Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

The Appellant, Kisanlal Sahu, faced trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in Sessions Trial Case No.8/53 of 1998, for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C."), on the accusation that in the intervening night of 30/31.08.1997 at Bahalda, he committed murder of Nirmala Sahu, the wife of Lakhanlal Sahu (P.W.3) of village/P.S.-Bahalda in the district of Mayurbhanj.

The learned trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.08.1998, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, in short, as per the first information report (Ext.4) lodged by P.W.3, Lakhanlal Sahu, before the Officer In- Charge of Bahalda police station, namely, Prasanta Kumar Bisoi (P.W.10) on 31.08.1997, in short, is that on 30.08.1997, he along with his wife (deceased) and children after taking their dinner, went to sleep. At about 1:30 a.m., P.W.3 woke up from the sleep and found that the deceased was not there on her bed. He sent his elder daughter Madhumita Sahu (P.W.4) to see whether the deceased had gone to attend the call of nature. P.W.4 returned and informed P.W.3 that the deceased had indeed gone to attend the call of nature. After some time, when the deceased did not return, P.W.3 himself went and found the deceased washing her hands and feet after attending to the call of nature. The deceased told P.W.3 that she had to take bath after water comes in the tap and thereafter, she would come home and asked P.W.3 to go back to sleep. Accordingly, P.W.3 returned and slept. At about 3:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. when P.W.3 heard the sound of water coming from the tap, he came out and found the deceased lying near the Tulasi Chaura, unresponsive to his call. On going closer, he found that she was lying dead in a pool of blood. P.W.4 also came there and tried to wake up her mother, but she did not respond. Thereafter, P.W.3 called his elder brother, Madanlal Sahu (P.W.6), and other co-villagers.

It is further stated in the first information report that the appellant was the elder brother of the informant (P.W.3) and there was land dispute between them, for which cases were also pending in the Court of law. It is further stated that in the year 1997, the appellant had broken the finger of P.W.3 over some dispute, which was later amicably settled between the parties. Thereafter, there was also a dispute between them regarding the issues of water connection and toilet and the appellant had threatened to commit murder of someone in the family over partition of property. Believing that the appellant and his wife were involved in the commission of murder of the deceased by assaulting her with some sharp cutting weapon, the first information report was lodged.

On the basis of such written report, P.W.10 registered Bahalda P.S. Case No.45 dated 31.08.1997 under section 302 of the I.P.C. against unknown persons.

After registration of the case, P.W.10 himself took up investigation, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.9), examined the informant and witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext.5), sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, seized blood stained earth and sample earth and blood-stained blue half pant and white half shirt (school uniform of the son of the deceased) vide seizure list (Ext.8) and arrested the appellant. While in police custody, the appellant gave a statement to have concealed iron ‘Katian’ (chopper) and led the police party