In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of a motive does not negate the guilt of the accused if there is strong circumstantial evidence against him.

JUDGMENT :

D.M. Patnaik, J. - The appellant assails his conviction under sections.302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and Imprisonment for six months respectively. He has been acquitted of the charge of Dowry death punishable u/s 304B, IPC.

2. Prosecution case is marriage between the appellant and deceased Jhunu alias Shakuntala took place in Falguna 1990. Though PW 1, father of the deceased had met the demand of dowry, yet he failed to keep his promise to pay Rs. 10,0 00/- towards the cost of a scooter for which it was alleged that, the appellant and his parents started ill-treating to deceased.

On 2-4-1994 receiving information that Shakuntala was ailing, PW 1 came to the house of the appellant and found his daughter to have recovered from the illness. On that day he witnessed the appellant quarrelling with the deceased for amount of Rs. 10,000/-promised by PW 1 to get. The appellant left the house at 4 p.m. towards the Bazar and returned at about 9 p.m. in a drunken state. Both the appellant and the deceased stayed in one room during the nighttime and PW 1 slept in another room. The following morning the deceased was found absent. On enquiry, the appellant informed PW 1 that the deceased had left house during the night hours. The mother of the appellant also could not supply any information. Being told by the appellant that Jhunu might have gone to his house (house of PW 1), PW 1 came back to his house and did not get any information about the deceased and thereafter on 4-4-1994 reported the matter at Khantapada Police Station, On 5-4-1994 the dead body of Jhunu alias Shakuntala was recovered from the tank belonging to the appellant. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination which revealed that death of Shakuntala was because of asphyxia by smothering and this was homicidal. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the appellant faced trial and was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

3. The plea of the appellant is denial of the occurrence. The appellant admitted in his statement u/s 313, Cr PC to have shared the room to the deceased but as disclosed, his statement was that Shakuntala was not keeping well. She was not looking after the in-laws and the family members were discontended with her behaviour. Since Shakuntala was suffering from various aliments she was often giving out to end her life. With regard to the demand of dowry he denied the allegations.

4. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and to prove the case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses which include material witnesses PW 1 father of the deceased, PW 3 the Executive Magistrate in whose presence the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the tank, PW 5 the Doctor who conducted the autopsy and PW 6 the I. O. The defence examined two witnesses from its side.

The trial Court accepted the testimony of PW 1 holding it to-be credible and successful in proving the circumstance of the case that the appellant and the deceased being husband and wife shared the same room in the night of occurrence. The Court also believed the presence of PW 1 at the relevant time in the house of the appellant. Taking this fact into consideration coupled with the opinion of the Doctor that death of Jhunu was homicidal in nature and that the dead body was found floating in the pond situated in the Bari of the appellant, the trial Court held the prosecution case to have been proved.

5. Mr. P.K. Dhal, learned counsel for the appellant, advanced extensive arguments by submitting that the trial Court committed gross error in accepting the evidence of PW 1 to be true inasmuch as Mr. Dhal laid stress in the fact that PW 1 was a highly interested witness being the father of the deceased and further, the evidence on record did not prove beyond doubt the presence of the said witness in the house of the appellant on the date of occurrence. Mr. Dhal further submitted that in the present case the pr