The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible witness testimonies and corroborating evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2014 and 01.08.2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kishanganj, in Sessions Case No.565 of 2013, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of life apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as “an accused”.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus:

(a). Rukmani Devi (since deceased) was wife of accused Munna Harijan. She married the accused about four months prior to her homicidal death and that marriage was a love marriage.

(b). Deceased Rukmani Devi lost her mother at the age of about two years. Her father, thereafter, neglected to maintain her and entrusted her to her maternal uncle P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan-the first informant. Rukmani Devi was then maintained by her maternal uncle/P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and her maternal aunt P.W.8 Rina Devi, wife of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan. The accused used to reside in their neighbourhood at village-Tulsia Kumhar Toli, Police Station-Dighalbank, District-Kishanganj. Love relations between accused and Rukmani Devi developed and that is how, the accused and Rukmani Devi married each other and Rukmani Devi started cohabiting with the accused in the very same village. After initial nice treatment to her, married life of Rukmani Devi suffered from rough weather, as the accused used to harass her by demanding dowry in the form of gold and cash of Rs.10,000/-. In the meanwhile, elder brother Naresh Lal Harijan of the accused became ill and after prolonged illness he died just a day earlier to the day on which Rukmani Devi was murdered. Because of prolonged illness of Naresh Lal Harijan, Rukmani Devi was being considered as inauspicious women and she was driven out of her matrimonial house and, as such, she was required to take shelter at the house of her maternal uncle P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and maternal aunt P.W.8 Rina Devi.

(c). According to the prosecution case, the incident of commission of murder of Rukamani Devi took place in the morning hours of 23.07.2011 itself at the house of P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan and P.W.8 Rina Devi, where Rukmani Devi was residing after being driven out of her matrimonial house by the accused. On that day, at about 12.00 P.M., P.W.8 Rina Devi was in front yard of her house for drying the washed clothes. The accused entered in her house. He assaulted Rukmani Devi and after hearing shouts of Rukmani Devi, P.W.8 Rina Devi entered inside her house. She saw the accused holding a knife. The accused had given blows of the knife to Rukmani Devi. P.W.8 Rina Devi questioned the accused and accused threatened her and asked her to run away. P.W.8 Rina Devi came out of the house shouting loudly. The accused ran away by taking knife and lot of people who gathered there had seen him going away with the knife.

(d). Accompanied by P.W.8 Rina Devi, P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan, who had returned to the house after being informed about the incident, went to Police Station-Dighalbank on 23.07.2011 and P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan lodged report of the incident, which was signed by P.W.8 Rina Devi as a witness. Accordingly, crime in question was registered and wheels of investigation were set in motion.

(e). Routine investigation followed. The Investigating Officer recorded inquest notes and dead body of Rukmani Devi was sent for autopsy to the Sadar Hospital, Kishanganj. P.W.1 Dr. Gadadhar Pandey conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rukmani Devi and prepared the post-mortem report (Ext.1), which was signed by P.W.3 Dr. Ramdev Prasad, the Deputy Superintendent of that Hospital. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of investigation, the charge