DASU ALIAS JASHODA DEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The elder of the two wives of Lalmohan Naik (P.W. 2.) is alleged to have committed the murder of the younger one by assaulting her by means of an axe (M.O III) in the jungle after both of them had one to their land with manure in two baskets (M.Os. I and II) in the morning at about 7 to 8 A.M. of April 30, 1984. The prosecution sought to establish its case by examining nine witnesses none of whom had given direct testimony about the assault on the person of the deceased by the appellant and the order of conviction against the appellant, recorded by Mr. B. Panigrahi, Sessions Judge, Keonjhar; sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life, has been rested on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances sought by the prosecution were that the appellant and the deceased had left their house in the morning with baskets full of manure (M.Os: I and II) when the appellant, it was alleged had been armed with an axe. At about 4 P.M., the dead body was found in the jungle by the son of the appellant (P.W. 1).M Os. I and II were seen on the spot when the villagers gathered where after the first information report was lodged by P.W. 1 at the police station. The appellant was said to be absconding after the occurrence and she was apprehended at Keonjhar on May 2, 1984 by the Sub Inspector of Police (P W.9).

(2.) We have called upon Mr. Rajen Mohapatra, a young Advocate who has just joined the legal fraternity, to appear on behalf of the appellant and assist this Court and he has addressed us with considerable earnestness and zeal and has urged that the circumstances On which reliance had been placed by the prosecution had not been established and even assuming that they had been the circumstances could not be incompatible with the innocence of the appellant and could not point to but one conclusion; viz., her guilt. He has invited our attention to the principles laid down in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard. Mr. D.P. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel, he submit to and in our view, very fairly so. dist he would not support the order of conviction view of the highly suspicious features in the evidence which could not sustain the charge, 3, It would appear from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) who had conducted the autopsy that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the injuries sustained by her could be caused by a weapon like M.O. III. His evidence did not, however, rule out a possibility of the injuries having been caused by a fall and it was in the evidence of P.W.8. the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, that the ground on which the dead body was lying was a stony bed near a small cliff the height of which was about twenty feet Assuming however that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, we find, for the reasons to follow, that the Contentions raised on behalf of the appellant shall prevail and the concession made by the learned Standing Counsel is fair and well-founded.

(3.) There was no evidence worth the name indicating any motive on the part of the appellant to kill the accused. On the other hand, there was a clear statement made by P.W. 2, the husband of the appellant and the deceased, that at the time of the occurrence, the appellant and the deceased had cordial relationship. Depending as the prosecution did only on circumstantial evidence, absence of proof of motive would be of immense significance and would put the court on its guard to examine the circumstantial evidence bearing on the guilt of the appellant with more-than the ordinary care and with circumspection.