot
be termed as an abettor to the crime. On the contrary, the conviction of
the accused appellants was confirmed by the High Court. The High
Court observed that something had transpired between the appellants
and the deceased, which ensued in an assault. It was further observed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
that thereafter, it appeared that the deceased was somehow overpowered
by the appellants and was unarmed. Thereafter, both the appellants
throttled him to death and poured acid on him to impede identification.
However, as there was a strong possibility of existence of grave and
sudden provocation, which was discernible from adduced evidence, the
conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to conviction under
Section 304 (II) IPC, and both the accused were thereby sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.
Contentions made by the Appellants
8. The Appellants herein contend that reliance placed on Section
106 of the Evidence Act is misconstrued, in absence of clear evidence
pointing to the guilt of the appellants accused. That the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and has therefore failed
to discharge its burden of proof. In the absence of the prosecution having
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court cannot
supplant Section 106 of the Evidence Act to discharge the burden of
proof incumbent upon the prosecution. The judgment impugned herein is
therefore in contravention to the law laid down by this Court in Shambu
Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer1.
9. Further, the High Court erred in convicting the appellants by
entirely relying upon circumstantial evidence. Additionally, in absence of
any eye-witness, the High Court also erred in dismissing the contention
of the appellants regarding the disputed time of death of the deceased.
10. It is also contended that the High Court failed to appreciate
that as per the post-mortem report submitted by the Doctor, death of the
deceased happened when the appellants were admitted to the hospital,
because of the injuries they had suffered from being assaulted by the
deceased. Moreover, reliance placed upon answers given by the
appellants in their statements under Section 313 of CrPC is misplaced,
as answers to questions under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible as
evidence and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution.
[See, Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla,
(2005) 9 SCC 15 and Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr., (2002)
10 SCC 236.]
1 1956 SCR 199
SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
11. Lastly it was submitted that the High Court failed to rely upon
any individual incident which would indicate the appellants' participation,
resulting in the death of the deceased. Thus, the judgment lacks any
prima facie finding which would indicate participation of the appellants
in the event leading to the death of the deceased.
Contentions made by the Respondent - State
12. It has been submitted by the Respondent herein, that the High
Court relying upon admitted facts, creditworthy evidence, relationship
between the parties, more specifically relationship between the deceased
and daughter of the appellants, their telephonic contacts, exchange of
money between the deceased and appellant's daughter, date, place and
time of murder of the deceased, and the presence of accused appellants
inside the tenanted portion of the house, has rightly observed that the
incident did occur at the time and place alleged by the prosecution wherein
appellants were definitely involved.
13. Further, it was rightly observed that the claim of the first set
of witnesses failed to lay down a complete narration of the events.
Additionally, vide judgment impugned herein, it was rightly observed that
the version of the second set of witnesses was more convincing as it
established the relationship between the deceased and the appellants,
which, to an extent was accepted by the appellant's husband herein and
the daughter.
14. It is further contended that from a perusal of the facts and
material on record it is evident that no one else except the appellants
herein were present at the scene of the offence and therefore, on account
of the appellants having special knowledge, reference to Section 106 of
the Evidence Act, has been rightly made. The Trial Court, while
confirming the reliance placed by the prosecution on the judgment of
this Court rendered in Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan2, has
also referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, contentions
made by the appellants that no reliance was placed by the prosecution
on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is incorrect.
15. This Court in its judgment in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs.
State of Maharashtra3 has also observed:-
2 (2003) 10 SCC 21
3 (2006) 10 SCC 681
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
"15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would
undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and
amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge
cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of
circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the
inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how
the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get
away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation
on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case
lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all
on an accused to offer any explanation."
16. Furthermore, it is submitted that as per the deposition of the
medical expert (PW 6), it is nowhere mentioned that the deceased had
died when the appellants were lying injured in the hospital. Additionally,
statements of all witnesses are consistent, and mere minor contradictions
cannot form the basis for rejecting the evidence produced by the
prosecution in its entirety. Thus, from a bare perusal of the facts, it can
be conclusively established that the prosecution has successfully
established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased
was strangulated to death by the appellants and upon his death, an attempt
was made to conceal his identity by pouring acid over the dead body.
Analysis
17. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by
the appellants and the respondent herein, in our considered opinion, the
key issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether the
prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof, and that the
chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract
application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of
proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is
on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the
prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an
intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of
SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the
prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are
specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
19. Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the
prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies
to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the
prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the
accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever
an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either
evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a
response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. [See
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC
681]
20. Coming to the case at hand, vide its judgment, the High Court
has convicted both the appellants under Sections 304(II), 201 read with
Section 34 of IPC. It was observed that the deceased was strangulated
to death by the appellants and an attempt was further made to conceal
his identity, by pouring acid over the body. The relevant submissions of
the parties and evidence adduced therewith has been discussed as follows:
21. Firstly, reliance was placed on the statement of PW 9 (the
landlord) which specifically mentioned that members of the police were
the first to enter into the house of the accused appellants, immediately
after the accused appellants were rescued from the inter-linked door,
while the deceased had remained inside. From the statement of PW 9, it
can therefore be inferred that at the time of death of the deceased, only
the accused appellants were present inside the house. Furthermore, the
contention of the appellants that the gathered mass of people had in fact
assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face, has rightly been rejected
by the High Court as being devoid of any material evidence made in
support of the claim.
22. Thereafter, further reliance is placed on the testimony of the
sister of the deceased - Gitanajali Rana (PW 12), who stated that the
deceased was a jeweller having jewellery shop. She further stated that
the deceased was in a love relation with the daughter of the appellants,
and that he would often visit the house once or twice in a month. It was
further stated that the deceased had given an amount of Rs. 70,000/- to
the daughter of the appellants (accused no.3) as she had asked for his
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
help. Deceased intended to marry accused no. 3, however upon getting
a job at a bank, the daughter started avoiding the deceased and his
frustrations grew. Deceased's sister in her statement, further stated that
prior to his death, deceased had left the house exclaiming that he would
either come back along with the daughter of the appellants or would get
his money back. This statement was further confirmed by PW -7 and 8,
who were the friend and cousin brother of the deceased, respectively.
It was therefore rightly observed by the High Court that the statement
of these second set of witnesses clearly spells out a motive for the
commission of offence. It also establishes that the claim made by the
accused appellants that the deceased was not known to them is also
false, especially considering that their daughter (accused no. 3) has
admitted in her deposition that the deceased used to visit the house of
the appellants.
23. Furthermore, regard must also be had to the statement of the
medical expert (PW 6), which revealed that the cause of death of the
deceased was asphyxia due to compression of lower part of the neck
resulting in blockage of the upper end of the trachea. It was opined that
the deceased was assaulted by two or more persons and that the injuries
were homicidal in nature.
24. In the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded in
establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence.
Such an intention, when analyzed in the light of the statements made by
all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased at
the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case that death
of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants. Therefore, once
the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, the
burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise. Thus, the High Court
rightly observed that in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the
onus was now on the appellants to disclose how the deceased lost his
life.
25. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Ashok Vs. State of
Maharashtra4 has observed:-
"12. From the study of above stated judgments and many
others delivered by this Court over a period of years, the rule
can be summarised as that the initial burden of proof is on
4 (2015) 4 SCC 393
SABITRI SAMANTARAY v. STATE OF ODISHA
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence pointing towards
guilt of the accused. However, in case of last seen together,
the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the
incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge
of the incident and thus, would have burden of proof as
per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, last seen
together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other
circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between
the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous
history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc.
non- explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a
presumption of guilt."
26. Therefore, having regard to the above facts and reasons stated
therewith, it can be deduced that the entire sequence of events strongly
point towards the guilt of the accused appellants, and that the appellants
have failed to offer any credible defense in this regard. The entire chain
of events point towards the guilt of the appellants. Thus, we do not find
any error in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The
appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed.
27. The bail bonds of the two accused stands cancelled and they
are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two
weeks from today failing which they shall be taken into police custody
for the said purpose.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)