The conviction based on circumstantial evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring reliable and corroborated extrajudicial confessions.

JUDGMENT :

By the Bench:

The appellant Bhagban Nayak faced trial in the Court of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Malkangiri in Criminal Trial No.28 of 2008 for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short „I.P.C.‟) on the accusation that on 10.09.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., in his house situated in village Pedaguda, he committed murder of his wife Radhika Nayak (hereafter „the deceased‟). The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2008, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by P.W.1 Bhaktaram Pujari before the Officer in- charge of Mudulipada police station on 11.09.2006, in short, is that on 10.09.2006 in the evening hours at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant dealt five to six tangia blows to the deceased on her head, ear and back suspecting her character as a result of which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died and her dead body along with the dead body of their new born baby of twenty days was lying in the courtyard of the house. The informant received the information from the co-villager Bhagirathi Nayak and rushed to the spot and he found the dead bodies lying there and further found that the appellant was standing there being armed with a Tangia and was shouting. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that a village meeting was convened over this issue and the appellant was asked about the occurrence and he confessed his guilt and stated to have killed the deceased by dealing blows with Tangia suspecting her character. It is further stated in the first information report that on account of heavy rain in the night on 10.9.2006, the first information report could not be lodged in the police station and on the next day, the written report was presented by P.W.1.

On the basis of such written report presented by P.W.1, Mudulipada P.S. Case No.20 dated 11.9.2006 was registered under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant and Sub-Inspector of Police R.Sabar took up investigation of the case. On his transfer, the charge of investigation was taken over by P.W.8 Niranjan Behera, I.I.C., Mudulipada police station on 28.12.2007 who re- examined some witnesses, sent the exhibits to R.F.S.L, Berhampur through S.D.J.M., Malkangiri for chemical examination and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the Sub-Inspector of Police R.Sabar, who investigated the case from 11.9.2006 till the charge was handed over to P.W.8, the documents prepared by the said S.I. of police R.Sabar were proved by P.W.8.

Framing of Charges

3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session following due procedure, where the learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant as aforesaid. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to establish his guilt.

Prosecution Witnesses and Exhibits

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and also exhibited seventeen documents.

P.W.1 Bhaktaram Pujari stated that the appellant was the husband of the deceased and the deceased died about two years back. He further stated that two years back just before the Dusshera, during evening hours, one Moti Nayak and Bhagirath Naik cam