The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the inadmissibility of communications between spouses during marriage were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Prasad Routray, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment of life under Section 302 of IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Sessions Case No. 74/9 of 2003 dated 22.01.2004.

2. The appellant was charged for murder simplicitor of one Bimala Bai Sahoo (hereinafter called as 'the deceased'). Prosecution's case in nutshell is that, the appellant and P.W. 2 are two brothers and the deceased is the wife of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 2 and 1 were in good relationship. However the appellant was not pulling well with the P.W. 2, his elder brother. Appellant suspected that his elder brother (P.W. 2) had illicit relationship with the deceased and doubted that she was antagonizing his brother (P.W. 2) against him. On the fateful day, during noon time, when the deceased had gone near the field of the appellant to attend the call of nature, the appellant finding her alone, severed her head by means of an axe (M.O.I). The body and the head were lying severed in the field of P.W. 2. The F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 1 (husband of the deceased) stating that when he returned to his house without finding the deceased in the house, he went for searching her at around 2.00 p.m. and ultimately found the body and head of the deceased laying in the paddy field of P.W. 2. Upon registration of the FIR, investigation was taken up by P.W. 10 (the Investigating Officer), the then O.I.C. of Nuapada P.S. He held the inquest over the dead body and head, prepared the spot map, and arrested the accused (appellant) on the next day. He also seized the weapon of offence i.e. axe (M.O.I) as per leading to discovery made by the appellant.

3. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in total and amongst them most important are, P.W. 1, 3, 10 & 8. P.W. 1 is the husband of the deceased, P.W. 3 is the wife of the appellant, P.W. 10 is the I.O., and P.W. 8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination. These four witnesses are the main witnesses for the prosecution case. Besides, 17 documents have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. On the other hand defense did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary. The defense plea was complete denial and false implication. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after analyzing the evidence brought on record found the appellant guilty of murder of the deceased. It is seen that, the conviction is based completely on circumstantial evidence of which extra judicial confession has played a vital link. However, before going deep into the impugned judgment, the nature of death of the deceased needs to be seen at the outset since this is a case of murder.

4. The Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examination has been examined as P.W. 8 and the P.M. report is Ext. 9. Said P.W. 8 duly examined the headless body as well as the severed head and opined that the same was of the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 8 reveals four external injuries around the neck severing the head from the body and two more injuries on the body below both side of the chest. All such injuries had impacted the death of the deceased due to hemorrhage and shock resulted from cutting of the great vessels of both side of the neck, spinal cord, trachea and vertebra by multiple incised injuries. It is also opined by P.W. 8 that all the injuries were homicidal in nature. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 8, there cannot be any second opinion than the homicidal nature of death of the deceased.

5. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is based completely on circumstantial evidence. As a matter of fact in the evidence laws, there is no difference between the 'direct evidence' and 'circumstantial evidence'. The difference is only regarding standard of proof. Here, it is needed to discuss certain settled principles of the cases of circumstantial evidence.

6. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in A