The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code, particularly the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the interpretation of Exception 4 to section 300.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The sole appellant has suffered imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Suraj Muni Murmu. The order of sentence dated 20th December 2017 follows a default stipulation of SI for six months to be undergone by the appellant.

2. Barhait PS Case No 48 of 2012 has been registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of Ravan Murmu who is the father of Suraj Muni Murmu. The fardbeyan of Ravan Murmu was recorded on 27th June 2012 by Garib Das who was the officer-in-charge of Barhait Police Station at Primary Health Center, Barhait. The informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence as on the previous night he had gone to village Paharpur to attend a marriage ceremony. There he received an information about murder of his daughter whereupon he came back home and took his daughter to the hospital where his statement was recorded by Garib Das.

3. In his fardbeyan, Ravan Murmu has stated that his daughter came home on 20th June 2012 and two days thereafter his son-in-law also came at Khairwa, Teeta Tola and joined his wife in his house. He has further stated that when he came back home at Khairwa, Teeta Tola he found his daughter drenched in blood, her hands and legs were tied by a plastic rope and there were injuries on her neck and right fingers. On the basis of the materials collected in course of the investigation, a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant on 19th September 2012. The prosecution has produced ten witnesses to prove the charge of murder against the appellant, out of whom PW1 Kandini Marandi is the mother-in-law of the appellant.

4. According to the prosecution, PW1 Kandini Marandi, PW3 Etwari Soren, PW4 Many Basaki and PW6 Jiten Soren are the star witnesses who have tendered cogent and consistent evidence against the appellant.

5. The prosecution has also laid in evidence the inquest report vide Ext.6 and postmortem report vide Ext.3. It has further sought support from the medical evidence tendered through PW8 Dr. Ranvijay Kumar.

6. The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj has culled out the following incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant:

“1. Accused Pato Marandi is the husband of the deceased who had come to her maike two days prior to the occurrence.

2. On the relevant day and time of occurrence, he along with his wife, deceased was at the house and his mother-in-law had gone outside to take bath whereas his father-in-law and brother-in-law (Sala) had also been out of the village in order to attend the wedding party.

3. After return from the Pokhra(Tank), the mother of the deceased found her injured having sustained cut injury caused by means of Chhimny, whose hands and legs was tied with plastic ropes.

4. Soon after the occurrence, the accused Pato Marandi was seen fleeing from PO house and the Chhimny and plastic ropes stained with blood are lying there in the house.

5. Prior to the occurrence, the accused asked her deceased wife to go with him to the Sasural house of which, she denied on account of her being suffered from wound in her leg.

6. After sustaining injury, she was promptly taken to the hospital, PHC, Barhait, where she succumbed to the injuries.”

7. The trial Judge has on consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution recorded the following findings:

“Thus, when these circumstances, are linked together, they firmly and cogently establishes the complicity of the accused in the alleged crime unerringly pointing towards his guilt and not of others and its cumulative effect also forms a chain, which is so complete in itself that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime is committed by the accused and non else. Not only this, the presence of motive however is a circumstance against the accused which may also help in proving the intention of the accused and in this case, the prosecution ha