The court upheld the conviction for murder based on established domestic violence and the presumption of guilt due to the circumstances surrounding the death.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Sole appellant is before this Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. Informant is the brother of the deceased. Appellant is the husband of the deceased who was married to him in the year 2007. As per prosecution case, she was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand. Because of the incessant harassment at the hand of the appellant, she had earlier fled from her matrimonial home and taken refuge in her parents’ home. After much persuasion, she was sent back to her matrimonial home by the informant. On 16.03.2011, he received information from someone who was co-villager of the appellant that his sister had died. When they went there, they found her to be dead and there was mark of strangulation over her neck.

3. On the basis of the written report, Peterwar P.S. Case No. 30/11 was registered under Sections 304B/34 of the IPC against the appellant and five other in-laws. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. He was put on trial for offence under Sections 302 and 304B of the IPC.

4. Altogether five witnesses have been examined in this case and the relevant documents including post-mortem report have been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.

5. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there is no direct eye witness to the incidence and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant relying on the testimony of close family relations of the deceased. There was cordial relationship between the appellant and deceased which shall be evident from the testimony of PW-3, who is the father of the deceased and has deposed that whenever he went to the matrimonial home of the appellant, he was treated well. Investigating Officer has not been examined which has caused prejudiced to the defence.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the medical evidence establishes that cold blooded murder was committed, in which the deceased sustained extensive injuries. There was acrimonious marital relationship and on earlier occasion also the deceased had fled from her matrimonial home. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice.

7. Appellant died a homicidal death, is proved by the medical evidence of PW-5, who conducted post-mortem examination and found the following external injuries:

(i) Abrasion in size of 1½” x 1” x skin deep present on right madibale area.

(ii) Abrasion size 2” x 2” x skin present on right pectoral area.

(iii) Bruises present on back (dorsal vertebral area) present of size 2½” x 2” x skin deep

(iv) A transversally circular continuous ligature mark present over neck. This ligature mark present in whole around neck.

(v) Muscles of neck and both carotid cartilage were pressed and injured. On dissection:

(i) Fracture of larynx and trachea- present.

(ii) Fracture of hyoid bone- present.

(iii) Dislocation of cervical vertebrae nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Doctor opined that death was caused by Asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

8. The incidence took place in the matrimonial home of the deceased, had been established by the prosecution in the testimony of the informant (PW-4) wherein he has stated that on receiving the information about the death of his sister, he went to her matrimonial home and found her dead body lying on the cot. This has also come in the testimony of other witnesses PW1 - PW-3 and has remained uncontroverted in the cross-examination.

9. There was a history of past marital discord, has also been established in the testimony of the informant (PW-4) and corroborated by his written report as well as in the testimony of other material prosecution witnesses. PW-4 has specifically stated in his cross-examination at Para 10 and 11 that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty in his presence. In Para 17, he deposed that four days before the incidence, she had come