The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as emphasized by legal principles from relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th March 2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bhubaneswar, in C.T.(Sessions) No.8/46 of 2009, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for three years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was that one Silu Ojha (PW-7), the son of the Appellant, lodged a written report before the Inspector-In Charge (IIC), Mancheswar Police Station (PS) at around 8 pm on 6th November, 2008 and stating inter alia that the Appellant had abused and assaulted his wife the deceased, Bichitra Ojha, dragged her outside his Bari, poured kerosene over her body and set her on fire. She sustained severe burnt injuries on her body and was immediately shifted to the Capital Hospital. It was stated in the FIR that prior to the incident the Appellant was torturing the deceased both physically and mentally and assaulted her very often. Initially, the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to her burn injuries, on 8th November 2008 and the offence was converted into Section 302 of IPC. A charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-21) on 5th March, 2009 for the aforementioned offences. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Twenty-one witnesses were examined for the prosecution and three for the defence. On analyzing the trial Court delivered the impugned judgment on 26th March 2011, holding the Appellant guilty of the aforementioned offences and sentenced him in the manner indicated.

4. Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted as under:

(i) The Appellant had been convicted only on the evidence of his children i.e., the son (PW-7) the informant, his other son, Sudhira Ojha@ Kulu (PW-1) who was a child witness and another minor daughter, Rojalin Ojha (PW-17). None of the said witnesses was present at the time of the occurrence. They were not eye witnesses but post-occurrence witnesses.

(ii) This is a case entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The links in the chain of circumstances as projected by the prosecution were neither continuous nor complete and each of the links was not substantiated. The circumstances that were proved, when taken together did not unerringly point to the guilt of the Appellant.

(iii) Several of the PWs turned hostile. PW-3, a sister-in-law of the Appellant, who spoke against the Appellant and in support of the prosecution admitted that there was a land dispute between the brothers of the Appellant and that she did not pull on well with the Appellant who always abused her. Her evidence was therefore that of an interested witness and had to be approached with caution.

(iv) PW-2, the elder brother of the Appellant, turned hostile as did PWs-4 and 5. PW-6 was a hearsay witness and did not depose anything against the Appellant. His evidence was not trustworthy.

(v) PWs-8, 11, 12 and 13 were declared hostile. They were the villagers and immediate neighbours of the deceased. They did not depose anything against the Appellant.

(vi) PWs-9 and 10 were the witnesses to the seizure of some burnt clothes. They admitted to putting their signatures on blank papers without knowing the facts and circumstances of the seizure.

(vii) PW-14 also turned hostile and admitted to not being examined by the Police earlier. PW-17 was a child witness of 12 years of age. Her statement was contradictory. She admitted to not talking with her mother and not being examined by the Police in the case.

(viii) The hair and blood-stains seized by the IO were sent with PWs-18 and 19, the two Constables. However, they admitted that the envelope, in