The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 8th January 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. Case No.185/19 of 2001, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life.

2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that by an order dated 31st August 2004, this Court enlarged the Appellant on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.

3. To begin with, it requires to be noted that the present Appellant was sent up for trial along with one Bidyadhar Pradhan, who was charged for the offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 302 IPC on the ground of abetting the murder.

Case of the prosecution

4. The case of the prosecution is that the informant Dayanidhi Pradhan (PW-1) and both the accused are co-villagers of village Talabahali. A few days prior to the occurrence, one Diptibala Pradhan, the daughter of the co-accused Bidyadhar Pradhan eloped from the village. The family members of Diptibala Pradhan, while searching for her, reached the house of PW-1 and enquired from his daughters Bisakha Pradhan (PW-3) and Bhagabati Pradhan (the deceased) about Diptibala.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 1st April 2001, the present Appellant and Diptibala Pradhan returned to the village. Thereafter, the parents of both the Appellant and Diptibala picked up a quarrel with the daughters of PW-1 alleging that they had spread scandal against the Appellant and Diptibala Pradhan. In course of the quarrel, the Appellant and the co-accused Bidyadhar Pradhan threatened to murder the deceased Bhagabati that very night. The case of the prosecution further is that the co-accused Bidyadhar Pradhan and his wife allegedly instigated the Appellant to kill them.

6. The further case of the prosecution is that on 1st April, 2001 itself in the night, after taking her meals, the deceased Bhagabati went to the backyard of her house to answer the call of nature and did not return. Her family assumed that she may have gone to see the ‘Danda Jatra’ and after taking their meals, went to sleep. Early in the morning of 2nd April 2001, Bisakha Pradhan (PW-3) found the deceased Bhagabati lying dead in the backyard of the house with bleeding injuries on her head and neck.

7. PW-1 lodged a written report before the Officer-in-Charge, Reamal Police Station (PS), who registered PS Case No.31 of 2001 and took up the investigation. In the course of his investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) Dakhin Charan Murmu (PW-7) visited the spot, prepared the spot map, seized bloodstained lota (pot), bloodstained earth and sample earth, a piece of necklace of black moti, a soaked piece of white cloth with blood and seized these articles. He conducted an inquest over the dead body. He also arrested the Appellant. While in custody, the Appellant made a statement leading to the recovery of the axe (MO-V) from his kitchen room. The said axe was seized. He is also stated to have produced his sporting Genji, one navy-coloured blue half pant and one old chappal. The IO is said to have seized the same. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. The Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Trial Court judgment

8. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, whereas the defence examined one Bhaskar Gadtia (DW-1). After analyzing the evidence, the trial Court delineated the following circumstances as forming a continuous chain that established the guilt of the Appellant:

(i) PWs-1, 2 and 3 being the father, the brother and the sister of the deceased had consistently stated that both the accused persons had picked up a quarrel with them alleging that the deceased and PW-3 had spread a scandal in the village that the Appellant had eloped with Diptibala, the daughter of the co-accused Bidyadhar. Despite PWs-1 to 3 proclaiming their innocence, both the Appellants came holding axe and threatened to kill the family