The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide an alibi.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The above named sole appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence dated 07/08.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No.336 of 2013 (arising out of Churchu P.S. Case No.03 of 2013 corresponding to G.R Case No.947 of 2013) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.1 Lakh with default stipulation.

3. The facts of the case as depicted in the F.I.R. instituted on the basis of fardbayan of one Nuruddin Ansari (P.W.-2) stating inter alia that his daughter Gulshan Ara Khatoon (since deceased) was married with Mustak Mian @ Butan (appellant) in the year 2011. It is further alleged that after solemnization of marriage informant’s daughter went to her matrimonial home and lived there properly for six months, thereafter, informant came to know that his son-in-law in some pretext or other used to assault his daughter and frequently stop giving food to her. The informant’s daughter was any how surviving at her matrimonial home receiving food from neighbourers. The informant several times attempted to resolve the matrimonial discard of his daughter and also assured his daughter that in the course of time everything will be settled. It is further alleged that the conduct and behavior of son-in-law with the daughter of the informant did not change rather physical violence increased and became usual. Not only this, the present appellant also started demanding Rs.50,000/-from her father and pressurized to fulfill the aforesaid demand through physical violence and non-supply of food and other necessities. Ultimately on 13.03.2013, the informant received a telephonic call from his daughter that her life is not secure unless he gives some money to her husband. Upon this, the informant consoled his daughter that he is managing some money. On 14.03.2013, nephew of informant namely Naushad informed through telephonic message that Gulshan Ara Khatoon has been murdered at her matrimonial home. The informant along with other relatives reached to the matrimonial home of his daughter at Village Sariya P.S. Churchu and found her dead body lying on the bed in half naked condition and dupatta was gagged in her mouth. There was bruise and red mark on her neck and beneath the bed, a pouch of country made wine was also lying. From the scene of occurrence, it appeared to informant that his son-in-law Mustak Mian @ Butan after having sexual intercourse with the deceased has inserted dupatta in her mouth due to which she has been died.

4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences.

5. The learned Trial Court after hearing prosecution and defence found sufficient material to frame the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the present appellant and accordingly charge was framed on 17.08.2013 and was read over and explained to accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution and documentary evidence were also adduced.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which he has denied and claimed to be innocence and falsely implicated. It is also pleaded that on the date and time of the occurrence, he was not present at his house and later on came to know about the murder of his wife. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

8. The learned Trial Court after apprising and appreciating the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of the accused concluded that although F.I.R. was lodged