Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession, when corroborated by testimony, can support a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned advocate for the State.

2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2020 passed by the learned Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC- 1) at Margherita, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No.83(M)/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for killing his wife and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

3. The Prosecution case in brief is that the informant (PW-1) submitted an FIR dated 22.10.2015 to the Officer-in-Charge of the Pengaree Police Station, Tinsukia, stating that the appellant, who resides at the informant’s Bijulibar Tea Garden Line started beating his wife since 4 p.m. The informant further learnt from his neighbours as well as the appellant that the deceased had been assaulted till 10 p.m. On going to the house of the deceased in the morning, he found her dead. Pursuant to the FIR, Pengaree P.S. Case No.87/2015 under Section 302 IPC was registered.

4. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted his Charge-sheet, on finding a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed Charge under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 6 (six) Prosecution Witnesses (PWs). The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant had killed his wife. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rupees ten thousand, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months under Section 302 IPC.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that there is no proof that there was any mens rea on the part of the appellant in the act of killing his wife. As such, the Charge under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further submits that no weapon was recovered from the appellant to prove that the appellant had caused the death of his wife. He further submits that the deceased had apparently gone to the house of PW Nos.2 & 4, who were a neighbouring couple at around 4 p.m, after being assaulted by her husband, the appellant. If there was any intention on the part of the appellant to kill his wife, the deceased would not have been able to go to the house of PW Nos.2 & 4 at 4 p.m, as she would have been killed around 4 p.m itself.

8. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecution submits that the injuries on the victim show that there was intention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecution submits that the deceased had died in her own house during the presence of the appellant only. As such, the circumstantial evidence proved that the appellant had caused the death of his wife. Further, the evidence of PW-1 shows that the appellant had confessed before him that he had killed the deceased. Also, the evidence of PW Nos.2 & 4 shows that there was a continuing offence com