1. Appellant Swapan Patra and two others have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for having caused the murder of deceased Renuka Patra. Deceased Renuka Patra was the wife of the appellant Swapan Patra. According to the prosecution case, on the date of occurrence at midnight Swapan Patra went to the village doctor PW 7 and intimated that his wife has taken poison and is lying on the verandah. The doctor PW 7 immediately rushed to the spot and found Renuka lying on the verandah. He could see one blood clot on her throat and, therefore, became suspicious and informed the Village Pradhan about the incident. The further prosecution case is that an information was given to the police but no action was taken. The brother PW 1 lodged a complaint before the Magistrate and pursuant to the direction of the Magistrate the investigation was taken and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed and the accused persons were tried. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court in appeal relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the case is one of circumstantial evidence. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it can be safely held that the prosecution has been able to establish the following circumstances:
1. That the deceased was the wife of the appellant Swapan Patra;
2. That the incident occurred at midnight;
3. Appellant Swapan Patra went and informed the village doctor that his wife had taken poison;
4. The doctor examined the deceased and prima facie was of the opinion that the death was not on account of poison;
5. The doctor PW 9 conducted the post-mortem examination and categorically came to the conclusion that no poison was detected from the viscera of Renuka and said that Renuka died on account of asphyxia caused by strangulation which was ante-mortem in nature. He also found a nailmark on the throat of the dead body.
3. The evidence of the brother PW 1 further indicates that there was some amount of torture on the deceased prior to the fateful day of occurrence and there was some demand of dowry. The question that emerges for consideration is whether on these circumstances it can be safely held that all the appellants are guilty of the charge of murder. Apparently, there is not an iota of evidence to indicate that these three appellants were present in the house at the relevant point of time. It is difficult to rope in all of them on a charge of murder. But so far as the husband Swapan Patra is concerned, from the evidence of the village quack it appears that the husband had immediately informed him that his wife had taken poison and this explanation offered by the accused husband has been belied by the evidence of the doctor PW 9 who had conducted post-mortem. Not only did he not find any poison in the viscera but also found positive mark of violence on the throat and was of the definite conclusion that the death had occurred on account of asphyxia by strangulation.
4. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. Applying the aforesaid principle, we have no hesitation to hold that the circumstances established in the case complete the chain of circumstances to prove the charge of murder against the appellant Swapan Patra and, therefore, the conviction of appellant Swapan Patra has to be upheld under Section 302 IPC. So far as the other two appellants are concerned, as stated earlier, in the absence of any positive evidence even about their presence in the house at the relevant point of time, it is difficult to rope them in even if all other circumstances narrated earlier are established and, therefore, they are entitled to an order of acquittal.
5. We accordingly set aside the conviction of appellants Latika Manna and Apu Patra under Sections 302/34 IPC and they are acquitted of the charges and they are to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. Conviction of appellant Swapan Patra is altered from Sections 302/34 IPC to Section 302 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.