Judgment:
Pasayat, J.
1. In this appeal from the District Jail, Phulbani Kartik Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of conviction made under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and the sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Additionally the accused has been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. A brief resume of the facts situation would suffice. The accused, a resident of village Gopinathpur under Sarankul Police Station in the district of Puri came from his village with his wife Pendari alias Shantilata (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his minor daughter and reached at the shop of Kishore Chandra Sahu (P.W. 5) at about 4 p.m. on 27-10-1986. The accused enquired from P.W. 5 as to whether Sagar Babu, a teacher was available in the school at Kilakia. Although the witness repelled that he had not seen him since many days, the accused along with the deceased and his minor daughter left for village Kilakia. He met Bijaya Chandra Sethi (P.W. 6), a teacher of the aforesaid school, who knew him earlier. Bijaya Chandra allowed the accused to stay in the hostel along with his wife (the deceased) and the minor daughter. In the early morning of the next day, i.e., 28-10-1986 they left the hostel. One Biswanath Pradhan (P.W. 2) while going to a nearby hill to collect fuel found a bag and a pair of chappals lying near a tree. He called out in a loud voice as to who had left those articles. Immediately he could hear the cries of a child from near a bush. He went there and found a female child lying. He brought her as well as the pair of chappals and the bag to his village, called the Sarpanch and went to Raikia Police Station. Having seen some injuries on the neck of the child, the Officer-in-charge of Raikia P.S. suspected some foul play and made a station diary entry. He took the child to Raikia Primary Health Centre for examination and treatment. The Officer-in-charge also proceeded to the place with P.W. 2 and, other where from the child was found lying. On a search nearby, a half-naked deadbody of a female was found lying in small ditch. As nobody could identify the dead body, a photographer (P.W. 4) was called and photographs were taken. At the spot the Officer-in-charge drew up the plain paper F.I.R. and took up investigation. During investigation inquest was held over the dead body in presence of the witnesses. The I.O. seized the bag, the slippers (chappals) two pieces of cycle chain and a shirt. As it could be ascertained by him during investigation that the dead body was that of the wife of the accused, he examined the father and father-in-law of the accused and recorded their statements. During investigation it transpired that the accused after having committed the crime had gone to Ranapur and stayed in the house of one Srikar where he made a confessional statement to have killed his wife. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused faced trial.
3. The accused denied that he was guilty and alleged false implication. We, however, took a plea that the deceased was of loose character and had illicit relationship with Biswanath (P.W. 2).
4. In order to further its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The accused admitted that the photographs were of his deceased wife and that his wife was dead. Therefore, the only question, according to the learned trial Judge, which needed adjudication was whether the accused was guilty of the offence as alleged. Since there was no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime, the circumstances were examined. The following circumstances were considered to be of consequence.
(i) That on 27-10-1986 at 4 p.m. accused was found with the deceased and the minor daughter near the shop of P.W. 5.
(ii) That the accused, deceased and his minor daughter came to Kilakia residential Sevasharam school and with the help of P.W. 6, a teacher of the said school stayed for the night in the school hostel and in the early morning left the hostel.
(iii) That the shirt (M.O.V) which has been identified by P. W. 9 to be of the accused was found near about the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying.
(iv) That the accused left the school hostel in the earlier morning with the deceased and his minor daughter without informing P. W. 6 or the headmaster.
(v) That the accused made an extra-judicial confession before P.W. 10 that he killed his wife.
On analysis of evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
5. In support of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the accused has stressed on the well-known principle that when the fate of a case depends on the circumstantial evidence there must be a complete chain to show that the accused alone was guilty and all other hypothesis are ruled out. If there is any missing link in the circumstances the benefit thereof should go to the accused. The learned Counsel for the State, however, submitted that the chain is complete and there is no missing link so as to throw any doubt about acceptability of the evidence and the correctness of conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge.
6. It is trite law that where circumstances are intended to be the foundation for fastening guilt of an accused the same must be complete and conclusive. There is no particular or special mode of proof of circumstantial evidence. The evidence must be considered in its true perspective to rule out the possibility of any relevant factor which alone proves the innocence or the guilt of the accused. The circumstances are to be read as an integrated whole and cannot be considered separately. Otherwise the very concept of proving the circumstantial evidence would be defeated. The cumulative effect of the entire evidence has to be weighed carefully before recording the finding of conviction. The circumstances concerned must be of such nature that they indicate a 'must' not 'may be' about guilt of the accused. In the instant case, we find certain very telltale features. The fact that the accused was seen in the company of the deceased and the injured on 27-10-1986 has been deposed to by P.Ws. 5 and 6. Their evidence is credible. There is not even a suggestion that they were remotely inimical to the accused. They were disinterested independent witnesses who would gain nothing by falsely implicating the accused. P.W. 6 is a teacher who had earlier acquaintance with the accused because the latter had stayed in the hostel while P.W. 7 was the headmaster of the school in question. That the accused had stayed in the hostel with P.W. 7 has been also stated by P.W. 7. This witness has accepted that he was greatly indebted to the father of the accused asatter had financed him during his studies. It is, therefore, natural that he would not falsely implicate the accused. His evidence is relevant for the purpose of corroboration of the evidence of P.W. 6 to the effect that the accused had come to the school earlier. The conduct of the accused is also a very relevant factor. When two persons were last seen and one of them was found dead subsequently it cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that the other is the author of the crime. Where the circumstances are such that there is no possibility of interposing of any other person in between the time when the two persons were seen together, and the time when one of them is found dead, a suspicion arises that the person who is alive had a role to play in the death of the other. That suspicion is a relevant factor also. Though conviction cannot be made on mere suspicion, the suspicious circumstances can be considered to be relevant.
The accused had admitted that his wife was dead. He was arrested long after the date of occurrence. He has not even given any explanation as to why he had not made any enquiry about the whereabouts of his wife and the child who was found injured. Therefore, the circumstances clearly point at the accused.
7. Great deal of emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel for the accused to point out that the motive is absent in the instant case. Prosecution is not to establish a motive when it does not rely on the same to be the background factor for the offence. Therefore, absence of motive cannot be fatal to the prosecution. As indicated above, the defence plea was that the deceased was of loose character and had illicit relationship with P. W. 2. That might have provided the motive. But we are not very much concerned with that aspect and treat the same to be inconsequential.
8. The analysis made by the learned trial Judge has our approval and we find no infirmity to interfere with the conviction made and sentence awarded, The appeal fails and is dismissed.
D.M. Patnaik, J.
9. I agree.