The Orissa High Court recently ruled that a wife’s failure to report her husband missing, living with another man, and not attempting to locate her husband does not constitute a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision overturned her earlier conviction, citing insufficient evidence to prove a criminal agreement.
Case Overview
On December 12, 2007, the husband, referred to as the deceased, left home for college. Later that day, the appellant-wife met with two individuals—Syama Choudhury and Surya Kanta Behera alias Katiki—at her home. In the afternoon, the deceased returned, took a nap, and was convinced by the appellant-wife and Katiki to accompany the latter to “see a girl.”
Later that evening, Katiki returned alone, claiming the deceased had gone to a temple. However, the husband never returned home. Subsequently, the appellant-wife began living with Syama Choudhury and her three children. When the children questioned their father’s absence, they were allegedly threatened by Choudhury.
Investigation and Trial
The police later discovered an unidentified body, and investigations linked it to the deceased. A chargesheet accused the appellant-wife, Choudhury, Katiki, and two others of criminal conspiracy, murder, and other offenses.
The trial court convicted:
- Katiki under Sections 302/34 (murder with common intention) and Sections 201/511 read with Section 34 (causing disappearance of evidence).
- The appellant-wife under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy).
- Choudhury for assisting the crime.
Two other accused were acquitted.
High Court Ruling
The High Court re-evaluated the evidence, particularly testimonies from the deceased’s children. It noted:
- Relationship Dynamics: There were marital issues between the deceased and his wife due to her intimacy with Choudhury.
- Last Seen Evidence: The deceased was last seen alive with Katiki, who failed to explain the circumstances of his death when questioned.
- Post-Mortem Findings: The body bore burn injuries and other signs of homicidal violence, consistent with the timeline involving Katiki.
Key Observations
The court emphasized that:
- The wife’s conduct—failing to lodge a missing person complaint, living with Choudhury, and not searching for her husband—does not prove criminal conspiracy.
- Section 120-B requires evidence of an agreement between at least two individuals to commit a crime, which the prosecution could not establish.
- The evidence against Choudhury was insufficient to uphold his conviction.
Conclusion
The court acquitted the wife and Choudhury, while maintaining Katiki’s conviction for murder. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence when alleging criminal conspiracy.
Case Reference:
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==
