L.MOHAPATRA, J & S.K.MISHRA,J. CRLA.21 OF 2002, JCRA.27,65 OF 2002 (Decided on 16.9.2011) TUNU @ JAGA @ JAGANNATH @ AMITABHA DAS & ORS. ………Appellants. .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA ……….Respondent. For Appellants - M/s. Chandan Panda , Rajesh Panda. M/s. Srinivas Mohanty, S.Routray, N.Tripathy. For Respondent - Addl. Standing Counsel L.MOHAPATRA, J. All the three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 01.3.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T No.116 of 2001 / 8 of 2001 convicting the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302 / 376 (2) (g) / 450 / 201 of I.P.C. For conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C., all the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life; for conviction under Section 376 (2) (g) of I.P.C. all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years; for conviction under Section 450 of I.P.C. all the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for three years and for conviction under Section 201 of I.P.C. they have been sentenced to imprisonment for one year each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2000, on which date Laxmipuja was being celebrated, the deceased was all alone in the quarter near the Post Office. Her parents had gone to Bhubaneswar for treatment of her brother and her uncle had also left for village. The appellant-Santosh Kumar Swain, who was supervising the construction work nearer to the house of the victim, knew that the deceased was alone in the house. On the date of occurrence some persons nearby the house of the deceased noticed smoke coming out of the said quarter and when they went near the quarter, they found the deceased-Liza @ Rosalin was burnt and lying dead in the said quarter. The informant, who is the uncle of the deceased suspecting that the deceased had been raped and killed, reported the matter before the police and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the appellant-Amitabha Das gave recovery of a pillow, which is alleged to have been used to kill the deceased. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the appellants for commission of the aforesaid offences. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the charges examined as many as twenty-two witnesses but none was examined on behalf of the appellants. The plea of the appellants was that they were not in Angul on the date of occurrence. 4. Though twenty-two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, there being no eyewitnesses to the occurrence reliance was placed by the prosecution on circumstantial evidence. P.W.19, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, was of the opinion that the deceased had died a homicidal death and the burn injuries were postmortem in nature. He also opined that the injury no.6 is an indication that the deceased had been subjected to rape. P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed that there was no mark of struggle at the spot where the deceased was lying dead with burn injuries. P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 stated that near the quarter where the deceased was staying, construction of a Telephone Exchange was going on and the appellant-Santosh Kumar Swain was supervising the said work. These witnesses have also stated that appellant-Santosh Kumar Swain was frequently coming to the house of the deceased and had become friendly with the brother of the deceased. P.W.2, a Home Guard stated to have seen the other two appellants namely Babloo and Tuna frequently visiting Santosh and similar evidence was also given by P.W.6. P.Ws.4 and 5 stated that on the date of occurrence they were absent at home since they had taken their son to Bhubaneswar for treatment. P.W.3 stated to have seen the appellants coming towards the house of the deceased and P.W.2 stated to have seen the appellants going out of the house where the deceased was staying, at about 11.00 A.M. 5. Relying on the evidence of these witnesses, the trial court found that all the three appellants are friends and appellant-Santosh Kumar Swain knew that the deceased was alone in the house. They were seen going towards the house of the deceased soon before the occurrence and they were also found running away from the house at about 11.00 A.M. Sometimes, thereafter fire was noticed by some witnesses coming out from the said house and the deceased was found lying dead with burn injuries. While in police custody one of the appellants namely-Amitabh Das also gave recovery of the pillow, which was used for killing the deceased. Having found the above circumstances existing against the appellants, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, found the appellants guilt of the charges and convicted them thereunder. 6. Sri Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants and Ms. Panda, learned counsel engaged by the Court for other two appellants assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that in absence of any direct evidence the prosecution is required to prove the circumstances to a extent where it completes a chain pointing at the guilty of the accused and does not leave any room to entertain a doubt with regard to involvement of the appellants in commission of the alleged offences. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the only evidence available against the appellants is that all the three appellants were seen by P.W.2 running away from the quarter, where the deceased was staying, at about 11.00 A.M on the date of occurrence. Except this piece of evidence there is no other evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged offences. It was also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the circumstances on which the trial court based the order of conviction do not conclusively point at the guilt of the appellants leaving no room for doubt. Therefore, once doubt is created in the mind of the Court with regard to actual involvement of the appellants in commission of the alleged crime, the benefit doubt must be extended to the appellants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State heavily relied on the circumstances on the basis of which the trial court has recorded an order of conviction. According to learned 2 counsel for the State the evidence adduced by the prosecution though circumstantial in nature does not leave any room to entertain a doubt. 8. In absence of any direct evidence admittedly the prosecution in this case has relied upon circumstantial evidence. It is therefore, necessary for the Court to look into the entire evidence and find out as to whether the circumstances existing against the appellants clearly indicate their involvement in commission of the alleged crime or not. We would, therefore, like to deal with the evidence of witnesses, who are relevant for the purpose of the case. P.W.2 is a Home Guard and he was on duty on the date of occurrence at the Telephone Exchange Office. He in his deposition stated that construction of a new building was going on in the premises of the Telephone Exchange Office and appellant- Santosh Kumar Swain was supervising the said work. The said appellant was staying in a temporary shed constructed in that premises and the other two appellants were frequently visiting Santosh. On the date of occurrence, he was on duty from 6.00 A.M to 2.00 P.M. At about 11.00 A.M he saw Nepali and Tuna jumping the compound wall of the deceased and running towards Hemasarpada. Santosh jumped the wall and ran towards bus-stand. Half an hour thereafter he saw smoke coming out from the house of the deceased and the Fire Brigade Officers went inside the house and informed this witness that the deceased died due to burn injuries. Some other persons also gathered near the spot. The next day he informed about the incident to the parents of the deceased. Nothing material has been brought out in cross-examination of this witness. P.W.3 is another witness, who has stated that he was working at Lokanath Variety Store located at Bus-stand of Angul. On the date of occurrence Nepali was sitting in front of the said shop. At about 9.00 A.M Santosh came there and both of them talked with each other and thereafter they went towards the Post Office. 9. On analysis of evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that two of the appellants namely Nepali and Santosh were seen by P.W.3 going towards the Post Office i.e. towards the house of the deceased and P.W.2 had seen all the three appellants jumping over the boundary wall of the quarter, where the deceased was staying, at about 11.00 A.M and running into different directions. P.W.2 also saw smoke coming out from the said quarter sometime after the three appellants ran away from the spot after jumping over the boundary wall. 10. P.W.4, is the father of the deceased and he in his deposition has stated that the appellant-Santosh Kumar Swain used to come to his house as he was friendly with his son and he used to also watch T.V in his house. On 20.10.2000 he had taken his son to Bhubaneswar for treatment along with another son and wife leaving the deceased and his younger brother Sugriba in the quarter. From the evidence of P.W.4 it is clear that on the date of occurrence the parents and the brother of the deceased were absent at home. Though P.W.4 stated that the deceased was left in the custody of his younger brother-Sugriba, the said Sugriba-P.W.5 in his deposition stated that on 23.10.2000 early morning he had left for Angul and accordingly from the deposition of P.Ws.4 and 5 it is clear that the deceased was all alone in the house on 23.10.2000. The evidence of P.W.4 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6, the brother of the deceased. The 3 evidence of these witnesses also establish that the appellant-Santosh Kumar Swain was regularly visiting the house of the deceased and was watching T.V. P.W.8 is another witness, who has stated that on 01.11.2000 at about 1.00 P.M while in police custody, the appellant-Amitabha led the police party to the spot and pointed out at the pillow by means of which they had strangulated the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses is also not demolished in any way in cross-examination. The other important evidence is that of the evidence of P.W.19, who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.19 has clearly stated in his deposition that the burn injuries were postmortem in nature and the cause of death was due to asphyxia on account of suffocation. With reference to the injuries, he was also of the opinion that such injuries can be caused if the face is pressed with a pillow. He also stated in his deposition that the injuries sustained by the deceased in her private parts could be caused by rape. 11. Therefore, on analysis of the entire evidence, it is clear that the appellant- Santosh Kumar Swain was in visiting terms to the house of the deceased being a friend of the brother of the deceased and sometimes he was also watching T.V in the house of the deceased. On 20.10.2000 the parents of the deceased along with their two sons had left for Bhubaneswar for treatment of P.W.6, one of their sons. They had left the deceased in the custody of P.W.4, who is the uncle of the deceased. On the date of occurrence early in the morning the uncle of the deceased had left for Angul leaving behind the deceased all alone in the house. At about 9.00 A.M on the date of occurrence P.W.3 had seen two of the appellants namely, Santosh and Nepali going towards the house of the deceased and at 11.00 A.M, P.W.2 had seen all the three appellants jumping over the boundary wall of the house of the deceased and running away in different directions. Soon after the three appellants left the house of the deceased, smoke was noticed by P.W.2 coming out from the house of the deceased. These circumstances clearly establish that the appellants had gone to the house of the deceased taking advantage of the fact that the deceased was all alone in the house and left the house of the deceased by jumping over the boundary wall at about 11.00 A.M and ran away in different directions. Sometime after they left, smoke was found coming out from the house of the deceased and when the Fire Brigade Officers reached the spot, they found the deceased lying dead with burn injuries. From these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that all the three appellants had entered into the house of the deceased when she was all alone in the house and also left the house of the deceased by jumping over the boundary wall at about 11.00 A.M. In addition to this evidence it is also found that one of the appellants namely, Amitabh Das gave recovery of the pillow in the house of the deceased, which had been used for gagging the mouth of the deceased. All these circumstances taken together clearly point at the guilt of the appellants without leaving any room whatsoever for entertaining a doubt. 12. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity on the findings of the trial court in the impugned judgment holding the appellants guilty of the charges and we also find no merit in anyone of the appeals. Accordingly all the three appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. 4