Point of Law: Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt against accused but accused has failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act by failing to offer any explanation as regards circumstances which were specially within his knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned Legal Aid Counsel as well as Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 02/05/2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 117/2014, the sole appellant Raju Kohar was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his wife and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Lalita Kumar was married to the appellant about 3 years back. She died an unnatural death on 01/06/2012 in her matrimonial house. On that night, the deceased was staying with her husband. The accused had killed his wife due to a dispute arising between them.

4. On 02/06/2012 at around 11 a.m., the informant Kartik Kumar i.e. the brother of the deceased had received information about the incident and then went to the house of his younger sister and found her dead. On 02/06/2012 itself, an ejahar was lodged by Kartik Kumar before the Officer-in-Charge, Ratabari Police Station reporting the incident. On the basis of the ejahar, Ratabari Police Station case No. 112/2012 was registered on 02/06/2012 under Section 304 (B) of the IPC and the matter was entrusted to S.I. Rajib Das to carry out investigation. On completion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted charge sheet against the accused. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O., charge under Section 304(B) as well as 302 of the IPC were framed against the accused. Since the accused had denied the charge brought against him, hence, the matter went up for trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 16 witnesses including the Doctor (PW-2) who had conducted the Autopsy and the I.O. (PW-5). The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

6. PW-1 Sri Kartik Kumar is the informant in this case and he has deposed that the marriage between his younger sister and the accused took place about five years back. Six months’ after the marriage, a dispute arose between the accused and the deceased and a village meeting was held. The dispute was later settled. PW-1 has stated that the accused used to fight with his sister (deceased) to meet his demand of cash and that they had also paid a sum of Rs. 12000/-in cash to the accused. However, three days after Rs. 12,000/-was paid to the accused, his sister had died. Upon receipt of information about the death of his sister, he went to the accused person’s house along with the Police and on reaching there, found his sister lying naked on the floor. PW-1 has further deposed that he had noticed black mark on her neck and cut injuries on her body. This witness has confirmed that he has lodged the FIR (Ext.-1) and Ext. 1(1) is his signature. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that no case was ever filed by them on account of cruelty meted out to his sister and has denied that the deceased was suffering from any ailment.

7. PW-3 Sri Tapesh Kumar is another brother of the deceased. This witness has also deposed that there was dispute between the accused and his sister, as a result of which, a meeting of the village persons was held and he had also attended the meeting. In the meeting, it was decided that both the accused and the deceased should live amicably and thereafter, they continued with their conjugal life. 3-4 days prior to the incident, the accused had demanded money from them stating that he wanted to constructed a well and a Latrine with that money. Thereafter, the father of the accused came to their residence and his mother gave some money, rice and fishes etc. to him. Taking the money, the father of the accused returned back to his house. PW-3 had also stated that he h