The burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act was a central legal principle established in the judgment, placing the onus on the appellant to explain the circumstances of the deceased's death.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The appellant Rendo @ Karamsingh Munda faced trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial No.106 of 2017 for commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that he being the husband of Tiki @ Tikili Munda (hereafter ‘the deceased’) subjected her to torture both physically and mentally, committed her murder on 28.04.2017 night and tied the saree of the deceased around her neck and hanged her from the roof beam of the room with an intention of screening himself from the legal punishment.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2019, though acquitted the appellant of the charges under sections 498-A and 302 of the I.P.C., but found him guilty under sections 304 Part-I and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence under section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. and R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C. and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.1) lodged by one Guru Charan Munda (P.W.1), the father of the deceased on 29.04.2017 is that four years prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased married to the appellant and it was a love marriage and out of their wedlock, a male child was born, who was aged about three years at the time of occurrence. It is stated that after the marriage, the appellant subjected the deceased to physical and mental torture and the deceased used to intimate the informant about the same. It is further stated that few days prior to her death, the deceased was assaulted by the appellant for which she came to reside in her uncle’s house. On 29.04.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., the appellant communicated to the informant (P.W.1) about the death of the deceased and the family members of the deceased immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and found the deceased lying dead on the floor of her bed room. When P.W.1 confronted to the appellant as to why he killed the deceased, the appellant disclosed that on the previous night, there was a quarrel with the deceased and he assaulted her with a lathi on her head for which she died and then he tied the saree around the neck of the deceased. The informant found bloodstains on the floor of the house and accordingly, he lodged F.I.R. before the Inspector incharge of Keonjhar Sadar police station on 29.04.2017, pursuant to which Keonjhar Sadar P.S. Case No.132 of 2017 was registered under sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.

3. The Inspector in-charge of Keonjhar Sadar Police Station entrusted P.W.11 Srikanta Sahoo, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said police station for investigation. During investigation of the case, the I.O. visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.8), issued requisition to the S.D.M. -cum- Executive Magistrate, Keonjhar to depute one Executive Magistrate to the spot and accordingly, in the presence of the Executive Magistrate, he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2). The dead body was sent for post mortem examination and P.W.8 Dr. Ajaya Kumar Mohanty conducted post mortem examination over the dead body on 29.04.2017 and submitted his report (Ext.6).

The I.O. (P.W.11) during the spot visit, collected the sample earth and blood stained earth under seizure list Ext.3 and after the appellant was taken into judicial custody, on the basis of his statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, one bamboo lathi was seized as per the seizure list Ext.4. The wearing apparels of the appellant were seized under seizure list Ext.10 so also the wearing apparel