The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case due to procedural failures and insufficient corroborative evidence.

Judgment :

V. Narasingh, J.

The appellant has called in question the judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC and order of sentence dated 27.08.2012 to undergo R.I for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further R.I for a period of two years passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Criminal Trial No.73 of 2007.

Prosecution Case.

2. In the year 2006 the appellant married Amita Kachim (since deceased). After few years of the marriage, there was a dissension and the appellant and his family members started torturing the deceased for dowry. With the intervention of the well-wishers the matter subsided. Thereafter, the appellant and the deceased went to Khurda to earn their livelihood as labourers in a private company. It is alleged that during their stay appellant administered poison to the deceased in the guise of giving no worm medicine and while she was being taken to the hospital she died. Having come to know that his daughter has been killed by the appellant by poisoning, father of the deceased Shyam Sundar Bagh (P.W 12) lodged information with A.S.I of Kamta outpost, which was later registered as Tentulikhunti P.S Case No.11 of 2007 of Nabarangpur District under Sections 498 -A/304-B/302 IPC citing the appellant as the sole accused. During the course of investigation, since accusation came to fore regarding involvement of the parents of the appellant, they were arrayed as accused for commission of offence under Section 498 (A)/34 .

3. On conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur by judgment dated 27.08.2012 in Criminal Trial No.73 of 2007 while acquitting the appellant as well as his parents of charge under Section 498 -A/34 IPC found the appellant-husband of the deceased guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 and accordingly he was directed to undergo R.I for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to undergo R.I. for a further period of two years in default thereof.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Mishra, submitted that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Trial Court being perverse the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is liable to be set aside and he is to be acquitted of the charge.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor Sri Rout submitted that since the judgment is based on cogent analysis of the evidence the same does not call for any interference.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined 27 witnesses and 12 documents were also admitted into evidence and marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution.

7. The defence adduced oral evidence through one Pankaj Bag (D.W 1).

8. P.W.12 is the informant, father of the deceased. P.Ws 1 to 5, 7 & 8 are witnesses to the quarrel between the accused-appellant and his wife (deceased) post marriage and the subsequent settlement thereof in the meeting of the “Panch”. They are also cited as witnesses who deposed about the appellant bringing the dead body of the deceased to the village by a car. P.W.6 and 16 are the witnesses to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.6 is also a witness to the seizure of a necklace of the deceased. P.Ws 9 to 11 and 24 are the co-villagers of the appellant, who were working in the same company at Khurda as labourers and who are stated to be the witnesses to the circumstances under which the death occurred and shifting of the deceased to the hospital.

9. P.Ws 3 and 14 are the witnesses to the inquest. P.Ws 13, 15 an