Circumstantial evidence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, with clear, cogent connections to establish guilt; the accused's release is warranted when gaps exist in prosecution evidence.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial No.300 of 2010.

The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offences under section-302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short called as ‘the IPC ’) and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under section-302 of the and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years for the offence under section-201 of the with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 21.08.2010, it was around 9.30 am, one Ananta Hembram, P.W.2 lodged an information at Raibania Police Station to the effect that on 13.08.2010, which was a Saturday, the accused had gone to a nearby jungle with his wife Singa Hembram for collection of firewood and when they were returning home as informed by Lusku Hembram, the accused, Singa (deceased) left the place and went somewhere else, for which the accused Lusku and his family members too were searching to trace her out. The Informant has stated to have heard these facts on 28.08.2010. He then heard from the villagers that when they repeatedly asked accused- Lusku regarding the whereabouts of the deceased, the accused in presence of the villagers confessed to have caused the death of his wife, Singa in Bhadua Cashew Jungle and he further stated to have buried the dead body of the deceased in a place in that Jungle.

On 13.08.2010 around 10 am Singa had come with the accused and from near Hatigarh Bazar, she had gone to bring some firewood, so she having not been able to get those firewood had gone Bhadua Cashew Jungle and on the way Singa met the accused who then by means of a saree, which had been worn by the deceased and strangulated her to death and thereafter, having taken the dead body to a nearby place, it was concealed by the accused. The accused having done so had returned home and in the evening hours having gone there with a spade, he buried the dead body there. He also stated to have kept the spade concealed in a place nearby.

Above information having been received by the Officer-In-Charge of Raibania Police Station (OIC), P.W.6, immediately Raibania P.S. Case No.50 of 2010 was registered and the investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted placing the accused for trial for commission of offence under section-302/201 of the IPC .

The accused took the plea of denial and false implication.

3. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Balasore on receipt of the police report having taken cognizance of the said offences, after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. That is how the trial commenced by framing charges against the accused persons for offence under section-302/201 of the IPC .

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused has examined, in total six(6) witnesses and proved the documents such as, the F.I.R., Ext.1/1, postmortem report, Ext.2, disclosure statement of the accused, Ext.3, seizure list showing seizure of the incriminating articles have also been proved as Exts. 4 & 5 and inquest report as Ext.6 and extract of the station diary entry, Ext.7. The spade recovered in course of investigation and seized has been produced in the Court during trial with the packet containing the wearing apparels of the deceased and her other belongings which hav