The Orissa High Court has overturned the conviction of a woman accused of conspiring to murder her husband, ruling that her failure to report his disappearance and her continued cohabitation with another man could not alone establish criminal conspiracy. The judgment, delivered by Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash on November 14, 2024, reaffirms the principle that criminal liability requires clear evidence rather than mere suspicion.
Background of the Case
The case began in December 2007 when a burnt body was discovered near a temple in Ganjam district. The police identified the victim as a college lecturer who had been reported missing. Following investigations, the authorities arrested the lecturer’s wife, a family associate, and another individual, charging them with murder and conspiracy.
The prosecution alleged that marital discord had motivated the woman to conspire with the co-accused to kill her husband. It was argued that the woman’s intimate relationship with one of the co-accused and her failure to act on her husband’s disappearance showed her complicity. The Sessions Court convicted all three, sentencing them to life imprisonment based largely on circumstantial evidence.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court was tasked with determining:
1. Whether the woman’s inaction on her husband’s disappearance could be deemed evidence of conspiracy.
2. Whether her alleged relationship with a co-accused established intent to commit a crime.
3. The evidentiary standard required to prove conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Court’s Findings
While the Court upheld the convictions of the two co-accused for murder and destruction of evidence, it found the conspiracy charge against the woman to be unsubstantiated.
On Conspiracy
The Bench observed that criminal conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act. While the woman’s behavior raised moral and ethical questions, the prosecution failed to provide evidence of her active participation or intent to conspire in the murder.
The Court stated:
– “Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof in criminal law.”
– “A mere association with co-accused or failure to report a missing spouse does not suffice to prove criminal conspiracy without corroborative evidence of shared intent or action.”
On the Evidence Presented
The High Court emphasized that the Sessions Court had placed undue reliance on circumstantial evidence. It noted that while the woman continued living with her children and one of the accused after the incident, this alone did not establish her involvement in the crime.
The Court further highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the couple’s minor children, who alleged strained marital relations and frequent visits by the co-accused to their home. The Bench noted the potential for influence on these witnesses and stressed the need for independent corroboration.
Judgment and Observations
Acquitting the woman of criminal conspiracy, the Court underscored the difference between suspicion and evidence. It stated that criminal law demands proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly for charges as serious as conspiracy.
However, the Court upheld the convictions of the other two individuals, finding sufficient evidence to link them to the murder and the subsequent attempt to destroy evidence by burning the victim’s body. Their life sentences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC were affirmed.
