JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 22.10.2024 Pronounced On: 28.10.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Sole appellant is before this Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. Informant is the father of the deceased, who was married to the appellant in 1985. As per FIR after four years of the marriage, her father-in- law (Bechan Mandal) had made improper sexual advance towards her on several occasions. This was complained by her to relative Nitai Mandal, who chastised the appellant as well as his father regarding this conduct. Since then, the appellant and other in-laws used to subject her cruelty and when the informant wanted Bidai of his daughter, it was refused by them. In April, 1992, with the help of police, she was brought back to parental home and after some time, she returned to her matrimonial home. It is alleged that there was no thaw in relationship and the harassment continued. Deceased was again ousted from the matrimonial home and then she started living with the appellant separately at village- Kanhaiyasthan. The harassment and assault continued there also. On 14.03.1994, appellant killed her with a sharp cutting weapon.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Rajmahal P.S. Case No.48/94 was registered under Sections 302/120B of the IPC against appellant and other in-

laws. Police on investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 302/120B and 109 of the IPC against Bechan Mandal and Abhiram Mandal, who were put on trial for the offence under Sections 302/120B of the IPC. Learned trial Court acquitted Bechan Mandal and convicted present appellant against which appeal has been preferred.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there are vital contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which has not been considered by the learned trial Court. The Investigating officer has also not been examined. P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 7, are hostile witnesses, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have admitted that they were not eye witnesses to the incidence. Judgment of conviction has been passed only on the basis of statement of the close relatives of the deceased.

5. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is argued that trite law of appreciation of evidence is that it is not the number, but the credibility of witnesses that counts. Prosecution case is established by the eye witnesses account of P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11.

6. Deceased died a homicidal death, is not disputed and has been proved by the Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 6), who found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: -

I. Cut throat injury below thyroid cartilage.

II. Sharp incised wound over web of the hand between thumb and index finger measuring 3" x 1"x 1/2"

III. Incised wound over right side of the cheek 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" IV. Incised wound on the left middle finger 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4".

Doctor opined that the death was caused by cardio-respiratory failure due to injury no. I.

7. P.W. 9- Fugni has deposed that it was about 12 O’ clock in the day time, she was taking her meal when the appellant came to her house with his 1½ year old son. There were blood-stain marks on his clothes and also on the child. Appellant handed over his child to her and stated that he had committed murder of his wife with Cheawni thereafter, fled away. When she rushed to the house of the appellant, she found wife of the appellant to be dead and her neck was slit. She saw a rod and blood-stained Cheawni lying there. In para 10-14, she has given the description of the boundary of her house.

P.W. 10 has deposed that he had seen the appellant coming on the road with blood-stain marks on his wearing apparels at a distance of 100 yard from his house. When he asked as to how he had got the blood-stains over his clothes, he stated that he has committed murder of his wife. Testimony of P.W.

11 and P.W. 12 was also on the same line.

8. Statement made by the appellant to these witnesses will not only be relevant and come w