GOPAL GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19.5.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, in S. C. No. 8 of 1989, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant was prosecuted forcommission of murder of his own wife Saraswati in his house in the night of 17/18.9.1988.

(2.) THE skeletal picture of the prosecution story, as unfolded during trial, is as follows : The appellant had two other brothers, who had partitioned their properties. A portion of a two roomed house, which was allotted to the share of the appellant, was occupied by him and his wife Saraswati. The other portion fell to the share of the husband of P.W. 10, Kumari Gouduni. Another brother occupied a house in the same village, which was situated at a little distance, and their mother was residing with him. The appellant and the deceased had no issue even after 13 years of their marital life. There was allegedly no cordial relationship between the appellant and his wife for the last 4 to 5 years prior to the incident. There was always rancour, ill feeling and quarrel between them. It has been described in the FIR that about a fortnight prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased Saraswati complained before her father (P. W. 1) that the appellant was not making sufficient provision for her maintenance. He was spending time with his sister in law (P.W. 10), and taking food in her house. She had also informed P.W. 1 that the appellant had decided to divorce her. On getting the above information, P.W. 1 approached the elder members of the community for rapprochement. A meeting of the caste heads was convened on 16.9.1988. After hearing the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the husband and wife, the caste heads directed the appellant to provide a house to the deceased for shelter and also 20 Gounis of paddy for her maintenance for month, to which the appellant agreed and returned home. The deceased stayed in the house of her brother (P.W. 2), which was in the same village. On 17.9.1988, in the afternoon at about 3.00 P.M. the appellant came and called the deceased to his house to prepare food for him, to which the deceased obliged, perhaps with the hope and trust that there might be some kind of settlement between them. It is further alleged that at about 9.00 O'clock in the night, P.W. 2 went to the house of the appellant to meet his sister and found her sitting on the front verandah of the house along with the appellant. He advised them to reconcile their difference and came back. P.W. 10, the sister in law of the appellant, had also seen the appellant and the deceased together between 7.00 and 8.00 P.M. before going to bed. On the following morning, when P.W. 10 came out of her house to attend the call of nature, she noticed that the front door of the house of the appellant was closed from inside. To her utter surprise, when she returned, she noticed a huge gathering near the house of the appellant. She also noticedthat Saraswati was lying dead on the floor of the house. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, came there around 8.00 O'clock in the morning and made a query from the appellant about the cause of death of Saraswati, to which the appellant observed stoic silence. On the aforesaid allegation, the appellant was charged under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife.

(3.) THERE has been no direct evidence in this case and the prosecution case solely rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is the well settled position of law that where a case depends on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be satisfactorily and firmly established. There should be a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved against the accused. Keeping this in mind, we have to see how far the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant.