The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt and the principles of circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

B.P.Routray, J. - Heard Mr.Prabhav Behera, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Janmajaya Katikia through Video conferencing.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor in C.T.Case No.77 of 2014 (Sessions) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna.

2. The appellant and the deceased are husband and wife. The occurrence took place in the house of the informant (P.W.1), who is the brother of the deceased-wife. Prior to some days of the occurrence, both the deceased and appellant had been to the house of the informant along with their minor daughter. As per the prosecution case, the appellant killed his wife Kamle Majhi (deceased) by assaulting her at the back of her neck by means of an axe (M.O.I) on 17.5.2014 at about 8 PM in the courtyard of the house of the informant.

On the report of P.W.1, Kesinga Police Station Case No.48 dated 17.5.2014 was registered and investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.16). The trial commenced leading to conviction of the appellant as above mentioned.

3. Admittedly, this is case of circumstantial evidence and no direct eyewitness is there. The conviction has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and 8 coupled with medical evidence and statement of the I.O.

4. At the outset, looking into the nature of death as opined by the Doctor, P.W.14, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the same is established as homicidal in nature. P.W.14 has stated that the cause of death is due to profuse bleeding and rupture of spinal cord leading to hypovolemic shock and neurogenic shock. Keeping in view the nature of injury Sl.III (a) and (IV) in the evidence of P.W.14, the death is established as homicidal in nature, which the appellant and the State are not disputing.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna reveals that he has failed to properly analyze the evidence brought on record.

6. The prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses in total. P.W.1, the informant and P.W.6 are the husband and wife. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are cousin of the deceased. P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.6 is a chance witness who remained present in the house of the informant at the time of occurrence. P.W.7 is the Sarpanch of the village. P.W.8 is a co-villager. P.W.15 is the Police Constable and seizure witness.

7. As per the evidences of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, the occurrence took place at about 8 PM. in the evening and hearing the shout, they came out from their house and saw the deceased lying dead in the courtyard with injuries. The other part of their evidence is that, they found the appellant standing there alone and he made the confession before them to have killed the deceased by means of an axe. But this part of their evidence is not found admissible in view of contradictions. It is admitted by the Investigating Officer, P.W.16 that, admittedly those witnesses have not stated so before him in course of their examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.16 recorded at para-6 of his cross-examination. Thus, it is liable to be discarded as inadmissible.

8. P.W.4 has stated in his evidence that while he was taking meal in his house heard a sound on the 'Khapar roof' of his house and when he came out hearing the sound, saw the axe lying on the roof of his house stained with blood. But this part of his evidence, what he stated in the Court, was not stated before the Police (P.W.16) during his examination. P.W.16 has admitted at para-6 of his cross-examination that P.W.4 has not stated so before him. So this also is liable to discarded as inadmissible.

After discarding these relevant portions from the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, the remaining portion of their evidences are not seen substantial to establish the charge against