1. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.2.2001 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 28/19 of 1999 on the file of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rourkela. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty of the charge U/s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo punishment of imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.6.1998 the deceased Namita Padhi married to the accused-appellant in the Laxminarayan temple of Sector-14, Rourkela. It was an arranged marriage. In the marriage the appellant and his family members demanded scooter, gold ring and gold chain or instead of scooter Rs.20,000/- as cash for purchase of the scooter and the informant, the father of the deceased paid Rs.15,000/- and promised to pay the rest amount later. On 18.6.1998 being Thursday, the informant did not allow his daughter to go her husband's house. On the next day i.e. on 19.6.1998 deceased Namita was sent to her husband's house being accompanied by her brother and other relations. After leaving Namita (deceased) his brother and other relations returned from the house of the accused in that night. On the next date i.e. 20.6.1998 at about 6 A.M., Abhimanyu Choudhury, father of the present appellant came and informed the son of the informant that some one has committed suicide. On being questioned, Abhimanyu did not disclose the name of the deceased. However, the son of the informant, Susanta Padhi found that her sister was hanging from the beam of the kitchen of Abhimanyu Choudhury, the father of the appellant. Her legs were touching the ground. When Susanta Padhi asked the accused as to the reason for the unfortunate incident, the accused remained silent. Thereafter, the informant reported the matter to the Police Station at 9.30 A.M., vide the F.I.R. Ext.1. On receipt of the F.I.R., Police registered a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and on the requisition of the Police, inquest was done in presence of the Executive Magistrate. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellant and Abhimanyu Choudury the father of the appellant. By order dated 25.8.1999, Abhimanyu Choudhury was discharged by the learned trial court and the present appellant was charged only U/s. 302 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined as many as 11 witnesses in this case and defence has examined none. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the father of the deceased, P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased, P.W.4 is the witness to the seizure, P.W.5 is a Doctor, who conducted autopsy, P.W.6 is the Executive Magistrate in whose presence the inquest was made, P.W.7 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.8 is the brother of the deceased in whose presence broken golden necklace, silver chain and broken bangles and other materials were seized from the bedroom of the accused-appellant by the Investigating Officer, P.W.8(a) is the Police Officer, who registered the case and took up preliminary investigation. P.W.9 is the I.O., who filed charge sheet and P.W.10 is the Doctor, who examined the appellant-accused. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who clarified the query made by the I.O.
4. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and so there is no direct evidence in this case. This case is based on circumstantial evidence. In the case of Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3255, the apex Court has propounded that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:-
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
5. Keeping the aforesaid law in mind, let us examine the materials on record. From the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,3,7 & 8, it is amply clear that Namita was found dead and was hanging from the beam of the kitchen in the house of the accused in Quarter No.KN No.32 of Kalyananagar, Chhend, Rourkela. P.W.8(a), the I.O., who registered the case also corroborated the said fact. He also brought down the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report in presence of the Executive Magistrate, P.W.6. The next question arises as to how Namita died and who caused the death and the reasons of her death. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination found the following injuries:- Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" just below right lower eye lid, abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" just below left eye brow, bruise 2" x 1/2" on the chin, abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the dorsom of right middle finger, abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the dorsum of left hand just below left index finger. According to the Doctor, the above said injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In the neck, he also found one finger tip bruise looking like pressure mark of thumb of size 1" x 1/4" on the right side of the lower part of neck below the thyroid cartilege anterioly and four finger tip bruises clustered together of the size 2" x 2" on the left side of wound in the lower part of the neck. These injuries were also ante-mortem in nature. On dissection, the Doctor also found bruise mark and extra-secession of blood was found in sub-cutaneous tissues. Tinny blood clots were found on their margins. The sub-coetaneous tissues of the neck found to be ecchymosed. The hyoid bone was found to be fractured. The trachea and larynx were congested. Blood clots were present near the fracture side of hyoid bone. Both the lungs were intact and deeply congested and there was exudation of bloody fluid from cross section of both lungs. The tongue bruised. Blood clot was found on the tip of tongue. Regarding cause of death, the Doctor opined that it was asphyxia due to throttling and violence. He has also mentioned the time of death as 12 to 18 hours since the time of his examination, which is found to be 4.30 P.M. of 20-06-1998 (vide entry in the post-mortem examination report).
6. The Doctors' evidence has remained untrammeled in the cross examination. This Court as such sees no apparent reasons to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the death of the deceased was homicidal one. Hence, the finding of the trial court that the hanging was done after the deceased died appears to be based on evidence on record, as such needs no disturbance.
7. It has emerged from the evidence of the P.W.1 that Gopal Choudhury had love affairs with his sister and after marriage they sent the bride along with the bride-groom to the house of the accused on 19.6.1998. He also accompanied the bride to the house of the accused and after marriage rituals were over, he along with others returned to his house in the night. On the next day morning they found the deceased to have died in the kitchen of the house of the accused. From the aforesaid evidence on record it has categorically emerged that the deceased was left in the company of the accused in the previous night in his house. Thereafter in the next day morning the deceased was found dead in the house of the accused and such death of the deceased was homicidal one. When the deceased was left in the company of the accused in his house and on the next day the deceased was found to have died a homicidal death in the house of the accused, onus shifts to the accused to explain under what circumstances the deceased died a homicidal death. As the appellant-accused in this case has not come out with any explanation under what circumstances he left the company of the deceased and deceased died a homicidal death, it goes without saying that the accused authored such death of the deceased. It is further verified from the post mortem report that the particular time of death of the deceased was from 12 to 16 hours since the time of examination which necessarily correlates to the time when the deceased was left in the company of the accused. The aforesaid circumstance establishes a complete a chain in the absence of any contrary evidence and gives rise to only hypothesis that it was the accused and none else who was the author of death of the deceased. When the accused is the author of such death of the deceased in the absence of any other materials on record, looking into the nature of injury contributing to the death of the deceased, it can very well be said that the accused intentionally caused a culpable homicidal which squarely attracts a charge U/s. 302 I.P.C.
8. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction as returned by the trial court in this regard can not be found fault with. So far as the sentence imposed is concerned, the sentence imposed being the minimum sentence for the charge U/s. 302 I.P.C.; the same also needs no interference. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and as such the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.