Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction In Double Murder Case, Cites Serious Gaps In Prosecution Evidence

A two-judge bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard an appeal by Siba Nial @ Trilochan challenging the High Court’s affirmation of his conviction under Sections 302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of Dhaneswar Kata and his wife, Nirupama Kata during the intervening night of 31.05.2013–01.06.2013. The matter arose from an SLP(crl.) against the High Court judgment confirming conviction and sentence.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted material discrepancies and deficiencies in witness accounts, delay in reporting crucial observations, and forensic uncertainty regarding the weapon and bullets. The prosecution had relied principally on neighbour-witnesses who said they saw the appellant and a co‑accused on a motorcycle and heard two shots, and on a disclosure that allegedly led to recovery of a pistol. The Court found the post‑mortem and ballistic reports ambiguous and observed that the key witnesses “did not name any culprit” in the FIR and remained silent for days after the incident, which undermined their credibility. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the aforesaid discussion highlighting the deficiencies and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, the guilt of the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, does not stand proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment, confirming the conviction of the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed." The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless held in connection with another case.

Background The FIR (No. 72/2013 dated 01.06.2013) recorded that the two deceased were found with gunshot injuries on the terrace on the morning of 01.06.2013. Family witnesses including the informant Hrushikesh Kata (PW‑1), his wife Dalimba Kata (PW‑2) and Dhananjaya Kata (PW‑4) did not name any perpetrator in the FIR or in their depositions. Neighbour witnesses Manoranjan Behera and Krutibash Chhatria (referred to in the judgment as PW‑4/PW‑5 and PW‑7) deposed that they had seen the appellant and the co‑accused Prabhulal on a motorcycle near the house and heard two shots; they said Prabhulal climbed onto the terrace and shots followed. The co‑accused Prabhulal, who was the informant’s son‑in‑law, reportedly absconded after being released on bail and remained at large; the appellant was arrested on 09.06.2013, nine days after the occurrence.

The prosecution relied also on a disclosure by the appellant said to have led to recovery on 09.06.2013 of a country‑made semi‑automatic pistol (Exhibit M.O.I), magazine (Exhibit M.O.II), four rounds and two magazines, and on a ballistic report prepared after examination. The post‑mortem report and the doctor’s testimony indicated the head injuries could have been caused by a rifle‑type bullet not fired at close range, which conflicted with witness testimony that shots were fired at close quarters. The ballistic report noted that cartridge case percussion caps were missing and that the deformed bullets lacked sufficient individual characteristics for comparison with test‑fired bullets; the prosecution therefore could not establish a definitive ballistic match.

The Court analysed these discrepancies — the silence of principal family witnesses, the delay between the incident and the lodging of allegations identifying the accused, forensic ambiguities and the absence of conclusive comparison between recovered items and bullets recovered from bodies — and concluded that the prosecution’s case suffered from reasonable doubt. The High Court had earlier affirmed the conviction, but the Supreme Court found the cumulative effect of the lacunae fatal to the prosecution’s case. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside and the appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in other cases. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 206 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9244 of 2024) Case Title: Siba Nial @ Trilochan v. State of Odisha Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment text]