ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

53
accordingly, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was filed for
commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the charge, examined thirteen
witnesses whereas one witness was examined on behalf of the appellant.
The appellant took a plea that in the night of occurrence, he along with
P.W.10 had gone to attend a feast and on his return found the dead body of
the deceased. Out of thirteen witnesses examined by the prosecution,
P.W.1 is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.9 is another brother
MANUA GOUDA -V- STATE OF ORISSA [L.MOHPATRA,J.]
of the deceased. P.W.2 is stepmother of the appellant and P.W.4 is mother
of the deceased. P.Ws.5 and 7 are two sisters of the deceased and P.Ws.6
and 8 are the paternal uncles of the deceased. P.W.1 is a witness to the
inquest and P.W.10 speaks about the death of the deceased having heard
from others. P.W.11 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination
and P.Ws.12 and 13 are the Police Officers involved in the inquiry and
investigation of the case.
4. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is
based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court on analysis of the evidence
found that the appellant along with his deceased wife was living separately
without having any connection with the parents before death of the deceased
and that he has failed to prove the plea of alibi taken as defence. The trial
court also found the information given by the appellant to the relatives of the
deceased regarding the reasons for death was found to be false and he
being the only person present in the house in the night of occurrence, the
burden of proof was on him to explain the circumstances under which the
deceased died. On these findings, the appellant was found guilty of the
charge and was convicted thereunder.
5. Shri Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the
impugned judgment on the ground that even accepting the postmortem
report and the opinion of the doctor, P.W.11 that the deceased died a
homicidal death, there being no eyewitness to the occurrence, it was the
duty of the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances to establish that
it is the appellant and appellant alone, who could have committed the
alleged offence. According to the learned counsel, the only material placed
by the prosecution before the trial court is that the appellant informed the
relatives of the deceased that the deceased was suffering from loose motion
and vomiting whereas the death of the deceased was found to be homicidal
by strangulation. There being no other evidence to connect the appellant
with the commission of alleged offence, it was contended on behalf of the
appellant that there is no evidence available against him and, accordingly,
he should have been acquitted of the charge.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that evidence on record
clearly establish that the appellant and the deceased were staying together