The burden of proof on the prosecution in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house is lighter, and there is a corresponding duty on the accused to offer a cogent explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2011 (sentence passed on 26.02.2011), passed by Shri Kumar Kamal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2009, arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No.138 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.2956 of 2008, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad held the appellant, Rajan Bouri, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of the deceased Rinku Bauri and thereby, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

3. Brief fact of prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 24/25.07.2008, Rinku Bauri, wife of the appellant Rajan Bauri, was found murdered in their house. The appellant was found standing beside the dead body of his wife with an axe at the place of occurrence by the informant Nilmani Bauri, the village “Chowkidar”.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, Sri S. N. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 19.03.2009, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 04.11.2009 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The content of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

7. Sagar Bauri (P.W.1) is a hearsay witness.

Mangal Bauri (P.W.2) is a witness of seizure relating to recovery of the axe used in commission of murder of the deceased and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. He has proved his signature on the seizure list, which is Ext.-1.

Santosh Dhibar (P.W.3) is a hearsay witness.

Dilip Bauri (P.W.4) is also a hearsay witness.

Nilmani Bauri (P.W.5) is the informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution case. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which is Ext.-5. He has further proved his signature on the inquest report, which is Ext.-4/1. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list, which is Ext.-1/1.

Dr. S. K. Sarak (P.W.6) has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Rinku Bauri. He has proved the postmortem report, which is Ext.-6.

8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication

9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, learned court below has held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

10. Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. It was further submitted that prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer, which has caused great prejudice to the case of the appellant. On these grounds, it was prayed that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

11. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the deceased Rinku Bauri was murdered inside her matrimonial home and as such onus was upon the appellant to explain her homicidal death. She has further submitted that the appellant was apprehended at the place of occurrence with the murder weapon just after the occurrence. On these grounds, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

12. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable dou