Circumstantial evidence must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or weak connections are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

By the Bench: The appellant Pari @ Paria Nayak faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No.118 of 2006 for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereafter "I.P.C.‟) on the accusation that he committed murder of his mother Sankhi Nayak (hereafter “the deceased”) in the afternoon on 15.04.2006.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2008 found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months.

Prosecution Case

2. P.W.1 Trinath Naik, the maternal uncle of the appellant lodged the F.I.R. before the Inspector-in-Charge of Khurda Police Station on 15.04.2006 stating therein that the deceased was his sister and the appellant was the son of the deceased. The deceased and the appellant were staying in village Guditangi constructing a thatched house in a government land since three years prior to the occurrence. Nine months prior to the occurrence, the appellant got married but within ten days of marriage, his wife left the matrimonial home and went to her father‟s place as he subjected his wife to physical cruelty. Since that day, the appellant became more aggressive and most of the time, he used to quarrel with the deceased and was also assaulting her and threatening her with dire consequences. The informant on many a occasion compromised the dispute between the deceased and the appellant. On the previous night of the occurrence, the appellant so also the deceased had gone to watch the opera show which was organized in the village on the eve of Pana Sankrati and returned home. On the day of occurrence, a quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant assaulted to the deceased. After coming to know about the same, the informant came to the house of the appellant and tried to subside the matter. At about 5.00 p.m., while the informant was proceeding to purchase the vegetables, he found that the cattle were pulling straws from the thatch of the deceased. He drove the cattle away and entered inside the house and found the deceased was lying dead with bleeding injury and a sickle was lying at that place and there was cut injury on the neck of the deceased and the appellant was not found in the house. P.W.1 suspected that in connection with providing food to the appellant, there was dispute between the mother and the son and the appellant cut the neck of the deceased by a sickle out of anger and thereafter absconded. The informant also ascertained from the co-villagers that they heard the shout of the appellant with the deceased in the afternoon. The informant intimated the matter to the Ward Member and came to the Police Station where his oral report was reduced to writing and it was read over and explained to him and he put his signature on the written report.

On the basis of the F.I.R. presented by P.W.1, Khurda P.S. Case No.131 dated 15.04.2006 was registered under section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the appellant.

P.W.18 Nimain Charan Sethy, the Inspector-in-Charge of Khurda Police Station after registering the case, took up the investigation. He visited the spot on the very day at about 8.00 p.m. which was the house of the deceased and the appellant. He sent requisition to the Scientific Officer. During his visit to the