The judgment emphasizes the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the application of exceptions to section 300 IPC, and the burden of proof for insanity, establishing key legal principles in criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Meghali Barman, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent.

2. In this appeal, under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. read with section, the appellant – Mun Barman @ Kale, has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 14.03.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in Sessions Case No. 69 (BNG)/2017, under Section 302 IPC. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned court below has convicted the appellant under section 304-I IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present appeal, under section 374[2] of the Cr.P.C. is briefly stated as under:-

“On 03.03.2017, at around 11.30 am, the appellant had pick up quarrel with his wife Sarba Rani Barman, administered several blows upon her person with a piece of Sal wood, as a result she sustained serious injuries. Thereafter she was taken to Kokrajhar Civil Hospital from where she was referred to Guwahati. Then she was taken back to her house and at around 10.30 pm she succumbed to the injuries.

Thereafter, on 04.03.2017, one Nripen Barman had lodged one FIR with the Bidyapur Police Out Post and on being forwarded the same to the Officer-In-Charge, Bongaigaon P.S. the Officer-In-Charge, Bongaigaon P.S. had registered a case being Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 169/2017 under section 302 IPC and endorsed S.I. Prahlad Das to investigate the case. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witness and drawn up sketch map and held inquest upon the dead body of the deceased and sent the same thereafter, for postmortem examination and thereafter collected the P.M. Report and arrested the appellant and forwarded him to the court. Then on completion of investigation, the I.O. had laid charge sheet against the appellant to stand trial in the court under section 302 IPC.

Then the appellant was produced before the learned court below. Then the learned court below had appointed one K. Sarkar, Advocate, as legal Aid Counsel. Thereafter, hearing both sides, the learned court below had framed charge against the accused under section 302 IPC and on being read and explained over, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the same.

Thereafter, the prosecution side has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Then closing the prosecution evidence, the learned court below has examined the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned court below has convicted the appellant under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused/appellant preferred this appeal, and contended to allow the same on the following grounds :-

[i] That, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside as the learned court below had failed to consider that there was no dispute between the deceased and the appellant;

[ii] That, the learned court below had relied upon the evidence of P.W.2, 3 and 4 which are corroborative in nature, but P.W.2 has stated that she had not seen how the deceased sustained injury and who caused the same;

[iii] That, the learned court below has ignored the plea of insanity of the appellant on the sole ground that under section 84 of the IPC the burden lies upon the person who pleaded the same, but the evidence of P.W.4 and 5 clearly deposed that the appellant was suffering from mental ailment. And in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. also the appellant had categorically stated that at the time of incident his brain did not work.

[iv] That, the learned court below had failed to consider that the appellant has caused injury upon the deceased in the heat of passion upon a quarrel and that he had no intention to cause death of the deceased and as s