Cuttack: Orissa High Court has set aside a trial court judgment that had convicted a man for killing his wife without any proof and sentenced him to life imprisonment more than 13 years ago.

The court felt that in the case the circumstances taken into consideration by the trial court were "not enough to conclude" that it was the husband and husband alone "who was the author of the crime".

"At best, circumstances can give rise to a suspicion about the involvement of the appellant (husband), but law is well-settled that suspicion cannot take place of proof and that higher the gravity of offence, higher would be the standard of proof. Here, there exists no such proof," the division bench of Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Biswajit Mohanty ruled.

Sadan Gouda was seen brandishing an axe and shouting that he killed his wife Sanai Gouda, whose body was lying in front of the kitchen with cut mark on her neck, in Nabarangpur, on January 20, 2002. Police started a case of homicide on the basis of Sadan's extra-judicial confession. After that, the trial the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur, convicted him for the murder of his wife and sentenced him to life imprisonment on October 12, 2004.

Extra-judicial confession is a confession made out of court and not as a part of a judicial examination or investigation. Sadan filed an appeal petition in the high court challenging the trial court order in January 2005.

His appeal petition had since languished in the high court till it was allowed on January 17.

While disposing of Sadan's plea, the bench refused to accept that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the husband "beyond reasonable doubt".

"The prosecution has completely failed to prove extra-judicial confession to nail the appellant, on which the learned trial court has heavily relied. In this context, we must say that the trial court while coming to a conclusion that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant has been proved has not dissected the evidence of witnesses with due care and caution," the bench ruled.

"For all these reasons, the Jail Criminal Appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment is set aside and it is directed that the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his incarceration is not required in connection with any other case," the bench ordered.