- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nisa Stree v. State Of Orissa .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a 20-year-old woman, was tried for the murder of a seven-year-old girl named Panchali and for theft of the child’s gold naulis. Both the appellant and the deceased lived in the small village of Jahnapada and were front-door neighbours. On 27 November 1952, shortly before sunset, two witnesses saw the appellant walking with the child toward Bhaludhar Nala, an area used by village women as an outdoor latrine about three furlongs from the village. That evening the appellant returned alone, walking hurriedly with her cloth lifted over her knees. The child’s body was discovered the next morning in the nala; a blood-stained stone, broken bangles, and a torn necklace were found nearby, and the ground beneath the body was soaked in blood.
The police recovered the child’s two gold naulis from the thatch of the appellant’s hut on information supplied by the appellant. The appellant’s cloth was seized and later determined to be stained with human blood.
On 18 April 1953 the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to death for the murder charge. A reference for confirmation of the death sentence was made to the High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant simultaneously appealed against her conviction and sentence. On 25 May 1953 the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, accepted the reference, and granted the appellant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The present judgment disposes of that Supreme Court appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution was consistent only with the appellant’s guilt and excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- Whether, on that evidence, the convictions under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and the sentence of death were legally sustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that there was no direct eyewitness testimony and that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court enumerated the circumstances found proved:
- Two witnesses saw the appellant and the deceased proceeding together toward the scene of the crime about an hour before sunset.
- The appellant was seen returning alone later that evening, walking hurriedly and with her cloth lifted; this cloth was later found to have human bloodstains.
- The deceased’s gold naulis, last seen on her person, were recovered from the thatch of the appellant’s hut on information supplied by the appellant herself.
The trial court, all four assessors, and the High Court had each concluded that these circumstances were incompatible with any rational hypothesis except the appellant’s guilt. The Supreme Court affirmed that assessment, stating that learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae had pointed to no fact capable of altering the probative force of the established circumstances. Characterising the murder as “cold-blooded and committed out of pure greed,” the Court held that the evidentiary chain satisfied the standard required for conviction.
Holding and Implications
The appeal was dismissed; the convictions under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and the sentence of death were affirmed.
Direct consequence: the appellant’s death sentence stands confirmed, and no relief is granted. The judgment does not purport to lay down any new legal principle; it applies the settled test that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sudhi Ranjan Das, J.— The appellant before us — a young woman of 20 years of age — was convicted on 18th April 1953 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered one Panchali, a girl of 7 years of age, and also under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for having dishonestly removed a pair of gold naulis from the person of the deceased girl. The Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also appealed before the High Court against her conviction and sentence. By the judgment dated 25th May 1953 the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence and accepted the reference and rejected the appeal. The High Court, however, gave leave to the appellant under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India to appeal to this Court.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was as follows: The appellant and the deceased were both residents of Jahnapada, a small village containing about 60 houses and in fact they were front-door neighbours with the best of feeling and relationship between them. On 27th November 1952 about an hour before sunset the deceased was found going in the company of the appellant towards Bhaludhar Nala which is situate at a distance of about three furlongs from the bastee of the village to its north-east. That Nala is usually used as an easing ground for the females of the village. In the evening the appellant was found coming alone towards the village from the Nala in hurried steps with the wearing cloth lifted over her knees. About one ghari in the night the mother of the deceased started searching for her and made enquiries of many including the appellant. The appellant told the mother that the deceased would be somewhere nearby. Early next morning the relatives of the deceased discovered her dead body in the Nala and soon thereafter the first information report was lodged at the police station. On inquest were found a piece of a regular rugged stone bloodstained, the broken glass bangles and the torn necklace near the dead body. The ground underneath the dead body was soaked with blood and the wearing cloth of the deceased found nearby was also bloodstained. The prosecution story further is that the two naulis which were worn by the deceased during the evening of that day were discovered concealed in the thatch of the appellant and this discovery was made on the information given by the appellant herself. The cloth worn by the appellant was also taken charge of by the police and was found to be stained with human blood. On these allegations the appellant was sent up for trial.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and alleged that the witnesses had perjured against her out of enmity.
4. There is no direct evidence of any eyewitnesses. The conviction of the appellant depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. The only question is whether the evidence on the record is consistent only with the guilt of the accused or is consistent with any other rational explanation. The circumstances fully established against the appellant are that on the date of the occurrence about an hour before sunset she was seen by two ladies (PWs 7 and 8) proceeding with the deceased in the direction of the scene of the occurrence; that the appellant came home without the deceased in her company in the evening of the same day in hurried steps and with her cloth lifted up; the cloth was, on examination, found to be stained with human blood and that the two naulis of the deceased which were seen on her person up to her going towards the scene of the murder had been discovered at her instance from the thatch of her hut. The learned trial Judge, for reasons stated by him, which we find to be cogent and convincing, came to the conclusion that the circumstances established against the appellant were not consistent with any rational hypothesis of innocence. All the four assessors agreed with this view of the matter and were unanimously of opinion that the appellant was guilty of both the offences with which she had been charged. The High Court also agreed with this view of the matter and upheld the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant.
5. We find ourselves in agreement with the courts below. We have heard nothing from learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant which throws any doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. He has not referred us to any fact which may conceivably be regarded as altering the nature of the circumstances proved against the appellant. In our opinion the circumstantial evidence in the case is only consistent with the guilt of the appellant and we hold that she has been properly convicted. The murder undoubtedly was cold-blooded and committed out of pure greed. In this view of the matter this appeal is dismissed.
Alert