The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized that false answers in the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis of conviction and must be considered in the light of other evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Mohanty, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.6.2003 pronounced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No.592/54 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.936 of 1999 from the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur convicting the appellant under Sections 498 A/302 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Vide impugned judgment, for the offence under Section 498 A IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 2 months and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo R.I. for 5 months. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. However, the learned trial court has directed that both the above noted substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that the appellant was married to the deceased-daughter of P.W.7 in or around in 1998 in the month of July in Mahabinayak temple of Chandikhol. At the time of marriage, the parents of deceased which includes P.W.7 had given cash of Rs.5,400/-to the appellant and his father and had promised to pay another Rs.1,000/-. On account of inability to pay the balance amount, the appellant and his parents used to abuse and assault the deceased. On 13.5.1999, the deceased-wife died in her matrimonial house. The Gramarakhi of the locality (P.W.6) lodged a written report on the next morning about the death of the deceased at Jenapur Police Out Post, basing upon which, an unnatural death case was registered and the matter was enquired into. In course of investigation, inquest report was prepared, post-mortem examination was held and some witnesses were examined. Subsequently, after receipt of the post-mortem report disclosing the death as homicidal, a coginzable case was registered under Section 302 IPC and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his father. It is important to note here that during pendency of the Sessions Trial, the father of the appellant died in the month of December, 2001. Accordingly vide order dated 7.2.2002, the learned trial court noted that the case against the father of the appellant stood abated.

3. The plea of the appellant was of complete denial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as 10 witnesses including two doctors and three I.Os. The prosecution exhibited 8 documents. From the side of defence/appellant, none was examined.

5. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are the doctors, who conducted postmortem examination. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the co-villagers of P.W.7, who happens to be the mother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the elder brother of the appellant, who turned hostile during trial. P.W.6 is the Gramarakhi, who first gave the written report about the incidence on 14.5.1999 under Ext.2. P.W.7 is the mother of the deceased and the mother-in-law of the appellant and she has deposed about the dowry demand made by the appellant and his parents and the abuse and assault suffered by the deceased at their hand on account of her inability to meet the demand of dowry. P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the I.Os.

6. In examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted his marriage with the deceased and the factum of death of his wife on 13.5.1999. However, he disputed the evidence of doctors, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.5 relating to their opinion that the deceased died a homicidal death caused by mainly strangulation and throttling leading to violent asphyxia and existence of injuries on the dead body. He also denied the question relating to demand of dowry and abusing and assaulting of the deceased on account of non-payment of balance cash. It appears that the appellant has denied most of the questions put to him during examin