The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the burden on the accused to explain circumstances surrounding the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Ragini Kumari and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin and Mrs. Priya Shrestha.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2017, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. There are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, which have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court in fact, as per the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, when there are no eye witnesses to the said occurrence and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the chain of the circumstances should be complete and each of the circumstances should be conclusive in nature which should only point towards the guilt of the appellant. Only on the ground that there was marital discord between the deceased and the appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted in this case. Suspicion cannot be a ground however strong it would be, to convict the appellant in absence of any corroborative evidence to suggest that the appellant was involved in the occurrence. On these grounds, he prays to reconsider the judgment passed by the Trial Court and set aside the same.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant is admittedly the husband of the deceased and there is overwhelming evidence that he was torturing and assaulting the deceased. Just the night before the day when the deceased was murdered, the brother of the deceased had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased to pacify the matter with appellant. The murder had taken place between the four corners of the wall of the house of this appellant. Thus, save and except this appellant, none could have committed the same. The appellant was found sitting beside the dead body of the deceased on the next morning. The appellant has taken the plea of alibi, but the same has not been proved. The special circumstance has not been explained by the appellant. Further, the incriminating evidence against the appellant has not been explained by him while he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds he submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.

5. The F.I.R., which was registered on 28.07.2014 is based on the farbeyan of informant (Sunil Oraon), P.W.-3, who had stated that his sister- Karmi Devi (deceased) was married to this appellant in June, 2011. The deceased was residing in the matrimonial home, but she was being assaulted and tortured by this appellant. A meeting was held on 02.07.2012, which was attended by this appellant, his sister and other co-villagers wherein it was decided in the panchayati that the appellant will not behave cruelly and will maintain his wife properly. After few days, again the torture started thus, on 27.07.2014, the deceased again complained this informant when he visited her house. The informant tried to reason with the appellant and returned home, but on the very next day about 06.00 A.M. in the morning, he was informed by his co- villager- Sanjay Oraon (P.W.-9) that his sister has been killed by her husband and getting such information, he reached the matrimonial house of his sister and saw the dead body lying on the bed and blood was oozing from her mouth and nose. He believes that his sister has been murdered by throttling.

6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Ghaghra P.S. Case No.53 of 2014 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case