Conviction for murder can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete and unbroken chain leading to the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The appellant Debendra Singh faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Khurda in S.T. Case No.2/405 of 2004/2003 for commission of offences under section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 18.02.2003 at about 12 O’ clock in the midnight at Ganganagar Division II Office of P.W.D. (R & B), Bhubaneswar, he committed murder of his niece Rajani @ Tuni (hereinafter ‘the deceased’). The appellant along with another co-accused Jumar Parida was also charged under section 201 of I.P.C. on the accusation of carrying the dead body of the deceased in a car and disposing of the same by burning her face and throwing it away in a cashew nut orchard of one Kuber Parida (P.W.16) under the jurisdiction of Tangi Police Station.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2004 has been pleased to hold the co-accused Jumar Parida not guilty of the offence charged and accordingly, acquitted him. However, the appellant was found guilty under sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for one month and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter ‘F.I.R.’) (Ext.1), lodged by Tulu Kumar Sethi (P.W.1), the Grama Rakhi of village Hata Baradi before the Officer in-charge of Tangi police station on 19.02.2003 is that on the same day at about 6.30 a.m., he got information from the villagers that a dead body of a lady was lying near the cashew nut orchard of one Kuber Parida (P.W.16) near village Jayantpur. P.W.1 proceeded to the spot and noticed the dead body and found the age of the lady would be around nineteen to twenty five years, height would be around five feet, dark brown complexion, average body health, round face and wearing a green colour nighty and having marks of injuries on different parts of her body and the face was burnt and covered with ashes.

On receipt of the written report, Bikash Ranjan Beura (P.W.24), the Officer in-charge of Tangi police station registered Tangi P.S. Case No. 22 dated 19.02.2003 under sections 302/201 of I.P.C. P.W.24 took up investigation of the case, proceeded to the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.3) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The scientific team also visited the spot to assist the police in investigation. During the course of investigation, the I.O. (P.W.24) came to know that the appellant was working as a D.L.R. night Watchman in the P.W.D. office at Unit-III, Kharvelnagar, Bhubaneswar and was staying within the official campus of Division-II at Ganganagar and the deceased was the niece of appellant who was also staying with him. When P.W.24 came in search of the appellant to that place, he found him absent from his duty from the previous night i.e. from 18.02.2003. During the course of investigation, P.W.24 could ascertain that the appellant was residing in a rented house at Palaspalli and he apprehended the appellant on 08.04.2003 from his rented house. P.W.24 further ascertained that the appellant took the dead body of the deceased in an Ambassador car first to his village, but when his own sister Susama Guru (P.W.21), the mother of the deceased, refused to receive the dead body of the deceased, the appellant returned back and sought the assistance of some villagers to bury the dead body, but having failed to get their assistance, threw the dead body near the cashew nut orchard after burning her face so that her identity could not be disclosed. For the purpose of further investi