Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime; absence of motive and direct evidence renders conviction unsafe.

1. The appellant Jaga @ Jagabandhu Mohalik faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Balasore in S.T. Case No.22/153 of 2007 for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that in the intervening night of 04/05.05.2005, at village Pakharsaun, he committed murder of his wife Bibi @ Padmabati Mohalik (hereinafter ‘deceased’). The trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2008, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Prosecution Case:

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter ‘the F.I.R.) (Ext.1) lodged by Purna Chandra Das (P.W.1) on 05.05.2005 before the Sadar Police Station, Balasore, is that the marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnised 19 years prior to the date of occurrence and they were staying in the village Saunpada with their children for the last 6 to 7 months after constructing a house there. On 05.05.2005, at about 6 a.m., upon getting information about the death of the deceased, the informant (P.W.1) came to Saunpada and found the deceased lying dead and there were bleeding injuries on the head of the deceased, which was caused by a spade, which was lying near the dead body. It has further been stated that the appellant used to assault the deceased repeatedly and on the night of 04/05.5.2005, after killing the deceased, he had absconded. Ananta Pradhan (P.W.9) scribed the F.I.R. as per the oral report of P.W.1. After its presentation before the Officer-In-Charge in Balasore Sadar Police Station, a case was registered as Balasore Sadar P.S. Case No.105 dated 05.05.2005 under section 302 of the I.P.C. Suryamani Pradhan (P.W.7), the Officer-In-Charge of Sadar Police Station, Balasore, himself took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, P.W.7 deputed a constable (P.W.13) to guard the dead body of the deceased, examined the informant, sent requisition for scientific team, visited the spot on 05.05.2005 and prepared spot map (Ext.6). He held inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report vide Ext.2. He seized the weapon of offence i.e. spade, which was lying at the spot as per seizure list Ext.4. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination, seized blood stained earth and sample earth as per seizure list Ext.3. Though the Investigating Officer searched for the appellant, but his whereabouts could not be ascertained. After the post mortem examination, the wearing apparels of the deceased were produced by the constable before the I.O. (P.W.7), which were seized as per seizure list Ext.7. P.W.7 sent requisition to the Medical Officer (P.W.10), who conducted post mortem examination and sought for her opinion regarding possibility of injuries sustained by the deceased with the spade and received the opinion from the doctor. He also took steps for sending the exhibits for chemical examination to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh through Court and received the report of the chemical examiner vide Ext.10. On 07.09.2006, P.W.7 handed over the charge of investigation to P.W.8, Sudarsan Das, who also visited the spot, examined the witnesses. On 14.10.2006, the appellant was arrested and forwarded to Court. P.W.5, the son of the appellant and deceased, was produced before the Court and his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 05.12.2006 against the appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C.

Framing of Charge:

3. After submission