Wife Not Reporting About Missing Of Husband & Staying With Paramour Not Criminal Conspiracy U/S 120-B IPC: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court on Thursday held that a wife not reporting the police about missing status of husband, not trying to trace him out and living passively with another man will not amount to criminal conspiracy.While acquitting the appellant-wife of the charge of criminal conspiracy, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –“…it is further accepted that the appellant Nibedita Panda did not try to ascertain the whereabouts of the deceased whom she had sent with the appellant Katiki on 12.12.2007 even though the deceased did not return home for more than a month and did not try to report the matter before police, but in absence of any other clinching evidence, only basing on these suspicious conducts of the appellant, it cannot be held to be sufficient to convict her for offence of criminal conspiracy.”Prosecution CaseOn 12.12.2007, after the deceased husband left home for college, the appellant-Syama Choudhury and appellant-Surya Kanta Behera @ Katiki met the appellant-wife (of the deceased) in her house and discussed about something. In the afternoon, the deceased came back to his house and took a nap. At this point of time, the appellant-Katiki asked the deceased to accompany him to see a girl and the appellant-wife also convinced him to proceed with appellant-Katiki. Accordingly, both the deceased and appellant Katiki left on a motorcycle.At about 10:30 PM in the night, the appellant-Katiki returned to the house and parked the motorcycle. When the minor daughter of the deceased asked the said appellant about the whereabouts of her father, he informed that he had gone to Hanuman temple and he will return soon.However, the deceased never returned back to the house thereafter and the appellant-Syama Choudhury started living with the appellant-wife and her three children. Whenever the children used to raise query about the whereabouts of their father, appellant-Syama Choudhury threatened them.Subsequently, the police found an unknown dead body and in an effort to establish the identity thereof, they widely inquired in different areas carrying the photo of the body which ultimately led them to the house of the deceased. Upon seeing the police, the appellant-Syama Choudhury tried to flee from the house. When police showed the photos of dead body, the children could recognize the same to be of the deceased.Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the three appellants and two other accused persons. The trial Court, after examining evidence on record, found the appellants Syama Choudhury and Katiki guilty for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 and Sections 201/511 read with Section 34 of the IPC and it also found the appellant-wife guilty under Section 120-B for hatching criminal conspiracy. However, it acquitted the other two accused persons of all charges.Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the three appellants impugned the same by filing these jail criminal appeal and criminal appeal.Court's ObservationsThe Court examined all the evidence on record and formulated certain circumstances which were palpable in this case. Considering the evidence of the testimonies of the minor children of the deceased, the Court came to the conclusion that though the deceased and his appellant-wife lived together, but there was dissention between them over frequent visit of appellant-Syama Choudhury to their house.From the evidence of the minor children of the deceased, the Court also held that the appellant-wife had intimacy with the appellant-Syama Choudhury. Further from their evidence, it became evident that on the date of occurrence, both the appellants (Syama and Katiki) met the appellant-wife in absence of the deceased and subsequently, the appellant-wife convinced the deceased to accompany the appellant-Katiki on a motorcycle to see a girl. Furthermore, the Court stressed the evidence of minor children about the 'last seen' of the deceased in the company of the appellant-Katiki. It held that this circumstance holds a lot of importance as the said appellant was last seen alive with the deceased and thereafter, nobody has seen the deceased alive.Thus, it was of the view that if the appellant-Katiki was seen with the deceased and after a short span of time, the latter died a homicidal death, then the onus lies upon the former to explain under which circumstances the deceased died. It was further underlined that though the appellant was confronted about this circumstance while recording his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, but he failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation.Apart from the above, the post-mortem report revealed that the burn injuries found from the dead body are caused due to dry heat with the aid of kerosene like substance and all the internal injuries were found to be ante-mortem and homicidal in nature caused by the impact of hard and blunt force. The time of death opined by the doctor was also found ...

Wife Not Reporting About Missing Of Husband & Staying With Paramour Not Criminal Conspiracy U/S 120-B IPC: Orissa High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Wife Not Reporting About Missing Of Husband & Staying With Paramour Not Criminal Conspiracy U/S 120-B IPC: Orissa High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers