Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of incriminating facts to support a conviction for serious offenses, with the absence of alternative hypotheses for the defendant's innocence.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

The Appellant from jail assailing her conviction under Section 364 /302/201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentencing her for life and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo R.I for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC, R.I for five years and pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo R.I for one year under Section 364 IPC and R.I for two years and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo R.I for six months under Section 201 IPC with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently in terms of the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. (Sessions Case) No.24 of 2012, has filed this Appeal.

2. On 19.10.2011 one Ganeswar Rana (P.W.1) presented a written report before the I.I.C., M. Rampur, Kalahandi alleging that his grandson Siba, a four year old child was kidnapped and murdered by his elder daughter-in-law, the accused. On the basis of the same, M.Rampur P.S. Case No.84 of 2011 was registered under Sections 364 /302/201 IPC as against the accused. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and on the basis of the same, the accused faced trial being charged under Sections 364 /302/201 IPC for causing death of a four months old male child (Siba) of her sister-in-law Banita Rana (P.W.2).

Prosecution Case

3. On 19.10.2011 at 9.00 A.M the mother of the deceased, namely, Banita Rana (P.W.2) left her four months old baby boy in the custody of her grand mother-in-law (P.W.3). The said P.W.3 sometime thereafter went for taking bath leaving the child in the house and at the relevant time, the accused was stated to be present in the house. After the mother P.W.2 returned from work, the child was found missing and there was a frantic search for the child. During such period, the accused suddenly complained pain in her belly purportedly on account of pregnancy for which she was shifted to the hospital in a vehicle at the instance of Asha Karmi and some of the villagers including one Dhanamati Rana (P.W.11). Rani Rana (P.W.6) also accompanied the accused. On the way the accused got down from the vehicle on the pretext of attending the call of nature and at that time a child concealed in her belly suddenly slipped down which was noticed and recovered by P.W.11. The child was identified as the said missing child of P.W.2. The child and the accused were taken to the hospital where the child was declared dead and the claim of pregnancy of accused upon examination by the doctor was found to be false.

4. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and to fortify its stand, the prosecution has cited 19 witnesses. P.W.1 is the Informant, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 is the grandmother of the deceased, P.W.4 is the husband of the accused, P.W.5 is the Staff Nurse, P.W.7 is the seizure witness of Asha Karmy Register and Anganwadi Register. P.Ws.6,11 and 12 are the witnesses who accompanied the accused by Janani Surakhya vehicle to the hospital, P.Ws.8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19 are the witnesses to the seizure of different articles. P.W. 16 is the doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.18 is the I.O.

Besides the above, the prosecution has proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 16. Incriminating articles being produced those too have been marked as MOs.I & II.

5. The defence plea was one of complete denial and false implication. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6. Primarily referring to the evidence