ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Reeta Rani and under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of her dead body. In Sessions Trial Case No. 88 of 2011 he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The informant of this case is father of the deceased. On the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded in the early morning of 31.05.2009 near bamboo orchid of Ranjani Ghosh at village Rangunia, Behragora, Barsol P.S. Case No. 53 of 2009 has been registered against Bhupati Patra, who is husband of the deceased, Neelkamal Senapati, who is nephew of the deceased and Pinak Bhuiya a neighbour under section 302 and section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant alone was put on trial in S.T. Case No. 88 of 2011. During the trial the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses; the informant is P.W.9.

3. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that last night he received an information that his daughter has been killed. On receiving such information he has gone to the village-Rangunia with Bhupati Patra, Dilip Patra, Gorango Patra and Arjun Patra. There he has seen crowd of villagers assembled near the house of his daughter. He has seen dead body of his daughter lying at a distance from her house and there was swelling on her neck. He has also seen a five litre plastic jerkin with smell of kerosene oil and a match box there. On enquiry he came to know that his son-in-law along with his nephew and a friend have killed his daughter. He has further stated that about 15 days before this incident the appellant has beaten his wife mercilessly and in this regard a panchayati was convened. He has also stated that the appellant on suspicion of illicit relation of his wife with Pinak Bhuiya had been beating her in the past and whenever the informant tried to take his daughter home the appellant was not permitting her to go with him. He has also stated that the appellant was threatening to kill her. In the court, the informant has stated about ill-treatment and assault of his daughter by the appellant. He has stated that he received information about death of his daughter through his son. He has spoken about his visit to village-Rangunia with his co-villagers and family members. His nephew, namely, Mahir Ghosh who has been examined as P.W.5 has also stated about the information received by him regarding death of Reeta Rani by setting her on fire. He has stated that his uncle had asked him to accompany him to the police station to lodge a complaint about the incident.

4. P.W.5 and P.W.9 are not the eye-witness and the other prosecution witnesses who claimed themselves as eye-witnesses before the police have turned hostile. The case of the prosecution is therefore solely based on circumstantial evidence.

5. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must prove that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the incriminating circumstances which have been found proved are pointing towards guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis consistent with innocence of the accused is possible. In “Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.” reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, the Supreme Court has observed thus;

“It is well to remember that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain