The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to uphold a murder conviction; mere presence or weak motives are insufficient for guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant Huika Hari faced trial in the Court of learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur (Ganjam) in Sessions Case No.45 of 2006 (S.C. 362/04 GDC) for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that in the intervening night of 22/23.01.2004, he committed murder of Huika Nagaraju (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) at the near end of the Airstrip roadside of Berhampur University.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2007 found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only), however, no default sentence has been awarded for non-payment of the fine amount.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter ‘F.I.R.’) (Ext.6) lodged by M. Gopal Rao (P.W.6), Campus Supervisor of Berhampur University on 23.01.2004 before the Officer-in-Charge of Gopalpur police station, in short, is that he came to know from some persons at Monark Market that the dead body of the deceased was lying at the Airstrip and somebody had committed murder of the deceased. P.W.6 came to the spot where the dead body was lying and found injuries on the person of the deceased. Accordingly, he lodged the written report against unknown persons, basing on which Gopalpur P.S. Case No.07 dated 23.01.2004 was registered under section 302 of I.P.C. by P.W.11, Kailash Chandra Acharya, the Officer-in-Charge of Gopalpur P.S.

After registration of the case, P.W.11 took up investigation of the case, examined the informant, came to the spot, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses, prepared the inquest report (Ext.3) and sent the dead body to the F.M.& T. Department of M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur for post mortem examination through the constables. P.W.11 also seized the blood stained earth, sample earth and two hawai sleepers of the deceased from the spot in presence of the witnesses under seizure list Ext.7. He examined the family members of the deceased, other witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased on production by the escort constable at Gopalpur police station under seizure list (Ext.1). The wearing apparels of the appellant were seized as were hanging on the wire on the back side of the rented house in presence of witnesses as per seizure list (Ext.5). The appellant was arrested and his statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and he led the police party and other witnesses to a busy area which was at a distance of about 80 feet from the spot where the dead body was lying and produced a wooden cricket bat from inside the bush which was seized as per seizure list Ext.8. The appellant was forwarded to Court on 25.01.2004. P.W.11 prepared the spot map vide Ext.12 and on 06.02.2004, he handed over the charge of investigation to P.W.12, Kishore Chandra Dash, who examined the witnesses, revisited the sport, received the P.M. report of the deceased, sent the viscera of the deceased to S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar for chemical examination, seized some photographs of the scene of occurrence, produced the weapon of offence before the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination and made a query regarding possibility of injuries sustained by the deceased with such weapon and received the query report vide Ext.11 and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C.

Framing of Charges

3. After submis