JUDGMENT

By Court Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC. Informant is the mother of the deceased, who was married to the appellant in 1999 two years before the incidence.

2. As per FIR, she used to be assaulted by the appellant and in-laws and at times, the matter was settled by their intervention. On 07.06.2015 at 1 O’clock in the night, the informant received telephonic information that her daughter had died in accidental fall. When she went there, she found her lying dead. Informant suspected that she had been bitten up resulting in her death. On the basis of the written report, Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.127/15 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellant, his brother and mother. Police on investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant who was put on trial for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

3. Altogether six witnesses were examined and the relevant documents including the written report and post mortem report have been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct eye witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance is not complete to establish that it was the appellant and none else who was responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.

5. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.

6. The post mortem examination report (Exhibit 4) leaves not a shred of doubt regarding the homicidal death of the deceased. Doctor (P.W 6) noted four ante mortem injuries on the dead body which included fracture of ribs, both on the right and left side and also contusion over both sides. Doctor opined that death was due to fracture of ribs.

7. There is no direct eye witness to the incidence, but it has come in the testimony of the witnesses that the appellant used to assault the deceased. P.W. 1 is the husband of the younger sister of the deceased. He has deposed that there used to be quarrel between deceased and the appellant.

P.W. 3 is the sister of the deceased, she has also deposed that appellant used to assault his wife after taking liquor. She has also deposed that she died in her matrimonial home.

P.W. 5 has also deposed that when on receipt of information when she went to the house of the deceased, found her dead body with marks of injury.

Investigating Officer (P.W. 2) has given the place of occurrence in para

5 to be situated in the house of the decased.

The informant who happens to be the mother of the deceased (P.W. 4), it has been deposed by her that she was kept properly for a year. Appellant was an alcoholic and was an addict of cannabis. He used to demand money from them. On receipt of information when she went there, she her dead body which had marks of injury. There has not been any cross examination of this witness on this part of her testimony.

8. From the extensive nature of injuries found on the dead body, plea of defence that it was caused by accidental fall, cannot be accepted. It is nobody’s case that deceased had an accidental fall from stair case. To have sustain extensive injuries on both right and left side of the body, resulting in fracture of right five ribs, is something which cannot be reconciled with story of accidental fall. Further, the incidence took place in the house of the appellant and it has also come in evidence that there was past history of the deceased being assaulted by the appellant after he took liquor. It was incumbent on the part of the appellant to offer some explanation in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as to how his wife met a homicidal death at her home with extensive physical injuries. No explanation has been put forward on behalf of the defence to explain the homicidal death of the deceased. The cumulative effect of these evidences are that it was the appellant and none else who committed the offence.