Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction upheld due to strong incriminating circumstances.

Judgment :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

1. The appellant Barun Behera faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T./Ss. Case No.109 of 2011 for commission of offences punishable under sections 302/201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter „I.P.C.‟) on the accusation that on 23.03.2011 in between 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. near Kanarpur hill under Sadar police station in the district of Dhenkanal, he committed murder of Priyabrata Pati @ Pintu (hereinafter „the deceased‟) by intentionally causing his death and also knowing or having reason to believe that the offence had been committed, he caused certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear by concealing the dead body of the deceased after committing the murder hurriedly under a Neem tree in a stone ditch (Pathar Khola) with the intention to screen himself from legal punishment.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2012 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter „F.I.R.‟) (Ext.12) presented by Dandapani Behera (P.W.14) of village Khuntujhari before the Inspector in- charge of Dhenkanal Sadar police station on 23.03.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., in short, is that on the same day, he along with his friends Susant Prusty, Nishakar Pradhan (P.W.7), Jitu Sahu (P.W.10) and Babuli Sahu (P.W.11) of village Indupur were arranging a feast at Dhenkaborei near Suakhainala. At about 12.30 p.m., the informant noticed two boys passing through Kanarpur village by walking. At about 2.30 p.m., out of the duo, one i.e. the appellant returned. Noticing the pant and the shirt of the appellant were stained with blood, when the informant and his friends asked the appellant about the other boy who had accompanied him sometime before, the appellant not only disclosed his name and address, but also gave the identity of that boy as deceased Pintu @ Priyabrata Pati, son of Pabitra Mohan Pati and also confessed to have committed murder of the deceased by means of a knife by slitting his throat and thrown his dead body on the hilltop. Being frightened, the informant and his friends informed the matter to one Kunjabihari Sahu (P.W.4) over phone, who instructed them to detain the appellant there.After the arrival of P.W.4, all of them went to Kanarpur hillock with the appellant, where the appellant showed the dead body of the deceased, which was burnt about 75% and lying under a Neem tree inside a stone ditch facing downward. They also noticed severe bleeding injury on the throat of the deceased. On their return down the hillock, P.W.4 informed about the incident to the police over his mobile phone and on arrival of the I.I.C., Sadar P.S., a written report was lodged by P.W.14 at the spot.

P.W.17, the I.I.C., Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. on receipt of the written report of P.W.14, treated the same as F.I.R. and took up investigation of the case after sending the report through A.S.I. Girish Ch. Pradhan to the police station for registration of the case. On receipt of the written F.I.R., the S.I. of Police, who was in charge of the P