JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2016, (sentence passed on 20.05.2016) passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, East Singhbhum, in connection with S.T. No. 25/2010, arising out of Musabani P.S. Case No. 56/2009, Corresponding to G.R. No. 354/2009, holding the appellant Karu Murmu guilty of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for six months.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 19.08.2009, wife of the appellant, namely Rani Murmu was found murdered in her matrimonial home. A dagger, which was said to be the murder weapon was found lying there.

4. After investigation, Police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 13.11.2009 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the case was taken by the learned A.C.J.M, Ghatshila on the same day under the aforesaid section.

5. This case was committed on 15.12.2009, as it was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.

6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has adduced both oral documentary evidence.

Sawana Murmu (P.W. 1) has stated that he is not aware as to who murdered the deceased.

Manjho Murmu (P.W.2), has stated that deceased Rani Murmu was murdered 4 years ago. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is not aware as to who murdered her.

Manki Singh Soren (P.W. 3) is the village headman. He has stated that Rani Murmu was murdered in her matrimonial home by a dagger which was recovered from there. He has proved his signatures on the confession of the appellant which has been marked as Exhibit-1. His signatures on the fardbeyan and the inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3, respectively. His signature on the seizure list pertaining to recovery of dagger from the house of the appellant has been marked Exhibit-4.

Thakur Das Murmu (P.W.4) is another witness of the inquest. He has identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. He is also seizure witness relating to recovery of dagger and bloodstained mud from the place of occurrence. His signatures on the two seizure lists have been marked as Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7 respectively. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence.

Ramesh Kumar Singh( P.W.5) is a formal witness who has submitted charge sheet in this case. He has proved the following documents in evidence: fardbeyan is Exhibit-2/1, formal F.I.R. is Exhibit-8, carbon copy of inquest report is Exhibit-5/1 and seizure lists pertaining to the recovery of bloodstained mud and dagger have been marked as Exhibit-6/1 and Exhibit-7/1 respectively. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has only submitted the charge sheet.

Kishun Kisku (P.W. 6), has not supported the prosecution case as such he has been declared hostile.

Biram Kisku (P.W.7), is the informant of this case. He has stated that his niece Rani Murmu was married to the appellant Karu Murmu 7 years ago. On hulla he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased.

Dr. Shankar Tuddu had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which is Exhibit 9.

7. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. While explaining the circumstances relating to the murder of his wife in their matrimonial home and recovery of murder weapon from there, he pleaded his guilt.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence and the admission of guilt of the appellant, while explaining the evidence again