The Orissa High Court has set aside the conviction of a woman who was accused of conspiring to murder her husband. The Court ruled that not reporting her husband as missing, not making efforts to trace him, and living with another man do not amount to criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC.
The case dates back to December 12, 2007, when the deceased husband returned home from college and later left with appellant Surya Kanta Behera (Katiki) after being persuaded by his wife. That night, the husband never returned. Katiki came back alone and gave misleading information to the deceased’s daughter. Later, police found a burnt body, which was identified as the husband.
During investigation, the police charged the wife, Syama Choudhury, Katiki, and others. The trial court convicted Katiki for murder under Sections 302/34 and 201/511 IPC and found the wife guilty under Section 120-B IPC for conspiracy.
On appeal, the High Court observed that the wife’s conduct—such as staying with her paramour and not filing a missing complaint—was not enough to establish a criminal conspiracy. The Court clarified that Section 120-B IPC requires proof of an agreement between at least two persons, which was absent in this case.
The Court, however, upheld the conviction of Katiki based on strong evidence, including the testimony of the deceased’s children and the “last seen” circumstance linking him to the crime. The medical report also confirmed homicidal injuries caused by blunt force and burning with kerosene.
Finally, the Bench acquitted the wife and Syama Choudhury of conspiracy charges, ruling that suspicion cannot replace legal proof.
Case Title: Syama Choudhury & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
