The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the establishment of a strong presumption against the accused in cases where the deceased is found inside a closed house influenced the court's decision.

1. This appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, order and sentence dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 100/2017, thereby convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further 3 (three) months for committing offence under Section 302 IPC. The appeal was presented by the appellant from jail as per the provisions of section 383 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case was set rolling by one Gouri Dirial, who had lodged an FIR on 24.10.2016 with the Namrup Police Station, stating therein that on 23.10.2016, at about 04.00 PM, appellant who works in his tea garden had murdered his wife Smti. Sumanti Panika. Her dead body was recovered in the labour quarter of the appellant. Accordingly, Namrup P.S. Case No. 153/2016 was registered under Section 302 IPC, corresponding G.R. Case No. 3103/2016.

3. On completion of investigation, the I/O found sufficient materials against the appellant and accordingly charge-sheet was submitted in the said case.

4. After the committal proceedings, the case transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh for trial.

5. The learned Trial Court had explained charges to the appellant on 14.09.2017 of intentionally causing death of his wife Sumanti Karuwa. It may be mentioned that in the FIR, the name of the deceased is mentioned as Sumanti Panika, but her name is mentioned as Sumanti Karua in the post mortem report as well as in the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

6. On charges being explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial the prosecution had examined 6 (six) witnesses, namely, Gouri Dirial (PW-1), Kaila Urang (PW-2), Dr. Debarshee Chakraborty (PW-3), Sunil Karua (PW-4), Duran Gogoi (PW-5), and the I.O. of the case Prasanta Bezboruah (PW-6) and the following documents were exhibited, viz. ejahar (Ext.1), seizure list dated 23.03.2016 (Ext.2), post-mortem report (Ext.3), inquest report (Ext.4), charge-sheet (Ext.6).

It may be mentioned herein that two documents are found to have been marked as Ext.5. The first one is the “dead body challan”, which was exhibited by the doctor (PW-3) and marked as Ext.5, but the said document has not been referred to in the judgment. The second document is the sketch map, which is exhibited by I/O (PW-6) and was also marked as Ext.5, which is referred to in the judgment. Hence, for the sake of clarity in this order, the “dead body challan” is hereinafter referred to as “Ext.5(A)” and the “sketch map” is hereinafter referred to as “Ext.5(B)”.

8. After examination of all the PWs, the incriminating materials appearing against the appellant was put before him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant took a plea of denial and had stated that his wife had died by consuming poison and did not desire to give any evidence.

9. The learned Trial Court had examined evidence of the PWs. As per the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, the appellant had opened the door of his house after PW-1 had arrived and thereafter, PW-2 and PW-3 went inside the room of the appellant and found his wife lying dead on a bed. The dead body was covered with a cloth. As per the evidence of PW-3, he had noticed blood stained hoe of hoe inside the room, which was later on seized by the police through Ext.2. The learned Trial Court also took notice of the evidence of PW-5, who had seen that on 10.00 AM of the same day, the accused was pouring drain water on his wife’s head and his wife was shouting on him not to do it and later on he had heard that the appellant had killed his wife. He was a signatory to the seizure list and he proved his signature thereon. The PW-4 was the seizure witness, who had seen the seizure of hoe, bottle, and clothes, w