Point of Law : Provision of Section 335 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure to be adopted when a person is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind as laid down in Section 334 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State.

2. By the judgment dated 27.06.2019/01.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in connection with Sessions Case No. 66/2014 the sole appellant in this case 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. 5000/- with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 13.12.2012 the appellant had hacked his wife Manjuara Bibi on her neck with a dao and thereafter, he tried to commit suicide. On 14.12.2012, Md. Anowar Ali i.e. the father of the victim had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Bilasipara Police Station reporting that the appellant, who had got married to his deceased daughter, about 10 years back, used to harass and torture her by demanding money. On the previous day i.e. on 13.12.2012 the accused person had killed his daughter by cutting her neck. In the ejahar dated 14.12.2012 four persons including the appellant herein were projected as accused persons.

4. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 841/2012 was registered under Sections 498(A)/302/34 of the IPC. The police had carried out investigation in the matter and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant/accused under Section 302/309 of the IPC, based on which, charge had been framed against the accused/appellant. But since the accused had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

5. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the charge brought against the accused, the prosecution had examined as many as 18 witnesses including the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim (PW-11) as well as the two Investigating Officers (IOs) who had conducted investigation in connection with the aforesaid case and submitted charge-sheet, as PWs. 13 and 18 respectively. The confessional statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, he had admitted of having killed his wife by hacking her with a dao. Taking note of the evidence brought on record as well as the confessional statement of the accused, the learned trial court had convicted him for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused/appellant was, however, acquitted in respect of the charge framed under Section 309 of the IPC.

6. By referring to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that save and except the confessional statement of the accused there is nothing on record to establish the charge brought against the appellant under section 302 of the IPC. According to Mr. Ahmed, even the confessional statement was not recorded by following the due procedure of law. Moreover, submits Mr. Ahmed, the learned Magistrate recording the confessional statement of the accused had also failed to enquire about the injuries seen in the body of the accused and has also failed to offer the services of Legal Aid Counsel to the accused as a result of which, the judicial confession stood vitiated. By referring to the evidence adduced by the appellant in the form of DWs. 1 and 2 Mr. Ahmed has argued that it is established from the materials available on record that at the time of the incident the accused was suffering from some form of psychological disorder and therefore, he was incapable of understanding the consequences of his action. Under the circumstances, even if it is assumed that the appellant is responsible for killing his wife, even then, this is a case which would come within the fold of Section 84 of the IPC as a result of which