M.K.Basu, J. - (1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th September, 1989 passed by Sri B.U. Mukherjee, addl. Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Midnapur in the Sessions Case being No. S.T. III of March, 1989 of that Court under which he found the accused appellant guilty under section 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer under imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case briefly stated was as follows. The accused Rameswar Hembram used to reside in the village Murakata under P.S. Narayangarh with his family consisting of his wife, Delho Hembram, (the deceased) and his two sons and three daughters. In the night of 2nd/3rd June, 1998, his co-villagers heard cries of his widow-daughter, Raimoni, and others and came to his house and found Delho lying dead in the courtyard of that house. They found injuries on her head and other parts of the body. Raimoni told them that her father Rameswar had a quarrel with her mother, the deceased, in sequel of which Rameswar struck Delho with an axe causing the said injuries on her person and thereafter he fled. The said villagers conducted a search for Rameswar and located him in the field, but, before they could catch him, he came running to his house and went inside a room thereof and after bolting it from inside he shouted saying that since his wife had disobeyed him, he had assaulted her by an axe. Thereafter the incident was reported to police by one Mantu Murmu, a co-villager who filed his ezahar before the O.C. Narayangarh P.S. on that morning, that is, the 3rd June 1998. The police started investigation on the basis of this FIR. When the officer visited the P.O., Rameswar gave a statement before him confessing that he had committed the murder and had thrown the weapon of offence in a tank called Karpura. Pursuant to his statement the police recovered from that tank the said weapon, namely, an axe. After completing the investigation police submitted chargesheet against him under section 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate. The learned trial Judge framed the charge against the accused under section 302 IPC on the basis of the documents under section 173 Cr.PC. The accused pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and explained to him. The trial commence before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The prosecution adduced evidence both oral and documentary evidence. It examined 14 witnesses in all. The defence did not adduce any evidence. From the trend of cross-examination and the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. PC the defence case appeared to be one of innocence. The learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the materials on records passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as mentioned above.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the convict has preferred the present appeal challenging the findings of the trial Court as erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside.
(3.) The learned trial Judge framed two points for determination. First, whether the accused committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Delho Hembram as alleged and secondly, whether the accused was proved guilty of the offence alleged and, whether he was liable to be convicted. In answering both the points against the accused learned Judge has found that although there was no direct evidence against the accused, no eyewitness deposing that he saw the accused to assault the deceased with an axe, yet there was strong circumstantial evidence in support of prosecution charge. The circumstances which according to the learned trial Judge were found established from the evidence are as follows. (i) Raimoni and other children of the deceased shouted and raised hue and cry; (ii) the people of the neighbourhood ran to the house on hearing such cries; (iii) the children of the accused, particularly Raimoni, disclosed to the persons assembled there at that time that the accused Rameswar had assaulted Delho and had fled away; (iv) Rameswar was found absent in his house at that dead hours of the night; (v) on a search being conducted by the villagers Rameswar was found in the field; (vi) when the villagers saw him and chased him he ran into his house and going into a room he closed the door from inside of that room; (vii) he disclosed from that closed room in loud voice that he had assaulted his wife; (viii) after police came he confessed before them that he had thrown away the weapon of offence in the Karpura tank; (ix) an axe was recovered from the said tank in pursuance of his statement and on his saying; (x) the doctor's opinion that the deceased had sustained injuries from sharp-cutting weapons on her person as a result of which she died and the doctor's evidence that the injuries which he found on the dead body of the deceased could have been inflicted by the axe, which was materially exhibited, when the same was shown to the doctor.;