Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
1. The sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and Sentence passed under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. This is yet another case where the homicidal death of a lady took place within the confines of her home and the appellant is none other than her
husband.
3. Informant is the brother of the appellant. As per the fardbeyan, appellant and his wife had returned home in the evening at 6 O’clock on
26.10.2014 after watching the football match. After their return, altercation started between them over some trivial issue. Hearing the commotion,
when Saraswati who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the informant, and resident of the neighborhood, came there she was scolded and driven
out by the appellant. After some time, she heard the cries for help of the deceased and on it, when she went there, the appellant fled away. She found
her dead body in a pool of blood. She has marks of injury on her neck, head and body.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Singhbhum (Sadar) Mufassil P.S. Case No.15/14 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant.
After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and he was put on trial for committing murder of his wife. Altogether nine witnesses have been
examined in this case on behalf of prosecution and relevant documents including inquest report, post mortem report, fardbeyan, disclosure statement
and seizure list, have been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.
5. The main plank of the argument on behalf of the appellant are in two folds. First is that the star witness Saraswati Purti (P.W. 9) has not supported
the prosecution case and was declared hostile. It is further argued that it was the consistent case of the prosecution that the deceased was gored by
knife, and the weapon of offence was seized on the basis of disclosure statement which was sent to FSL for chemical examination. As per the FSL
report, Exhibit 8 and 8/1, blood smear, were found on spear. There is thus, contradiction between seizure list (Exhibit 6) and the FSL report. Lastly, it
is argued that there was no evidence of marital discord therefore, even if the prosecution case is assumed to be true, case will come squarely within
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the offence will be culpable homicide not amount to murder.
6. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been defended by the learned counsel on behalf of State. It is submitted that in view of the overwhelming
evidence against the appellant, that the deceased was killed in cold blood in her house, argument on the nature of weapon used cannot be stretched too
far. It has come in evidence that the weapon of offence was something of the kind of a trident like knife and therefore, it has been differently referred
to in the FSL report.
7. There are certain facts which have been established by the prosecution and has not been strongly contested at the time of trial and in appeal which
are as under:
I. Deceased- Jena Purty (wife of the appellant) died a homicidal death, has been established by the Doctor (P.W. 4), who conducted the post
mortem examination on the dead body. He found lacerated wound on the occipital region of 3"" x ¼"" deep on skull, lacerated wound of size 2"" x 1/8
on right side of the neck. Death was attributed to these injuries which were caused by sharp cutting hard object may be knife.
II. There is consistent evidence of the witness that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant. P.W. 1 in para 4 of his examination in chief,
P.W. 2 in para 5 of the cross examination has specifically stated that it was the house of the appellant. P.W. 8- the Investigating Officer has however
called it to the house of the deceased. Discrepancy is not significant as we are not concerned with the title of the house. Fact of the matter remains
that the place of occurrence was the house of the appellant as identified by the villagers in their deposition and the deceased was the wife of the
appellant.
III. Investigation Officer has took the disclosure statement of the appellant which has been marked as Exhibit 5. As per the disclosure statement, the
weapon of offence which was knife like trident, smeared with blood, was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement. The seizure list was
proved and marked as Exhibit 6 and was produced in Court.
8. From the above evidence, it can be safely concluded that the deceased was stabbed to death in her house and the weapon of offence was
recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant. These circumstances were put to the appellant against which no explanation
whatsoever, has been offered by him. As per the FSL report, there were was human blood group B, which matched with the blood samples taken
from the place of occurrence.
9. Sarswati Purty (P.W. 9) is close relative of the appellant and the sole eye witness. Relationship appears to have triumphed and silenced this
witness, but circumstances as discussed above, speak loudly about the culpability of the appellant.
10. There can be endless argument on the peripheral discrepancy appearing in evidence in a particular case. Law is settled that unless the
discrepancies are of such a nature which can be called vital contradiction going to the root of the matter, it cannot be considered to be fatal to the
prosecution. Deceased is the wife of the appellant, incidence takes place at his home, the weapon of offence is discovered on the basis of disclosure
statement and the appellant has no explanation whatsoever to these established facts. The only inference that can be said to follow from it, is that it
was appellant and none other who committed the offence. Prove of a fact as we know is based on a prudent man’s test and in the absence of any
alternative hypothesis of homicidal death, only plausible logical conclusion is that appellant was the author of crime.
11. In view of the fact that the appellant acted in a very cruel manner, this case could not come within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. It is
true that the incidence to have taken place on the spur of moment, but this by itself, is not sufficient to take out the case from the mischief of Section
302 of the IPC as the appellant has acted in a very cruel manner by causing multiple injury over the vital part of hapless lady. It will be appropriate to
remind ourselves with what the Apex Court said in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158
“38. A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as to a fact or relevant facts which
may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling
question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a
search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of
charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an
isolated scrutiny.â€
There is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence, which needs no interference by this Court.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
