The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence to establish culpability in a case of homicide, leading to the conviction under Part-I of Section 304 I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Mohanty, J. - 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 59 of 2005 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short, "the I.P.C." and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is important to note here that the appellant along with his three relatives stood charged under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, vide impugned judgment dated 21.9.2006, three relatives of the appellant were held not guilty of the charges levelled against them and were acquitted therefrom. So far as the appellant is concerned, he was also not found guilty of the charges levelled against him under Sections 498-A/304-B/201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.2.2005 at 12.30 P.M. on receipt of written report (Ext. 12) submitted by P.W.2 to the effect that one dead body of a female was lying at kilometer No. 410/24S-26S, P.W.12 registered U.D. Case No. 1 dated 4.2.2005 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, P.W.12 visited the spot, sent requisition to the Scientific Officer, D.F.S.L., Rourkela, conducted inquest over the dead body of Sudharani, wife of the appellant, sent dead body for autopsy and during such investigation, P.W.9 father of the deceased presented a written report (Ext. 7) on 5.2.2005 at 00.10 A.M. to the effect that on 14.7.2004 his daughter Sudharani (deceased) had been given in marriage to the appellant. At the time of marriage P.W.9 had given a cash of Rs. 52,000/-, one gold chain, two gold rings and a cash of Rs. 5,000/- for purchasing dress. He had also given other gold ornaments and articles to his deceased daughter to lead her family life. After marriage, the appellant sent the deceased to bring cash of Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly, P.W.9 handed over Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant during November, 2004. Again, when the appellant compelled the deceased to bring Rs. 20,000/-, the deceased made it clear that P.W.9 was not in a position to pay such amount and thereafter the appellant started assaulting the deceased in drunken condition. In such background, P.W.9 assured the appellant to give him money after arranging the same. In his report under Ext. 7, P.W.9 also indicated that the deceased was complaining before him that the brothers of the appellant were instigating the appellant to bring more money otherwise they were asking the appellant to leave the deceased. On 4.2.2005 at about 6.30 A.M. when P.W.9 was doing 'A' shift duty in Rourkela Steel Plant, his wife P.W.13 informed him that one Amar Mohapatra, brother of the appellant had informed her that their daughter Sudharani had committed suicide. Hearing this, P.W.9 asked P.W.13 to go to the spot. When P.W.13 went to the house of the appellant, he found the appellant sleeping and at her sight, the appellant left the place. Sometime after P.W.9 reached the spot and found the dead body of his daughter lying near the railway track with injuries on her body. At that point of time, the deceased was five months pregnant. Since the report revealed a cognizable case under Sections 498-A/304-B/302/201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, P.W.12 made a Station Diary Entry and transmitted the case to I.I.C., Plant Site Police Station for registration. On 7.2.2005 the I.I.C. of Plant Site Police Station received the written report and transmitted the same to Mahila Police Station, Rourkela. On the same day at 7.30 P.M., P.W.19 registered the case and took up investigation. During course of investigation, she examined P.W.9 immediately. On the same day, she visited the spot, examined the witnesses. She arre