The court established that circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction when it forms a clear, unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, despite the lack of direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The appellant Kathu Karua in JCRLA No.58 of 2006 and the appellant Ramesh Apat in CRLA No.450 of 2005 along with co-accused Dadu @ Anil Patra faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Champua in S.T. Case No.109/79 of 2004-03 for offences punishable under section 376(2)(g), 302/34 and 201/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that on 22.08.2002 at Kamarjoda tank under Joda police station, they committed gang rape on 'BN' (hereinafter, 'the deceased') and intentionally committed her murder in furtherance of their common intention and that knowing or having reason to believe that the offence of gang rape and murder had been committed, caused certain evidence connected with the said gang rape and murder to disappear by throwing the dead body near Kamarjoda tank inside the putus bushes with intention to screen themselves from legal punishment in furtherance of their common intention.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2005 though acquitted the co-accused Dadu @ Anil Patra of the offences charged, but found both the appellants guilty of the offences charged and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years for the offence under section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C., R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) for the offence under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) for the offence under section 201/34 of the I.P.C. and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, those are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case as per the first information report (hereinafter, 'F.I.R.') (Ext.1) lodged by P.W.1 Pabitra Naik, the brother-in-law of the deceased on 23.08.2002 at about 9.15 a.m. before the Officer in-charge of Joda police station (P.W.10), in short, is that he had been residing at Banspani Coal Hutting since last twenty five years. On 22.08.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., he returned home after finishing his duties from S. lal Mines, Joda and at about 9.00 p.m., his mother-in-law Srimati Naik came to his house and told him that her daughter-in-law (deceased), who was also the sister-in-law (Sala bhauja) of P.W.1, had been to Kamarjoda in order to tie Rakhi to his God brother Surendra Mohanty at about 4.00 p.m. leaving her two children in the house, but she did not return home. Upon hearing this from his mother-in-law Srimati Naik, P.W.1 went to the house of Surendra Mohanty but came to know from him that the deceased had not come there and then he asked Bhuban Penthei and some other persons from the locality regarding the whereabout of the deceased but he could not ascertain any whereabouts of the deceased and then he returned to the house and slept. On the next morning i.e. on 23.08.2002 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.1 got an information from one Geeta Munda (P.W.5) that a woman was lying unconscious inside the putus bushes below the ridges of Kamarjoda embankment. Then P.W.1 along with Rudra Gopa and Mohan Karua came to that spot and found the deceased was lying dead inside the putus bushes and she was in a naked condition and blood was oozing from her nose and eyes and that her napkin and chappals were lying at a little distance so also her plastic bag and Rakhies. Seeing the dead body of the deceased, P.W.1 strongly suspected that somebody had committed rape on her and the