Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer imprisonment for three years vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2017 and by order dated 20.02.2017 respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1355 of 2013 arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 310 of 2013.

3. The appellant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased is alleged to have been killed by a butcher’s knife. The occurrence took place in front of the mother, sister, brother-in-law and other relatives of the deceased. The FIR has been registered by the mother of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.4.

4. In her First Information Report, she has alleged that on 31.07.2013, the appellant came to her house and slashed the neck of the deceased by a knife. She has further alleged in the FIR that though the appellant was married to the deceased some 22 years ago, but the relationship between them was always strained because of the drinking habits of the appellant. For the last 3 to 4 months, the deceased had come to stay with P.W.4. The deceased had given birth to five children out of her wedlock with the appellant. When the appellant was chased, he ran away and threw the weapon of assault at the place of occurrence. The son of the appellant, namely, Faizal, who has not been examined, chased the appellant. The Informant came back to the place where the deceased was lying and saw that she lay lifeless. Many persons of the neighbourhood had arrived and some of them had seen the main part of the occurrence also.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan statement of Sairun Nisa (P.W.4), Pirbahore P.S. Case No.310 of 2013, dated 31.07.2013 was registered for investigation under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The appellant was arrested on the same day. The matter was investigated whereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant who was put on trial.

7. The Trial Court after having examined nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the I.O. and the Doctor (P.Ws. 8 and 9 respectively), convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that most of the witnesses who have been examined at the trial are close relatives of the Informant and the deceased and they have deposed against the appellant only because of the strained relationship between the deceased and the appellant. He further submits that none of them have seen the occurrence and their statements before the Trial court are full of contradictions. It has further been submitted that the deceased was arrested on the same day which further pre-supposes that he was innocent and had not made any efforts to run away. He is said to have been arrested at Gaighat. Had he committed the murder, would have made every efforts to run away and not be a sitting duck to be arrested. The further argument of the appellant is that the place where the murder took place is situated on a busy road in a Mohalla where there are many meat-shops operating. Had the report regarding the occurrence been true, there would have been many on-lookers who would have narrated the correct version. Not bringing them on the witness stand by the prosecution only reflects that the police has adopted a short-cut approach of laying the blame on a estranged husband as it was the easiest thing to do. With the deceased having left her matrimonial home to live with her mother is a clear indication of the fact that the husband and wife did not live well. Under such circumstances, the relatives of the wife would be more prone to falsely implicate the appellant as for all practical purposes, the relationsh