The necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction, while noting the absence of motive and procedural failures in prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant Surendra Prasad Das @ Bapi faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No.49/49 of 2011 for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter 'I.P.C.') on the accusation that on 21.11.2010 at village Gacha Adia at 4.00 p.m. in the afternoon, he committed murder of his wife Sradhanjali Patra (hereafter “the deceased”).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24/27.09.2012, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for three months.

Prosecution Case

2. P.W.10 Pradipta @ Amulya Kumar Patra, the elder brother of the deceased, is the informant in this case and he lodged the F.I.R. on 21.11.2010 before the Officer-in-Charge of Bansada Police Station in which he stated that the deceased married to the appellant in the year 2010 in the month of Asadha as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of the bride groom side, cash of Rs.50,000/-, gold chain, ring and other household articles were given. However, after the marriage, the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law so also the appellant started torturing the deceased demanding more dowry of Rs.50,000/-. In that connection, the deceased had communicated to her family members over phone and the informant had also discussions with the in-laws' family members of the deceased over the issue and had also assured to fulfill the demand of dowry after the harvesting of the paddy crops. On 21.11.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., the informant received phone call from the outsiders and accordingly proceeded to the village of the appellant and in the house of the appellant, he found the deceased was lying dead in bleeding condition. He suspected that the in-laws family members i.e. mother-in-law, husband (appellant), sister-in-law, brother-in-law, uncle-in-law and younger brother of the father- in-law might have killed the deceased by assaulting her repeatedly with crowbar. No ornament was found on the body of the deceased, who was lying on the cot.

On the basis of such written report of P.W.10, Smt. Sarojini Singh (P.W.12), O.I.C. of Bansada Police Station registered, Bansada P.S. Case No. 195 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B read with section 34 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant and his family members and she herself took up investigation of the case. She examined the witnesses, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.8), conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.5. On 22.11.2010, she arrested the appellant and on the disclosure statement made by the appellant and at his instance, one crowbar was seized from the pond as per the seizure list Ext.3/2. The dowry articles were seized from the house of the appellant as per the seizure list Ext.10 and it was left in the Zima of the informant (P.W.10) as per the Zimanama (Ext.7). The I.O. also seized the blood stained earth, sample earth from the spot and prepared the seizure list (Ext.11). He also seized one printed lungi, one red colour napkin and white colour baniyan of the appellant as per the seizure list (Ext.12) and on 23.11.2010, she seized one violet colour saree and red colour saya of the deceased after the post-mortem examination as per the seizure list Ext.13. On 18.03.2011, the blood stained eart