JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife, namely, Dhuni Soren.

2. In Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2006, he has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The informant, namely, Somai Kisku is father of the deceased. On the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded at about 8:15 a.m on 21.08.2006, Chakulia P.S. Case No. 50 of 2006 was registered against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Dr. J. Srinivas Rao has conducted the postmortem examination on 21.08.2006 at 1:10 p.m. He has found the following injuries on Dhuni Soren :

(i) Stab wound 2cm x cm, chest cavity deep over left part chest 10 cm below left clavicle and 4 cm left lateral to midline of the body.

(ii) Incise wound 2 cm x cm, bone deep and left breast near left nipple 18 cm below top of left shoulder and 12 cm left lateral to midline of the body.

(iii) Incise wound 2 cm x cm, muscle deep over right wrist.

5. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp-cutting pointed weapon and death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage. According to the doctor, the time elapsed since death was 12 to 18 hours.

6. During the trial the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses; the informant is P.W.3. His wife, namely, Bali Kisku-P.W.4 and his son, namely, Gangu Kisku-P.W.5 have also been examined during the trial. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are seizure witnesses and P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the inquest witnesses.

7. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the appellant about 10 years back. About 3 months prior to the incident, he had brought his daughter to his house. In the fateful night, at about 2:00 a.m, when he heard cries of his daughter he rushed to her room. His daughter told him that her husband has stabbed her. He chased the appellant for some distance, however, somehow he managed to escape. His wife has also seen the appellant fleeing away. The informant has stated that his son-in-law was harassing his daughter and three days before he killed his daughter he was asking kharu (iron bangles) which is worn by married tribal women. The informant has been examined as P.W. 3 in the court. In his examination-in-chief, he has narrated a similar story of the incident in the intervening night of 20/21.08.2006 as has been recorded in his fardbeyan. According to the prosecution his wife and son are also eye-witnesses. They have also spoken about hearing cries of Dhuni Soren, chase by the informant and Dhuni Soren telling them that her husband has stabbed her.

8. Their presence in the night in their house is natural. In fact, there is no serious challenge by the defence to their presence in their house in the fateful night.

9. The other prosecution witnesses, namely, Ludu Ram Kisku-P.W.1 and Biram Hembram-P.W.2 are not the eye-witnesses, however, they have seen the dead body of Dhuni Soren in the house of the informant. They have stated that she was brought back to her father''s house about 3/4 months ago and prior to the incident the appellant was asking kharu (iron bangles) from her. They have seen Dhuni Soren lying on the cot in the injured condition. P.W.2 has stated that Dhuni Soren told him that her husband has stabbed her. Presumably to a challenge by the defence to his presence in the house of the informant immediately after the occurrence, in his cross-examination P.W.2 has stated that his house is just 4-5 house away from the house of the informant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 both have identified the appellant and they have corroborated the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 on other material aspects also.

10. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, the learned Amicus, submits that testimony of P.W.5 wherein he has stated that he also had gone to the room of his sister is falsified by evidence of the informant who has stated that