IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, when meeting the five golden principles, can lead to a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts the burden to the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’), the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment & order dated 18.1.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur (in short ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.39/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced thereunder to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for Three months.

Factual matrix of the case, in brief:

2. On 3.4.2017 at 11:00 am, Bindeshwar Ram (PW-9), brother of deceased Vimitra Bai, lodged FIR (Exhibit P-17) at Police Outpost Bagicha stating that the appellant used to suspect on the character of Vimitra Bai and also used to beat her after consuming alcohol. He further alleged that on 2.4.2017 in the night at about 10:30 pm, the appellant assaulted Vimitra Bai with wooden stick and in the same night itself, the appellant went to the house of Sarpanch Heera Lal Pradhan (PW-1) and informed him that he in a drunken state has beaten his wife Vimitra Bai with wooden stick on account of which she was not speaking and not drinking water. Sarpanch Heeralal Pradhan (PW-1) and Vijay Shankar (PW-2) then immediately reached to the appellant’s house where they found Vimitra Bai lying dead in injured condition.

3. Subsequently, Merg Intimation was registered vide Exhibit P-18. Vide Exhibit P-1, summons were issued to the panch witnesses under Section 175 of CrPC and Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-7. Spot Map of the place of incident was prepared vide Exhibit P-20 and Nazri Naksha was prepared by Patwari M.K. Nishad (PW-4) vide Exhibit P-6. Inquest report was conducted vide Exhibit P-2 and the dead-body of deceased Vimitra Bai was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. J.R. Bhagat (PW-3) vide Exhibit P-8 in which cause of her death was opined to be cerebral injuries due to hematoma and the nature of death to be homicidal. Vide Exhibit P-16, blouse of deceased Vimitra Bai was seized from the Community Health Centre, Bagicha after her post-mortem examination. Arrest of the appellant was made vide Exhibit P-21, Vide Exhibit P-3, a wooden stick stained with blood on its leading side was seized at the instance of the appellant. Vide Exhibit P-4, bloodsoaked as well as plain soil were seized from the place of incident. Similarly, a T-shirt and a saree both stained with blood were also seized at the instance of the appellant. Vide Exhibit P-3, Dr. J.R. Bhagat (PW-3) gave his query report on the seized wooden stick that injuries suffered by deceased Vimitra Bai could be caused by the said wooden stick and advised for chemical examination for the blood like stains found on the stick. Vide FSL report (Exhibit P-25), after chemical examination of the seized articles, human blood was found on the wooden stick (A) seized at the instance of the appellant, blouse (B) of deceased Vimitra Bai, soil (C) seized from the spot, T-shirt (E) of the appellant and saree (F) of deceased Vimitra Bai.

4. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate Court from where the matter, being triable by the Sessions Court, committed to the Trial Court where charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was read out and explained to the appellant who abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-9 and exhibited 27 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-27. Statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he