In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must independently prove guilt without alternative hypotheses; mere false pleas are insufficient without corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The judgment passed by learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar on 19th February, 2005 in S.T. Case No.13/12 of 2004 is under challenge in the present appeal whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 9^th September, 2003 the Ward Member of village Namkani in the district of Keonjhar lodged a written report before the O.I.C of Telkoi P.S. stating that on that day at about 7.00 A.M. one Phula Naik (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) had been killed by her husband Santosh Naik (accused-appellant) by means of an axe and that being informed and requested by one Bira Bhadra Naik of his village, he informed the matter to Police. The written report was registered as Telkoi P.S. Case No.74/2003 and investigation was taken up.

Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C.

The defence plea, apart from denial, was that the deceased, who was suffering from brain malaria, fell down and died while she had gone to fetch water.

3. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 15 documents apart from 1 material object being the weapon of offence. Defence, on the other hand, did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

4. Basing on the evidence of the autopsy surgeon (P.W.8), the court below first held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. P.W.8 having noticed two lacerated injuries and a bruise on vital part of the body had opined that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the same were also possible to be caused by the weapon of offence (axe) (M.O.1), seized during investigation.

5. As regards the author of the crime, the trial court noted that there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence and that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it was held that the following circumstances were proved.

(i) The accused was seen by P.Ws.5 and 10 to be running away immediately after the occurrence towards jungle through an unusual route.

(ii) The accused gave recovery of the weapon of offence (axe), which he had concealed after committing the crime.

(iii) In his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused was found to have falsely stated that his wife was suffering from brain malaria due to which she fell down and died while she had gone to fetch water from a village well carrying an aluminum container.

The trial court also held that the accused could not explain the presence of blood on the weapon of offence, which was recovered at his instance. On such findings, the accused was convicted and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

6. Heard Mr. C.R.Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

7. Assailing the findings of the trial court Mr. Sahu would argue that there being no eye witnesses, the prosecution case can succeed only if a complete chain of circumstances can be established by the prosecution. He further argues that each of the circumstances must independently point at the guilt of the accused and must not admit of any other hypothesis. The evidence in the case at hand, according to Mr. Sahu, does not meet the above requirements. Elaborating his argument Mr. Sahu contends that only because the accused was seen to be running away cannot be treated as incriminating in nature in view of a plausible explanation bei