The obligation of an inmate in a house to provide plausible explanations for a crime occurring therein shifts certain evidential burdens under legal standards.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-11-2011 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) in S.T. No. 237/2010 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302 and S.201 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and R.I. for five years, pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations respectively.

2. As per prosecution case, deceased Babita Devi, wife of the accused / appellant, was having illicit relations with one Janardan and on account of that on 4-3-2010 at 6.30 a.m. the accused / appellant committed murder of Babita in his house by causing as many as 16 axe injuries on various parts of her body. The incident was witnessed by PW 3 Sourabh Kumar Dubey, son of the appellant and the deceased. Dehati merg (Ex.P / 11) was lodged on 4-3-2010 at 9.20 a.m. by PW 15 Ganesh and thereafter, merg intimation Ex.P / 21 was recorded on the date at 3.10 p.m. FIR (Ex.P / 22) was registered against the accused / appellant on 4-3-2010 at the instance of PW 15 under S.302, IPC. Thereafter, inquest over the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P / 7 and then the body was sent for post - mortem examination, which was conducted by PW 12 Dr. Smt. Shashikala Toppo on 4-3-2010 vide Ex.P / 23 wherein she noticed as many as 16 injuries including seven lacerated wounds and depressed fracture of left frontal bone of skull. In her opinion, the cause of death was hypovolumic shock due to excessive haemorrhage on account of injury to vital internal organs and head. After investigation charge - sheet was filed against the appellant and co - accused Shashank Dubey under S.302, S.120 - B of IPC. However, the trial Court framed charges under S.302, S.201 of IPC against the appellant and under S.120 - B of IPC against co - accused Shashank Dubey.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under S.313 of Cr. P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting co - accused of the charge under S.120 - B of IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under :
l that eye - witness to the incident PW 3 Sourabh Kumar Dubey has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
l that father and sister of the deceased have also not supported the prosecution case.
l that most important witness of the prosecution Pradeep has not been examined by the prosecution.
l though as per FSL report, blood was found on Articles C & D i.e. axe seized from the spot and full pant of the appellant, but in absence of serologist report, the same cannot be used against the appellant.
l even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best the appellant can be convicted under S.304, Parts I or II of IPC because the incident occurred in the heat of passion, upon a sudden provocation, without any premeditation, when the appellant saw his wife / deceased in an objectionable position with Janardan Tiwari. Further, as the appellant has already remained in jail for about six years, after converting his offence under S.304, Parts I or II, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel as under :
l that PW 3 has though been declared hostile