The judgment established the importance of proving motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence and emphasized the need for the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and of a conclusive nature.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th January, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. Case No.28 of 1999 whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Sarathi @ Saria i.e. the wife of the Appellant, and the Appellant got married in 1996. According to the prosecution, at the time of the marriage there was a demand for dowry in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and for ornaments. It is stated that despite the demands being fulfilled, after the marriage the Appellant continued to demand more dowry. Each time when the deceased came to her father's house, she took money being pressurized by the accused. After his father-in-law's death, knowing that the deceased was the only daughter, the accused insisted on his mother-in-law selling away all the properties and coming to live with them. His mother-in-law did not agree.

3. The prosecution's case is that 15 days prior to the death of Saria, the accused sent Saria to bring Rs.5,000/- from her mother. However, the money could not be arranged. The informant (PW 3) learnt that Saria was beaten to death at village Jhatiapada by the accused. On receiving such information, he went to the house of the accused and found Saria lying dead. There were injuries around her right ear. Accordingly, he suspected that the Appellant had killed Saria by giving her blows on the ear region. On the basis of the written complaint (Ext.1) to the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Dharmasala Police Station FIR was registered. On the conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

4. The defence of the accused was one of the denial. In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC he stated that while carrying Saria on a bicycle, with her riding pillion, he met with an accident. As a result, Saria fell down on the road and sustained injuries, which led to her death.

5. Eleven witnesses were examined for the prosecution. Two defence witnesses were examined.

6. In his evidence, the Medical Officer (PW 10) stated that when he performed the post-mortem of the deceased on 23rd June, 1998 he found the following injuries on her person:

"i. One lacerated would 2" x scalp depth over right mastoid region being placed obliquely behind the right ear.

ii. One lacerated would 1" x scalp depth over same area 1" apart below the previous injury.

iii. Lacerated wound 1" cutting the pinna of the right ear which corresponds to injury no.1."

7. Further on dissection, there was a fracture of the mastoid bone in 3 pieces with hematoma underneath. The opinion of PW 10 was that death might be due to shock by injury to the mastoid region. According to him, the injuries were possible either by a heavy blow or by falling on some stony substance with force. He stated: 'Injury may be caused by blow given by the wooden stick shown to me now (M.O.I).' In his cross-examination PW 10 stated that the injuries found on the dead body can be possible if more than one stroke given by M.O.I.

8. PW 1 was the doctor who first attended the deceased when she was taken to him by the accused. He was the Assistant Surgeon at the Aruha Primary Health Centre (PHC). At around 1.30 am of 28th June, 1998 the injured was brought to him to be examined. According to him, he advised the accused to take the patient to the hospital outdoor, so that he could examine her. When after a while, he went outdoors, he found the patient dead. However, the attendant had put a bandage on the head of the patient. When during the trial, he was asked to identify the accused, PW 1 stated "but I cannot identify the accused person in the dock as the same Jayaram Sahoo.'

9. Since it was a medico legal case PW 1 asked the accused to keep the dead body in the PHC till the next morning, so that he could intimate the fact to the police. However, th