A conviction for murder is sustained when prosecution evidence, corroborated by medical findings and a credible eyewitness, clearly proves the act, and no legal exceptions under the penal code are established to reduce the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Biswanath, in Sessions Case No. 34/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for having killed his first wife.

3. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted for the death of his first wife, as there is no evidence to prove that the appellant had killed his first wife. Further, after the death of his first wife, his two daughters from the first wife are suffering, as he was the one looking after his two daughters from his first wife. However, as he is in jail, the effect of his incarceration is felt by his daughters. As such, he should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. He also submits in the alternative, as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill his first wife and as the incident had occurred from a quarrel/provocation, which led to him being deprived of his self control, a case under Section 304 Part-II was attracted. Thus, the appellant, at best, should have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II , as the incident had occurred due to the appellant being provoked by his first wife, which began with a heated quarrel.

4. The learned Addl. PP, on the other hand, submits that the daughter of the appellant (pw-2) had seen the appellant (her father) assaulting her mother with an iron rake. She had also seen her stepmother (appellant’s second wife) hitting her mother with a stick. PW-2’s mother having died due to the injuries sustained by her, which was caused by the rake, there was no infirmity in the conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court under Section 302 IPC.

5. The facts of the case in brief is that the informant (PW-1), who is the elder brother of the deceased, had submitted an FIR dated 19.03.2022, to the Officer-in-Charge of Gohpur Police Station, stating that his sister had got married to the appellant about 25 years ago. However, the appellant had married for the second time about a year ago. Since then, the appellant began to subject his sister (appellant’s wife) to physical and mental abuse. On 17.03.2022, the appellant and his second wife grievously injured the informant’s sister by hitting her with a rake and they did not take her to hospital. On 18.03.2022, the informant’s sister was taken to hospital at around 1 a.m. in the night, where she was declared dead. Though the informant’s sister was taken home, the informant was not informed about the same. As people from the Magoni village informed him, he had gone to the place of occurrence and saw the injury marks on the dead body of his sister.

6. Pursuant to the FIR, Gohpur P.S. Case No. 41/2023 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered. Thereafter, investigation was initiated by the police and after investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his second wife under /34 .

7. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under Sections 302/34 IPC against the appellant and his second wife, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 12 Prosecution Witnesses and after ex