The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence and inconsistent statements are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The appellant Prasanta Kumar Sahoo faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No.161 of 1998 for commission of offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 13.08.1996 night at village Banchhara under Jatni police station in the district of Khurda, he along with his wife Smt. Santilata Sahu, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of Jadu Sahu (hereinafter ‘D-1’) and Pitei Sahu (hereinafter ‘D-2’) by intentionally causing their death and also knowing or having reason to believe that the offences had been committed, they caused certain evidence connected with the said offences to disappear by knowingly giving false information to the police on 14.08.1996 with the intention to screen themselves from legal punishment.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2000, found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of five years for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C. and both the offences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the deceased couple (D-1 and D-2) were issueless and they adopted the appellant, who was the son of the sister of D-2 on 01.02.1993 as their son and executed a registered deed of adoption (Ext.13). The appellant along with his first wife Bijayalaxmi Sahu were residing with the deceased couple in their house at village Banchhara. The appellant deserted his first wife and married to the co-accused Santilata Sahu and brought her to the house of the deceased couple at the teeth of their opposition sowing the seeds of discord. There was also bickering amongst them as the appellant was insisting for recording the properties of the adoptive father (D-1) in his name. The appellant with his wife (co-accused Santilata Sahu) started living in separate mess in the same house where both the deceased couple (D-1 and D-2) were also residing.

It is the further prosecution case that in the intervening night of 13/14.08.1996 on the day of ‘Chitalagi Amabasya’, the appellant and his second wife Santilata attacked the deceased couple in their bed room killing D-1 instantaneously and critically injuring D-2 who lost her sense.

On 14.08.1996 at about 6.10 a.m., the appellant lodged a written F.I.R. (Ext.14) at Jatni police station stating therein that D-1 and D-2 were a squabbling couple and often used to assault each other and at 8.30 p.m. in the night of occurrence i.e. on 13.08.1996, they had a round of quarrels over preparation of cakes to celebrate ‘Chitalagi Amabasya’, in course of which they had sworn to kill each other and in the next morning at about 4.30 a.m., the appellant found D-1 lying dead on the floor of the bed room with bleeding injuries, whereas D-2 was lying unconscious by his side and was bleeding from the head and mouth, whereupon Jatni P.S. Case No.150 dated 14.08.1996 was registered under section 302 of I.P.C. arraying D-2 as accused.

P.W.13, the I.I.C. of Jatni Police Station on registering the written F.I.R. (Ext.14), instructed P.W.14, the S.I. of Police of Jatni Police Station to investigate into the case. During course of investigation, P.W.14 examined the appellant and visited the spot and found the dead body of D-1 was lying on the floor of the bed room with bleeding injuries and also found D-2 was lying in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries in a critical condition. P.W.14