IMPORTANT POINT
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly established, and the absence of motive and failure to prove the 'last seen' theory can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Hadu @ Kusaleswar Manhira faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2005 for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that on 15.12.2004 in between 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., at village Silatimunda under Tarava police station, he committed murder of his wife Sumitra Manhira (hereinafter 'the deceased').

The trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2006, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

Prosecution Case:

2. As per the first information report (hereinafter 'F.I.R.') lodged by one Purna Chandra Bag (P.W.1) before the Officer in-charge of Tarava police station on 15.12.2004, the prosecution case is that the deceased was his sister. On that day, at about 6.00 p.m., while he was binding straw, he heard cries from the side of the house of the appellant and came to that place and found some female members were crying there.

P.W.1 asked the reason for their crying and came to know that the appellant and the deceased had gone to jungle to bring fire wood but they did not return. Getting such message from the lady members, P.W.1 along with others went in search of the deceased and they found the dead body of the deceased lying in a field with bleeding injuries and somebody had used sharp cutting weapon to kill the deceased and a bundle of wood was lying near the dead body. P.W.1 suspected that the appellant might have committed murder of the deceased. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the appellant and the deceased had been to collect fire wood in the afternoon and they did not return till 6 O' clock in the evening and there was some previous quarrel between the couple.

Basing upon the written report presented by P.W.1, the Officer in-charge (P.W.12) registered Tarava P.S. Case No.82 dated 15.12.2004 under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant. P.W.12 himself took up investigation of the case.

During the course of investigation, he examined the informant (P.W.1) and other witnesses. On 15.12.2004, at about 7.20 p.m., the appellant appeared at the police station, confessed his guilt. Accordingly, he was arrested by P.W.12 and the statement of the appellant was recorded. Then the appellant led P.W.12 and other witnesses to his cultivable land and gave recovery of one axe from inside the bush which was seized as per seizure list Ext.4. P.W.12 also held inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2) so also the spot map (Ext.12). He also seized the bundle of fire wood and the blood stained earth and sample earth as per seizure list Ext.5, sent the dead body to the Headquarters Hospital, Sonepur for post mortem examination and seized the blood stained clothes of the appellant as per seizure list Ext.9. The wearing apparels of the deceased were also seized as per seizure list (Ext.6/1), which were produced by the constables, who escorted the dead body for post mortem examination. The I.O (P.W.12) sent requisition to R.I., Tarava for preparing sketch map of the spot. The weapon of offence i.e. axe (M.O.I), was sent to the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, for obtaining his opinion regarding possibility of injuries sustained by the deceased with such weapon and the seized articles were sent to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur, for chemical examination. The chemical examination report (Ext.15) was received. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.

Framing of Charge:

3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session where the trial Court framed the charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for which, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to establish his guilt.

Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits & Material Objects:

4. Du