Point of Law: Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Circumstantial evidence - It is now well-settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish all pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of accused - Circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well-settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on basis of circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Balangir at Patnagarh in Sessions Case No. 80/33 of 2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default further to undergo R.I. for a period of six months under Section 302 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Upon further default, to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 201 of the I.P.C.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of the matter presented before us remain that one Rama Dharua’s (informant) niece Ghulikhai @ Nidra Majhi was staying with him after the death of her mother for the last eight years. On 01.12.2008, the family had dinner and retired to bed. Early in the morning, to the utter dismay of the family, they found that their niece was missing. They searched in the village and inquired with their relatives, but failed to trace the whereabouts of their niece. Accordingly, on 02.12.2008 the informant reported the same to the police and an FIR was registered. On the night of 3.12.2008 his son-in-law one Dullabha Majhi who was living with the informant due to the harvesting season, confided him that one Dama Pradhani (appellant) of his village had confessed before him that he had committed the murder of the deceased and concealed the dead body. The informant therefore suspected Dama Pradhani to have murdered the deceased and passed on the information to the Police. Premised on the above written report of the informant, the I.I.C. Patnagarh P.S. registered the P.S. Case No. 239/2008 under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the village and took the appellant into his custody. While in police custody, the appellant allegedly confessed to have committed the crime by strangulating the deceased and having concealed the dead body in Gadiajore Nala. Upon arrival at the Gadiajore Nala, the body of the deceased was found floating and the same was immediately recovered. Inquest was conducted. The body of the deceased along with a lungi that was found tied around her neck was sent for post mortem examination. The appellant was also sent for medical examination where a sample of his semen was seized. The appellant was then arrested and forwarded to the court. The Investigating Officer also effected seizure of items of clothing of the deceased along with other articles and the lungi. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.

3. The trial court thereafter framed three issues. Further, to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses. Succinctly, PWs. 1, 4, and 5 are the covillagers and witnesses to the disclosure statement of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act made to the Investigating Officer as well as witnesses to the inquest. PWs. 2, 3 and 6 are the co-villagers present at the time of recovery of the dead body from the Gadiajore Nala. Thus, PW-1 to PW-6 are co-villagers and witnesses to either the disclosure statement of the accused or to the recovery of the deceased’s body from the Gadiajore Nala. The said PWs. 2 and 6 brought out the dead body from inside the water of the Nala on the instruction of the police. PW-7 is the informant who is the uncle of the deceased. PW-9 is the son-in-law of the informant and witness to extra judicial confession of the accused. PW-8 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body. PWs. 11 and 12 are two independent witnesses who were declared hostile. PWs. 10 and 13 are the police officers and witnesses to the seizure of S.D. Entry No. 39 of 2008 and M.M.R. No. 19