Point of Law: Act of appellant would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code as appellant did not intend to kill his wife, however, knowledge that his act of assault by lathi may likely to cause death of his wife may be ascribed to him.

JUDGMENT :

(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. This Criminal Appeal (J) has been registered under Section 374(2) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on filing of an appeal petition by the appellant, Shri Matiram Munda @ Matkam Munda, through the Superintendent, District Jail, Diphu impugning the Judgment dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi-Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 54/2010 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 201/2009 and Bakalia Police Station Case No. 35/2009), whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) months.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Karbi-Anglong, Diphu, in the impugned Judgment, has come to the finding of the guilt of the present appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence as well as on the basis that the appellant has failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whereas, the main contention of learned Amicus Curiae is that the prosecution side has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and that the circumstances established by the evidence, during trial, does not lead only to the hypothesis of guilt of the present appellant.

4. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

i. That on 23.04.2009, one Shri Ranjit Munda lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bakalia Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on the previous day, i.e. on 22.04.2009, at about 8:00 P.M., his daughter (Simti Munda) was murdered by his son-in-law Matkam Munda by assaulting her with a bamboo. It is also stated in the FIR that on 23.04.2009, at about 5:00 A.M., when Shri Jabka Munda, who is the uncle of the accused Matkam Munda called his neighbour Shri Man Munda and narrated to him the whole incident after showing the dead body of the daughter of the first informant, some persons from that village came and informed to the first informant about the same and after going to that place the first informant saw the dead body of his daughter.

ii. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Bakalia Police Station registered Bakalia P.S. Case No. 35/2009 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and started the investigation. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant.

iii. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of the lodging of the FIR, the first informant also took the present appellant along with him to the Police Station and the present appellant was arrested on 23.04.2009 and he faced the trial remaining in custody.

iv. After considering the materials available on record as well as after hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge, Karbi-Anglong, Diphu framed charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to the present appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

v. During trial, the prosecution side examined 8(eight) prosecution witnesses and exhibited 8(eight) numbers of documents which were marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-8.

vi. The present appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he pleaded his innocence and he denied the incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses against him. The relevant portion of the statement given by the appellant is discussed in paragraph number 14 of this judgement. The appellant declined to adduce any evidence in defence.

vii. Ultimately, by Judgment, which is impugned in this appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi-Anglong, Diph