Judgment:
B. Panigrahi, J.
1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1995 of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jeypore, is the sole appellant in this appeal. He was prosecuted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') on the allegation that he intentionally caused murder of his wife, Saraswati Pradhan, and concealed the dead body inside the river Bansadhara in order to screen himself from the legal consequences. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted him for the said charges and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302. IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201, IPC; the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as depicted in course of trial is as follows :
There was pre-marital relationship between the deceased and the appellant which led them to a martial tie. Thereafter, the appellant again married Basanti Pradhan (P.W.2). The deceased Saraswati being aggrieved by the action of the appellant, filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from him and it was allowed. But subsequently, there was rapproachment between both the parties, in consequence whereof the appellant had taken the deceased to his house. After sometime, the appellant along with his second wife (P.W.2) went to Bikrampur leaving the deceased in her mother's house. About a week thereafter, on 22nd September, 1994, the appellant came and entreated the mother of the deceased to leave Saraswati, who was then suffering from fever, in his company for her treatment at Gunupur. So, on 23rd September, 1994 Friday at about 10.00 A.M. the deceased along with the appellant went to Gunupur for her treatment. At that time, Saraswati was wearing a pair of Jhumuka belonging to one Savitri and a pair of ear-rings belonging to one Parvati. She was also wearing a pair of Paunji (silver chain tied around the ankles) belonging to one Santi of her village. On the very same Friday night, the appellant returned to the village alone. On the following morning when Saraswati's mother (P.W.6) found the appellant alone in the village; she enquired the whereabouts of his daughter, but the appellant could not satisfactorily explain as to what happened to deceased Saraswati. Thus, the deceased's mother made a frantic search of Saraswati at her relations' house, but could not trace her out. On the following Monday P.W.6 and her nephew Makardhwaja Pradhan (P.W.3) asked the appellant once again about the whereabouts of deceased Saraswati, It is. stated that when the appellant was again confronted, he became infuriated and blurted out saying that he had thrown the dead body of Saraswati in river Bansadhara after committing her murder. By hearing such version, P.W.6 was amazed and proceeded to Gunupur police station in the company of P.W.3 for lodging a report. The oral information given by P.W.6 was reduced to writing by the Officer-in-charge and treated as F.I.R. (Ext.5). In the said F.I.R., the version alleged to have been made by the appellant was also narrated, on the basis of which the appellant was arrested on 1.10.1994. While in custody, the appellant led the police party to river Bansadhara and made a discovery statement to the effect that he had concealed the dead body of Saraswati underneath the water by tying two stones to the same. On the basis of such statement, the dead body was recovered from her river. It may be stated here that immediately after lodging of the F.I.R. the appellant was not available in the village as he had concealed himself to avoid arrest. Only on 1.10.1994 He was arrested where after he led the police party to Bansadhara river and made such disclosure. After recovery of the dead body, it was sent for postmortem examination. The appellant also gave recovery of the ornaments which were missing from the body of Saraswati. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was placed against the appellant.
3. The appellant took the plea of innocence and his false implication in the case. The defence has examined the Executive Magistrate, Gunupur, in whose presence the dead body of Saraswati was recovered, as a witness on his behalf, D.W.1, has stated that he could not remember to have seen the appellant at the time of recovery of the dead body of Saraswati from inside the water of river Bansadhara near Gunupur. it was recovered on 1.10.1994 from the river and sent for post mortem examination.
4. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body. From his statement, it has transpired that there were twelve injuries on the dead body of the deceased Saraswati, and according to him, those injuries might have been caused due to mutilation by aquatic creatures. A ligature mark was also noticed, which was caused by a red napkin, on the neck below the level of thyroid cartilage and it encircled the neck transversely with a knot present on the left side. According to P.W.7, the ligature mark was ante mortemin nature, and death was due to strangulation by the red napkin. The post mortem report was marked as Ext. 6. Therefore, on a careful examination of the statement of P.W. 7, it is established that the deceased Saraswati met a homicidal death.
5. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case depends upon circumstantial evidence. In such a situation, all circumstances placed by the prosecution should suggest only the guilt of the appellant and no link in the chain of events should be missing. From the proved circumstances, the only hypothesis that could be deduced would be the guilt of the appellant, which would negate the inference of his innocence. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, let us now advert to the facts situation of the case.
6. From the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6, it has been established that deceased Saraswati was suffering from fever and the appellant brought her from the house of P.W. 6 for the purpose of treatment at Gunupur. Thereafter, he alone returned to the village during that Friday night and the deceased did not accompany him. About a week thereafter, her dead body was recovered from underneath the water of river Bansadliara near Gunupur. Thus, it has been established that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant just before the commission of murder.
7. Next morning, when P.W.6 saw the appellant alone in the village, she enquired from him about the whereabouts of the deceased, but he gave some evasive replies. Therefore, P.W.6 moved around her relations' house in search of the deceased, but could not trace out her. On the following Monday, when the appellant was again confronted by P.Ws.3 and 6, he became infuriated and blurted out saying that he had thrown the dead body of Saraswati in river Bansadahara after committing the murder. On hearing this, P.W.6 went to Gunupur police-station along with P.W.3 and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 5), in consequence whereof the appellant was arrested on 1.10.1994, and while in custody, he led the police party to river Bansadhara and made a discovery statement to have concealed the dead body of Saraswati underneath the water by tying two stones with the same. On the basis of such treatment, the dead body was recovered from the river. In this connection, though D.W.I has stated that he could not remember to have seen the appellant, the trial Court did not give emphasis on such statement inasmuch as he had deposed after a gap of about two years. He being the Executive Magistrate, it was not supposed for him to memorise everything which had taken place quite some time past. Therefore, it has been proved beyond doubt that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant.
8. Immediately after lodging of the F.I.R. the appellant could not be arrested as he had concealed himself to avoid arrest. This conduct on the part of the appellant is also an additional link to implicate him in the crime.
9. It has been alleged that at the time when Saraswati left the house of her mother along with the appellant, she was wearing a pair of ear-rings, nakaphula, and jhumka. Those ornaments were found missing from her body. The appellant while in custody led the Investigating Officer and witnesses to the cowshed of one Dayanidhi Pradhan and gave recovery of those ornaments, which were kept inside a polythene packet and buried in that cowshed. The same were seized as per seizure list Ext.2 on 1.10.1994 at 8.00 P.M. The aforesaid circumstance also supports the prosecution case that the appellant after killing his wife had removed the ornaments from the dead body and thereafter concealed the dead body underneath water by tying two stones to the saree of the deceased.
10. The fact remains that the pre-marital relationship between the appellant and the deceased Saraswati culminated in a valid marriage, but since the appellant again married for the second time, the relationship between them became embittered, as a result of which, the deceased had filed a case for maintenance. In the said proceeding, she succeeded and obtained an order against the appellant. After a few months, the appellant feigned to have again developed love and affection towards Saraswati and by giving an impression to treat her, took her to Gunupur and committed the murder. The gold ear-rings had been borrowed from P.W.4, which she received back from the police. P.W.4 has deposed that she had lent the said ornaments to deceased Saraswati just before the latter went to Gunupur. From the statement of P.W.I, it is gathered that on 1.10.1994 the appellant while in custody went to the house of one Dayanidhi Pradhan and in his presence gave recovery of two kanaphula, two jhumka and two nakaphula, which were kept in a polythene and lay buried inside the cowshed of Dayanidhi. The appellant removed the same from underneath and gave recovery to P.W. 10 which were seized vide Ext.2.
11. A cumulative effect of the evidence narrated above leaves no room for doubt that it was the appellant who after giving an impression to P.W.6, the mother of the deceased, that he would take Saraswati to Gunupur for her treatment, in fact took her and committed murder and concealed the dead body underneath the water of river Bansadhara. Thereafter, he returned alone and could not satisfactorily reply as to what happened to the deceased Saraswati. After some time, when the appellant was again asked about the whereabouts of Saraswati, he being incensed by anger replied to have finished Saraswati, in consequence whereof, her dead body as well as the ornaments were recovered at his instance. Therefore, the prosecution has amply proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had committed such ghastly murder of his wife. It may be again stated that in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. he took a false plea that he had not taken his wife Saraswati to Gunupur. This false plea can also be taken as an additional link regarding the complicity of the appellant in the crime.
12. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in this case the appellant has already suffered about 8 years of imprisonment. He fervently prayed that in order to meet the ends of justice, the sentence may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Since we have upheld the judgment of the trial Court, where under the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/201, IPC, we have no other option but to sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life. Courts in undeserving cases cannot afford to be charitable in the administration of criminal justice, which is so vital for securing peace and order in the Society.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.
P.K. Misra, J.
14. I agree.