Orissa HC Reverses Conviction for Murder Amid FIR Discrepancies and Shifting Witnesses

The Orissa High Court has overturned a life sentence for murder, declaring that the prosecution's failure to maintain consistency between FIRs and witness depositions creates a fatal shadow of doubt on the trial's integrity. In a stern reminder that the gravity of a crime necessitates even stricter proof, the bench underscored that courts cannot rely on assumptions or a witness's relationship to the deceased to bridge evidentiary gaps.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sashikanta Mishra and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak adjudicated an appeal challenging a 2004 judgment by the Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baripada. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the alleged murder of a woman suspected of practicing witchcraft.

Judicial Scrutiny of Witness Credibility and Investigative Lapses

The High Court meticulously analyzed the ocular evidence and found significant improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses compared to their initial statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. The Court observed that the primary witness, the informant, admitted in cross-examination that he had lodged multiple reports with the police, yet only one was presented in court. This suppressed 'original' FIR created a serious doubt regarding the deliberation behind the prosecution's story.

Regarding the trial court's failure to address contradictions simply because they were not formally confronted to the Investigating Officer, the High Court held such an approach as "absurd." The Court has the following directions:

"The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and sentence is set aside. The accused being on bail, his bail bonds be discharged."

Court's Rationale on Judicial Responsibility and Evidence

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is the responsibility of the Court to make such inquiry from the record as is necessary to ascertain the truth. When the glaring contradiction in the statement of P.W.1 is available on record, the Court cannot shut its eyes to it... A case of murder cannot be proved on mere hunches or possibilities."

Background:

The dispute originated from an incident on June 21, 2002, where the appellant was accused of assaulting Thakuri Mohanta with an arrow and an axe (Budia). The trial court had relied heavily on the testimony of the deceased's son (P.W.1) and other relatives (P.W.2 and P.W.3), concluding that the motive was rooted in witchcraft allegations.

During the appeal, the defense argued that the 'so-called eye-witnesses' had materially changed their versions and that the existence of multiple FIRs made the prosecution case unreliable. The State, conversely, argued that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence and that contradictions were minor. However, the High Court found that the trial court had 'supplied reasons' for witness confusion that were not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the Court rejected the trial court's reliance on a 'hostile' witness's alleged extra-judicial confession, noting that statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Referring to the precedent in State of U.P. vrs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra and others, the Court clarified that while parts of a hostile witness's testimony can be accepted, the underlying facts must still be independently proved.

Key Takeaways:

Duty to Ascertain Truth

Judges have an active responsibility to examine the record for contradictions, regardless of whether defense counsel formally confronts the investigator with every omission.

Suppression of Initial Reports

When an informant admits to lodging multiple FIRs that are not accounted for by the police, it raises a presumption of deliberation and suppression of the original narrative.

Hostile Witness Testimony Limits

Evidence from a hostile witness regarding a confession cannot be validated solely by the testimony of the Investigating Officer if the witness denied the statement in court.

Burden of Proof in Grave Crimes

The principle that a close relative would not falsely implicate someone does not override the requirement for trustworthy, consistent, and acceptable evidence in a murder trial.

Ratio Decidendi:

A conviction for a grave offence like murder cannot be sustained when there are unexplained discrepancies between the FIR and ocular testimony, or where the court relies on improvements in witness statements that were absent in their initial investigative statements.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRLA No.153 of 2004
Case Title: Chantu @ Chhoturam Mohanta v. State of Odisha
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.R.Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, A.S.C.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ORI) 2