After 12 years in jail for hubby’s killing, woman finally acquitted

CUTTACK: A woman, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and has spent the last 12 years in prison for her husband's murder, was on Thursday acquitted by the Orissa high court which ruled the trial court judgment was a "miscarriage of justice".
According to the prosecution, Sunita Mundari had poured kerosene on her husband Mangal Mundari and set him on fire at Jhirpani village in Sundargarh district on Nov 28, 2011.He succumbed to severe burn injuries.
The court of additional sessions judge, Rourkela, sentenced her to life imprisonment on Dec 20, 2014. Sunita, now 64, filed a jail criminal appeal in the high court the same year. The two-judge bench of Justices S K Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash held that there was "no clinching evidence against the appellant (Sunita) relating to her involvement in the crime in question".
The bench observed the circumstances on record are not clinching and they do not form a complete chain so as to conclude with certainty that the woman committed the crime. "The findings of the trial court against the appellant are not justified and the circumstances which are in favour of the appellant have been ignored and thereby it has resulted in miscarriage of justice," the bench added.
HC: Case was based on circumstantial evidence
Accordingly, the high court ruled that the conviction of Sunita under Section 302 of IPC was not sustainable in the eyes of law and set aside the trial court order and directed her release.
Advocate Biswajit Nayak, who appeared on behalf of Sunita, said she was released from Rourkela special jail following the HC order.
The bench observed that the trial court had jumped to conclusion that Sunita had committed the murder even when there was no direct evidence relating to its commission and the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
The bench said, "In a case based on circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and to ensure that suspicion, howsoever strong, should not be allowed to take the place of proof. A moral opinion, howsoever strong or genuine, and suspicion, however, grave, cannot substitute a legal proof."
It added that a very careful, cautious, and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. "The prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of 'may be true?' to the plane of 'must be true?" the bench added.