The judgment emphasizes the principles of circumstantial evidence and the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th December, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. No.11/10/11 of 2012-13 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to RI for two years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the Appellant was working as Labourer under a contractor of Colliery. He was continuously quarreling with his wife and assaulting her on trivial matters. As per the FIR lodged by Basudev Jadav (PW 9) on 22nd July, 2011 at about 8 a.m., he went to a nearby shop to purchase gutkha and learned that the accused had assaulted his wife (deceased) in the previous night and again in the morning of 22nd July, 2011 by pressing her neck. The deceased became unconscious. Hearing about this PW 9 went to the house of the Appellant and found the deceased lying unconscious on the bed. The female neighbours of the Appellant were massaging oil on her. PW 9 was supposed to have enquired from the Appellant about the occurrence and the Appellant apparently disclosed to PW 9 that the Appellant had assaulted the deceased in the previous night and next morning and left her inside a separate room. After some time when the Appellant went to the said room, he found the deceased hanging from the angle of the ceiling by means of a saree. The Appellant immediately brought down the deceased, lay her on the bed and called one Pandey Doctor of Rampur, who came and declared her dead. Thereafter the deceased was taken to Rampur Hospital, where the doctor declared her dead. PW 9 suspected that due to assault on the deceased by the Appellant, she had committed suicide out of anger.

3. On the above basis, P.S. Case No.164 of 2011 was registered at Brajarajnagar Police Station (PS) under Section 306 IPC and the investigation was taken up. Pradeep Kumar Tandi (PW 20) was working as Sub-Inspector (SI) of Police attached to Rampur Outpost under the Brajarajnagar PS. He took up the investigation, examined PW 9 and other witnesses. He conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and her parents. He then sent the body for post-mortem examination. On 23rd July, 2011 he arrested the Appellant and interrogated him. PW 20 seized the wearing apparels of the Appellant and sent his blood sample for examination. On completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the Appellant for the aforementioned offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.

4. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. One Laxminarayan Sahu was examined as DW 1 for the defence. He disclosed in the Examination-in-Chief that the Appellant was his maternal uncle- in-law and the deceased was his aunt-in-law. He claimed that the deceased was ill-tempered and was always quarreling with the Appellant due to his meager earnings. DW 1 claimed that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the Appellant for the aforementioned offences and proceeded to sentence him in the manner indicated.

5. Among the circumstances, delineatedby the trial Court were the following:

(i) the doctor admittedly did not specifically mention in the post- mortem report that the deceased had died homicidal death. However, medical opinion could not override the eye-witnesses version.

(ii) The opinion of the doctor was categorical that the cause of death was due to asphyxia resulting from manual compression of the trachea as well as injury to the carotid artery.

(iii) On careful scrutiny of evidence available and on perusal of decisions cited by both parti