The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, establishing the accused's guilt through a combination of testimonies, confessional statements, and lack of viable alternative explanations.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 & 03.12.2018 respectively, of the appellant passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVIII, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 393 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix:-

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s daughter (Asha Devi, deceased) was married with the present appellant in the year 2003. Initially, everything was going on in normal manner but by passage of time, the appellant used to scuffle and assault with his wife frequently on trivial issues. The informant Basudeo Upadhyay (father of the deceased) made several attempts to settle the dispute and differences between husband and wife but the same could not be resolved. Ultimately, on 19.03.2017, informant came to know from Narayan Ojha that his daughter Asha Devi had died. The informant along with his son and other family members went to matrimonial home of Asha Devi and found her dead, sustaining sharp cut injuries on her body. The informant was suspecting that his son-in-law Mukesh Kumar Ojha along with his father and brother had committed murder of the deceased. Accordingly, Mandar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2017, was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused (husband of the deceased) for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the accused was put on trial. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by prosecution namely:

P.W.-1-Deoraj Singh

P.W.-2-Dilip Sao

P.W.-3-Tabrej Alam

P.W.-4- Anju Baitha

P.W.-5-A.K. Mishra

P.W.-6- Paras Nath Singh

P.W.-7-M.N. Singh

P.W.-8-Dr. Sawan Mundri (The doctor, who has conducted post mortem examination)

P.W.-9-Basudeo Upadhyay (Informant)

P.W.-10-Anil Nand Tiwari

P.W.-11- Singrai Sundi (I.O.)

4. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced:-

Exhibit-1-Signature of Awadhesh Kumar Mishra over seizure list dated 20.03.2017

Exhibit-2-Post Mortem Report of deceased Asha Devi

Exhibit-3-Written report of Basudeo Upadhyay (P.W.-9)

Exhibit-3/1-Signature of Basudeo Upadhyay over written report

Exhibit-4-Signatue of Basudeo Upadhyay over inquest report

Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.

Exhibit-6-Carbon copy of inquest report

Exhibit-7-Production-cum-seizurelist of blood samples over pillow

Exhibit-7/1-Seizure list of iron plate used in motor vehicle

Exhibit-8-Confessional statement of Mukesh Kumar Ojha

Exhibit-9-S.F.S.L. report

5. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. One defence witness namely, Vikesh Kumar Ojha has also been examined who has proved Exhibit-A, a letter purported to be written by deceased Asha Devi.

6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, recorded the finding about guilt of the appellant and accordingly, convicted and sentenced to him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of appellant:-

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in course of argument, has raised following points challenging the legality of the impugned judgment and order:

i. Most of the independent witnesses examined by prosecution, namely P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and disclosed nothing incriminating circumstance against the appellant but the