To convict based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of facts that consistently point to the guilt of the accused, and the burden of proof lies on the accused regarding facts within their knowledge.

Judgment :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Both the appellants faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.764/2001. Appellant No.1-Dijabar Swain was charged for committing murder of his wife and of causing disappearance of evidence. Appellant No.2-Bijoya Bastia was charged for causing disappearance of evidence of the crime. By judgment dated 04.12.2002, appellant No.1- Dijabar was convicted under Sections 302/201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life while appellant No.2-Bijoya Bastia was convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows;

Namita, the daughter of the informant, Dhoi Naik (P.W.10) was given in marriage to accused-Dijabar in 1994 as per Vedic rites. Dijabar regularly demanded money from his in-laws and used to visit them and bring money from them on the pretext of investing in his business. Namita informed through a letter to her parents that she would be killed unless further Rs.10,000/- was paid. On 19.10.2000 the elder brother of Dijabar namely, Abhimanyu (P.W.7) went to the house of Dhoi Naik and learning from his wife that he had gone to the fields, Abhimanyu went there and informed Dhoi that his daughter (Namita) was ill and had died in the hospital. He further informed that instead of taking the dead body to home, they cremated her in the electric furnace. Hearing this, Dhoi lost his consciousness and after regaining his sense he found Abhimanyu absent. He came home and informed his family members. His son found accused Dijabar in the bus stand and brought him to their house. On 22.10.2000, Dhoi went to his native village and came to know that the accused had killed his daughter and cremated her dead body. The informant therefore, went to Niali P.S. and lodged a written report which led to registration of Niali P.S. Case No.175/2000 under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. During investigation, it came to light that accused-Dijabar had killed his wife by strangulating her while accused Bijoya had helped him to dispose of the dead body in a pond. Accused Bijoya had led the police to the pond from where the dead body was recovered. It was found that bricks and stones were tied to the dead body to prevent it from floating. Thus, the complicity of both the accused persons having come to light, charge sheet was submitted against them.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses and proved 15 documents. Defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

4. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record found that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Further, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 before whom the accused had made extra-judicial confession of killing the deceased, the trial Court held that said evidence proved that he had killed the deceased. The trial court further took note of the evidence of P.Ws. 9, 10, 11 and 17 to note the prevaricating statements of the accused regarding the cause of death of the deceased and therefore, accepted that Dijabar had confessed of committing the murder of the deceased by throttling. The trial Court also accepted the prosecution evidence that accused-Bijoya Bastia had assisted Dijabar in concealing the dead body of the deceased after tying stones and brick bags to her body. The dead body was recovered at the instance of accused-Bijoya Bastia. The trial Court however, did not accept the prosecution evidence that accused-Dijabar had demanded dowry and that the death was caused in connection such demand. The Trial Court thus held the