CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL)

Date : 15-12-2017

The appeal filed by the sole appellant challenges the correctness of the judgment of conviction dated 22^nd of August, 2014 passed by 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 288 of 2009/Tr. No. 55 of 2012 whereby he was held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and by order of sentence dated 29.08.2014, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine with default clause.

2. The appellant was charged for having caused murder of his wife Sakuntala Devi by assaulting her with ‘Churra’ in the intervening night of 29/30-10-2008. The prosecution case in short is that on 30.10.2008 at about 3 AM the informant (PW6) received a call on his mobile that his sister was killed by her husband (appellant herein). After receiving this information, the informant along with his mother (PW2) and a close friend, namely, Sonu Kumar Singh (PW7) went to the village of the appellant on a motorcycle and reached there at about 3.45 AM. They saw the dead body of the deceased lying in one of the rooms of her matrimonial home. His brother- in-law, the appellant, was also present there. On enquiry, he could not reply satisfactory as to how the deceased received injuries and died. The matter was reported to the police and the ‘Fardbeyan’ (Ext.1) made by him was recorded by the officer- in-charge of Budhu chak Police Station (PW14) on 30.10.2008 at 4 O’clock in the morning. The informant alleged in the ‘Fardbeyan’ that the appellant used to assault and torture his sister from before and was in the habit of making demand of cash from his father. In the hope of the appellant amending his habit the father of the deceased at times used to give some cash to him to ensure that the appellant does not torture his wife. On several occasions, the family members and relatives had attempted to pacify the matter but the appellant had not amended his ways. It was alleged that the appellant had assaulted his wife with knife resulting in her death. PW-14 after recording the ‘Fardbeyan’ drew up a formal F.I.R. and himself took up the investigation.

3. The F.I.R. was sent to the Court on the following day. The inquest proceeding was carried out and the inquest report (Ext.2) was drawn, witnessed by a neighbour of the appellant Pappu Kumar (PW8). The dead body was dispatched for the autopsy. PW-11 was then posted as the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Hospital. He conducted the postmortem examination on 30.10.2008 at 3 P.M. and furnished the autopsy report (Ext. 3). The investigation of the case was later handed over to PW-12 Sudhir Kumar Thakur, who, upon conclusion of investigation, laid the charge-sheet against the appellant. After taking cognizance the records was committed to the Court of sessions and in due course the same came on the file of the learned Trial Judge for disposal. The charges were framed and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The appellant declined his involvement in this case and claimed to be innocent.

4. In order to prove his case of alibi the defence also adduced evidence of Rajendra Sharma (DW1), Madho Singh (DW2) and Rukmani Devi (DW3).

5. To prove the case beyond doubt the prosecution examined 15 prosecution witnesses.

PW-1 Ratneshwar Mandal is the father of the deceased who reached the place of occurrence on getting information about the incident. PW-2 Bhagwati Devi is the mother of the deceased as well as the informant who had travelled to the place of occurrence along with the informant (PW6) and his friend Sonu Kumar Singh (PW7) . They had first reached the place of occurrence followed by the father (PW1) and other witnesses. PW-3 Usha Devi is the cousin of the deceased. She got information about the incident through PW-1 and reached the place of occurrence. PW-4 Komal Kumari is the minor daughter of