The burden of proving specific intention falls onto the individual, and in a case based on circumstantial evidence, an evasive or untrue response from the accused becomes an additional link in the chain of events.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.04.1993 and the order of sentence dated 24.04.1993 passed by Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -II, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The case of the prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of Badri Prasad Sah recorded on 08.07.1988 at 11:00 a.m. in which it has been stated that the brother-in-law of the informant, Mahendra Kumar Bhagat had informed him on 08.07.1988 that Rajendra Prasad Sah (appellant) who is the son-in-law of the informant had committed the murder of the daughter of the informant namely Kiran @ Prem Lata. On receiving such information, the informant along with his son and brother-in-law had proceeded for Village – Banjhi and when they reached the house of Rajendra Prasad Sah he found the dead body of Kiran @ Prem Lata on the verandah in the first floor. When they came down stairs Shiv Narayan Sah had disclosed that he had heard the shouting of the deceased at the middle of night. When the daughter of the informant was being assaulted Jagdish Sah, Patel Sah, wife of Jagdish Sah, the wife of Laxmi Sah and Balram Sah as well as Krishna Prasad Sah were present and in their presence Rajendra Prasad Sah had strangulated the daughter of the informant. The reason for the occurrence is that Rajendra Prasad Sah had an illicit affair with the sister-in-law which resulted in a strained relationship between his daughter and son-in-law.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Poraiyahat (Deotand) P.S. Case No. 60 of 1988 was instituted under Section 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Rajendra Prasad Sah, Jagdish Sah, Krishna Prasad Sah, Patel Sah, wife of Jagdish Sah, wife of Laxmi Sah and wife of Balram Sah. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Rajendra Prasad Sah and Manorma Devi and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1992. The accused Manorma Devi died before commitment of the case and accordingly her name was struck out. Charge was framed against the accused Rajendra Prasad Sah for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Badri Prasad Sah) is the informant and the father of the deceased. He has stated that he had married his daughter to Rajendra Prasad Sah about two years prior to the incident. The information regarding the death of his daughter was given to him on 08.07.1988 at 09:00 am by his brother-in-law Mahendra Prasad Bhagat. He thereafter along with his son had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter at Village – Banjhi and though police had come but none else from the family of the accused were present. One Shiv Narayan Bhagat had disclosed to him that in the previous night he had heard some commotions. His fardbeyan was recorded in the police station which has been proved and marked as exhibit – 1. He has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit – 2. He has stated that about one month prior to the incident he had come to know about a domestic quarrel between his daughter and son-in-law and he had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter and pacified them. The reason for the quarrel was the illicit relationship his son-in-law was having with his sister-in-law and this was also precisely the reason why the murder was committed.

In cross-examination