Siba Nial @ Trilochan vs The State Of Odisha

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 206 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9244 of 2024)

SIBA NIAL @ TRILOCHAN ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF ODISHA ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal by Siba Nial @ Trilochan challenges the judgment

of affirmation by the High Court confirming his conviction under

Sections 302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, for the

murder of Dhaneswar Kata and his wife, Nirupama Kata, during the

intervening night of 31.05.2013 and 01.06.2013.

The case of the prosecution, as reflected in First

Information Report2 No. 72/2013 dated 01.06.2013 registered with

Police Station – IIC, Boden, District - Nuapada, Odisha, is that

Dhaneswar Kata and Nirupama Kata were found dead on the terrace of

the house on the morning of 01.06.2013, having suffered gunshot

injuries. They had gone to sleep on the previous night on the

terrace of the house along with other family members, namely,

Dhananjaya Kata, who was examined as PW-4, and Kishor Bachha, who Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.02.12 19:52:58 IST Reason:

1For short, “IPC.” 2For short, “FIR.”

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9244/2024 1 was not examined.

Dhananjaya Kata (PW-4), in his Court deposition, did not

claim having seen the person(s) who had shot dead Dhaneswar Kata

and Nirupama Kata. This was also confirmed by the informant,

Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1), who did not name any particular person as a

culprit in the FIR (Exhibit 1). Dalimba Kata (PW-2), the wife of

the informant, Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1), deposed on similar lines and

did not name the culprit. None of these witnesses deposed about how

the offence was committed and why they did not hear any gunshots.

The appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, and the co-accused,

Prabhulal, who is the son-in-law of Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1), were

arrested on 09.06.2013, that is, nearly 9 days after the

occurrence. The appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, is the nephew of

Prabhulal, the co-accused. Prabhulal, it is stated, absconded after

being released on bail and has not been arrested till date.

To prove its case against the appellant, Siba Nial @

Trilochan, the prosecution primarily relied upon the testimonies of

Manoranjan Behera (PW-4) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7), who were

neighbours residing in the vicinity. They deposed that, during the

intervening night of 31.05.2023 and 01.06.2023, they had seen the

appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, and the co-accused, Prabhulal, on

a motorcycle near the house where the deceased people were staying.

While the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, remained near the

motorcycle, Prabhulal had gone up and thereupon, Manoranjan Behera

(PW-4) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7) heard the sound of two bullets

being fired. Later on, the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, and

the co-accused, Prabhulal, drove away on the motorcycle.

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9244/2024 2 What is intriguing and makes the versions of Manoranjan

Behera (PW-5) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7) doubtful and debatable

is their silence from 01.06.2013 till 09.06.2013. This is

significant given the fact that the locality must have been shaken

on coming to know that Dhaneswar Kata and his wife, Nirupama Kata,

had been shot dead. As noticed above, the FIR (Exhibit 1) does not

name any culprit or perpetrator. We have already referred to the

depositions of Hrushikesh Kata (PW-1) and Dalimba Kata (PW-2), who

had deposed on similar lines. Dhananjaya Kata (PW-4), who was

sleeping with both the deceased persons on the terrace of the

house, has also not named the perpetrators, though he is the person

who would have seen the persons committing the crime given the fact

that both Manoranjan Behera (PW-5) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-7)

have deposed that there was the sound of gunshots being fired, not

once but twice.

The prosecution also relied upon the disclosure statement of

the appellant, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, which led to the recovery of

the pistol marked as Exhibit M.O.I along with the Magazine marked

as Exhibit M.O.II which were seized vide seizure memo, Exhibit 4.

These recoveries were made on 09.06.2013. The postmortem report,

marked as Exhibit 10, and the deposition of Dr. Jitender Kumar

Soren (PW-16) as well as the ballistic report (Exhibit 17),

however, are ambiguous and do not support the prosecution’s

version. In fact, the postmortem report (Exhibit 10) and the

deposition of Dr. Jitendra Kumar Soren (PW-16) indicate that the

external injury on the head could have been due to a rifle firearm

bullet that was not fired from close range. However, as per the

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9244/2024 3 depositions of Manoranjan Behera (PW-5) and Krutibash Chhatria (PW-

7), the bullets were fired from a close range after Prabhulal had

climbed onto the terrace to commit the offence.

The ballistic report (Exhibit 17) records that a country-made

semi-automatic pistol, four rounds of cartridges and two magazines

were sent for examination on 22.07.2013. As recorded above, the

pistol along with cartridges, etc., as per the police version and

the testimony of Salya Naik (PW-17), the investigating officer,

were recovered on 09.06.2013. Thereafter, another sealed packet was

received by the forensic laboratory from the Biology and Serology

Division on 13.11.2014. The result of the examination, as per the

ballistic report (Exhibit 17), was that the body wall of the cases

were found bulged indicating that they were fired from a country-

made firearm. However, the percussion caps of both the cartridge

cases were missing. Thus, it was not possible to compare the

firing pin marks on the cartridge cases found at the spot with the

test-fired cartridge cases. With reference to the deformed,

jacketed bullets, on examination, the report opined that individual

characteristics of striation marks on the two bullets found in the

bodies were not sufficient for comparison with the test-fired

bullets.

Dhananjaya Kata (PW-4), in his deposition, did refer to

motive, as there was statedly a property dispute between the

deceased, Dhaneswar Kata, and the co-convict, Prabhulal. However,

he also deposed that his brother, Dhaneswar Kata, had gotten

married to Nirupama, who was from a different caste, being a

Brahmin, and there was opposition to their marriage from both

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9244/2024 4 sides, that is, from the families of Dhaneswar Kata as well as

Nirupama Kata.

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, Siba Nial @ Trilochan, shall be released from

jail forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection

with any other case.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

................CJI.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 11, 2025.

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 9244/2024 5