Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and compelling chain pointing towards guilt; motive alone is insufficient for conviction without solid proof.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant Chapa Das faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2006 for the offences punishable under sections 450 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 22.01.2006 during midnight at Balipadar in Khadala Sahi, he committed house trespass by entering into the house of Babula Naik (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) and committed his murder.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2008 found the appellant guilty under both the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 450 of the I.P.C. and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (F.I.R.) (Ext.6) lodged by Bulu Naik (P.W.4), the younger brother of the deceased on 22.01.2006 before the A.S.I. of police, Balipadar outpost, is that on 21.01.2006, a video show was going on in the backyard of their house and he was watching the video and during the midnight at about 12 O’ clock, the village children intimated him that somebody had stabbed his deceased brother and fled away. P.W.4 rushed to his house and found the deceased lying with stab injury on the abdomen at the entry point of the house and he was not in a position to talk. The wife of the deceased, namely, Bishnu Naik @ Lalita Naik (P.W.6) told P.W.4 that they were sleeping inside the house after closing the door and during the midnight at about 12 O’ clock, the deceased called her and told that someone had stabbed him and fled away. P.W.4 along with his father, brother-in-law Gobinda Naik and others shifted the deceased to the government hospital of Balipadar where the doctor examining the deceased declared him to be dead. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased had married to the daughter of the appellant since seven years prior to the occurrence and they were blessed with a son and a daughter. P.W.8 Maya Das is the wife of the appellant and the appellant created disturbance with P.W.8, assaulted her for which P.W.8 came to reside in the house of the deceased about a month prior to the occurrence. The appellant came to the house of the deceased and created disturbance with the deceased over this issue and it was suspected that in the night of occurrence while the deceased along with his wife and son were sleeping, at that time the appellant entered inside the house with knife and stabbed the deceased. Prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant had threatened the deceased as well as his wife (P.W.8) with dire consequences.

P.W.4 made oral report before P.W.10, A.S.I. of Police, Balipadar outpost which was reduced to writing and thereafter it was sent to the officer in-charge of Buguda police station for formal registration and accordingly P.W.11, O.I.C. Buguda police station registered Buguda P.S. Case No.09 dated 22.01.2006 under sections 457 and 302 of the I.P.C. and took up investigation of the case.

3. During course of investigation, P.W.11 visited the spot, prepared the spot map under Ext.7, seized the blood stained lungi, blood stained earth, sample earth and one D.V.D. from the spot as per the seizure list under Ext.3, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Balipadar government hospital and prepared inquest report under Ext.8 and dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination