Twenty two years after a man was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of killing his wife, the Orissa High Court has acquitted him noting that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime and the chain of events leading to the death of the woman did not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused.
Acquitting the man of murder charges, 22 years after his conviction, the two-judge bench of Chief Justice S Murlidhar and Judge RK Patnaik of the Orissa High Court observed that neither the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are of a conclusive nature nor do they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. “The chain of evidence is not so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It does not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused,” the judges said.
Jayaram Sahoo of Jhatiapada village under the jurisdiction of the Dharamsala police station of Jajpur district was sentenced to life by the court of additional sessions judge, Jajpur in January 2000 on charges of murdering his wife Saria. Sahoo was carrying his wife on the pillion of his cycle in the evening on 21 June, 1998, in Jhatiapara village, when the latter fell down on the rocky road leading to fracture at the mastoid bone on the right ear.
However, during the trial, the investigating officer of the case produced a wooden handle as evidence of Sahoo hitting his wife that led to her death. The trial court also drew adverse inference against Sahoo over his leaving his injured wife at the spot where she fell down, later insisting on giving her stitches after she died and taking away the body from the hospital.
{{/usCountry}}However, during the trial, the investigating officer of the case produced a wooden handle as evidence of Sahoo hitting his wife that led to her death. The trial court also drew adverse inference against Sahoo over his leaving his injured wife at the spot where she fell down, later insisting on giving her stitches after she died and taking away the body from the hospital.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution during the trial said 15 days prior to the death of his wife, Sahoo had sent Saria to bring ₹5,000 from her mother. However, the money could not be arranged. Saria’s mother had alleged that when she went to the house of Sahoo, she found her daughter lying dead in Jhatiapara village. There were injuries around her right ear which led her to believe that Sahoo had killed her daughter by giving her blows near the ear.
The prosecution also alleged that at the time of the marriage there was a demand for dowry amounting to the sum of Rs.20,000/- and for ornaments by Sahoo and despite the demands being fulfilled, he continued to demand more dowry. Each time Saria came to her father’s house, she took money. The prosecution further alleged that after the death of his father-in-law, Sahoo insisted on his mother-in-law selling all their properties and coming to live with them.
After the trial court sentenced Sahoo to life, he appealed against the order in the Orissa High Court in 2000.
The court said that as the case was based on circumstantial evidence; motive was an important link in the chain of circumstances which the prosecution had failed to prove. The HC said that the conclusion drawn by the trial court was that the ‘accused was greedy for money’ and was based on shaky evidence. It said Sahoo’s mother-in-law never said her daughter would be beaten to death by her husband if she did not bring any money.
The court said the possibility of the fracture of the mastoid bone which was the fatal injury, being caused as a result of the cycle accident, was not ruled out. The fact that the death was homicidal had not been properly established by the prosecution.
The evidence of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem reveals three injuries which do not reveal any concerted attempt by the accused to attack the deceased in order to kill her. The doctor does not rule out the possibility of the injury to the mastoid bone being caused by a fall “on some stony substance with force”.