The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and reliability of extra-judicial confessions, the significance of the recovery of the offending weapon, and the use of corroborative medical evidence in establishing guilt under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.11.2007 and sentence dated 01.12.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalimpong, Darjeeling in Sessions Case No. 10/2006, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment for two years. By the same judgment and order, the appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 498A of the Penal Code.

2. On 15.05.2006 at about 12.15 hours PW 11, the local Panchayat Pradhan lodged a First Information Report with the Officer-in-Charge of the Jaldhaka Police Station against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that at about 9.00 hours on that day two local men came to the de facto complainant and informed him about the death of the victim Santa Rai. PW 11 went to the victim's house and found her deadbody lying on the bed. Upon an enquiry with PW 9, he learnt that on 14.05.2006 at night the appellant had assaulted his wife, the victim/deceased after chasing her from one place to another. Upon query, the appellant admitted before PW 11 that he had killed the victim.

3. Investigation commenced. PW 13 conducted an inquest over the deadbody of the victim on 15.05.2006 at about 9.45 hours in connection with a UD case in presence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11. PW 13 came to the shop of the appellant and found the deadbody lying in the bed room. The preliminary investigation revealed that on the fateful night there was a quarrel and a fight between the appellant and the victim that culminated in the death of the victim. A post-mortem examination over the deadbody was conducted on 16.05.2006 at about 14.00 hours. Several injuries were found on the body of the victim. It was opined that the death was due to the effects of injuries, which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. A charge-sheet was submitted after completion of investigation. On 27.11.2006, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to establish its case. The defence case was mainly that of a denial of the prosecution case.

4. After carefully perusing the evidence on record, it appears that PW 1 was a local man who was an eye-witness to the initial assaults committed by the appellant upon the victim. After hearing a ruckus, PW 1 saw from his window that the appellant was assaulting his wife. When the wife/victim managed to flee out of the shop, the appellant chased and caught her. Then he dragged her and started beating her mercilessly. He even tore away the wearing apparels of his wife. Thereafter, the appellant dragged her inside the shop. On the next morning, he found the victim lying dead on the floor of the shop of the appellant. The appellant confessed before him and others that he had assaulted his wife resulting in her death. In his cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that he did not see when and how the victim died. He also admitted that the victim had also consumed liquor and that due to consuming of liquor by the victim, quarrels used to take place between the husband and the wife. PW 2 was another local man and a post-occurrence witness. He found the deadbody of the victim in the house and informed others about it. He was a witness to the inquest. PW 3 was the daughter-in-law of the appellant and the victim. She deposed that on that particular night she was staying at a neighbour's house. The appellant asked for the keys of the house at night. In the next morning, she came to know about the incident. PW 3 was a post-occurrence witness who found injuries on the body of the victim. But she was declared hostile. In her cross, she admitted that there was good relation between the appellant and the