The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 10th February 2009 of the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No.42 of 2007, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. At the outset, it must be noted that by the order dated 2nd May, 2018 the Appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal as he had served more than eleven years in custody by then.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant, a resident of village Goda-bhanja, married the deceased Hema and they had a son. The Appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife. On 13th November, 2006 in the morning, the Appellant with his wife and son went to their field for reaping paddy. At around 11 am, the Appellant inflicted a cut blow by his axe (MO-I) on the rear side of the neck of the deceased while she was reaping paddy. She died instantaneously on the spot.

4. Fearing the consequences, the Appellant tried to end his life by hanging from the nearby Neem tree by a rope. However, his mother (PW-8) arrived there and called out aloud. Upon hearing her cries, the cousins of the Appellant (PWs-2 and 3) arrived there. Chaitanya Dandasena (PW-3) climbed up the tree, cut the rope and brought the Appellant down. They administered water to him and he was saved. The police who were informed over telephone then reached there. They arrested the Appellant immediately and sent him to the hospital for treatment.

5. An inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Executive Magistrate (PW-1). The instruments used in the reaping, i.e., two sickles and the axe (MO-I) by which the Appellant had killed his wife was lying at the scene of occurrence and these were seized by the Police.

6. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was performed and her wearing apparels, the bloodstained soil and sample soil collected from the spot, and the bloodstained axe were all seized and sent for chemical examination. The report of chemical examination showed that they were stained with human blood. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the Appellant pleaded not guilty.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, fifteen witnesses were examined. The Appellant examined himself as DW-1 and claimed that on the relevant date he had gone to the jungle to fetch firewood in the morning and returned only at 4 pm. While returning, he found his wife lying dead with a cut injury. He further claimed that the villagers had chased him in order to assault. So, out of fear, to save his own life he climbed up the neem tree.

8. On an analysis of the entire evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence him in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

9. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Debashis Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

10. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The law in relation to the circumstantial evidence is well settled. In Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542, it was held as under :

“(a) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt;

(b) that the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and

(c) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.”

11. These principles have been summarized a