N. KOTISWAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the Appellant; heard also Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior P.P., assisted by Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned P.P. as well as Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 10 of 2014 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, convicting the Appellant for murder of his sister-in-law and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that a complaint was lodged stating that on 01.05.2013, at 10:10 p.m. one Phurailatpam Brajagopal Sharma reported that at about 9:30 p.m. while his wife, namely, Phurailatpam (O) Neena Devi was washing and cleaning utensils, he heard the children of their house screaming. Immediately, he rushed and saw his wife in a pool of blood at the washing place at the backyard near the kitchen. While he was attending his injured wife at the spot, his brother-in-law, Salam Sarattold him that he saw his younger brother, Phurailatpam Brajakishwar Sharma (Appellant herein) with a Dao (thangjou) in his hand near his injured wife. Immediately, she was evacuated to Bishnupur District Hospital for medical treatment. At that time, she was conscious and said that she feels very distressed. Afterwards, it was learnt that his younger brother (Appellant herein) had chopped his wife by using a Dao (thangjou).

4. Accordingly, on the basis of aforesaid complaint filed before the Officer-in-Charge, Bishnupur Police Station, an FIR was registered as FIR No. 36 (5) 2013 BPR PS under Section 326 IPC. The Investigating Officer, in course of investigation, visited and inspected the spot and arrested the Appellant at 11:30 p.m. on the same day, and seized one Dao (thangjou) having blood stain, one solar LED Home light, one aluminum tub, some soil, all having blood stain from the spot. Thereafter, the I.O. visited the victim at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) Casualty Ward where she had been referred to from the District Hospital at Bishnupur. There the Investigating Officer (I.O)was informed by the Medical Officer that the victim succumbed to her injuries at 12:15 a.m of 02.05.2013. Accordingly, the initial charge registered under Section 326 IPC was converted to Section 302 IPC for further investigation. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was framed against the Appellant under Section 302 IPC, and the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the Appellant was tried under Section 302 IPC.

5. In course of the trial, as many as 14 prosecution witnesses were examined; 16 documents and 8 other materials/articles were exhibited. Upon appraisal of the witnesses accounts and other evidences on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-

6. The learned District Judge, Bishnupur, held that the charge has been proved against the Appellant based on circumstantial evidences. Those factual circumstances have been identified as follows: -

(i) The deceased was alone at the place of occurrence i.e. washing place in the backyard near the kitchen of the house at the relevant time.

(ii) The deceased was found seriously injured in the said place.

(iii) The accused was not along with the other members of the family at the relevant time.

(iv) The weapon used in the crime was found by the Investigating Agency at the place of occurrence.

(v) There is nothing on record to show that any other person had access to the place of occurrence prior to the seriously injured of the deceased, Neena Devi.

(vi) The injuries found on the body of the deceased Neena Devi is homicidal in nature.

(vii) The facts of the prosecution case point to the accused and not to anyone else, for the cause of the injuries on the body of the deceased at the place of oc