- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions trial No. 383 of 2000 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 or I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further R.I. for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for one month. However, both the sentences were to run concurrently. The prosecution case in short is that P.W. 10 - the police officer recorded his statement on 22.09.2000 at 22:30 hours at the place of occurrence that he received an information at about 8:30 P.M. about the death of a lady. After recording such Sanha, he alongwith other police officers, P.W. 7, 8 & 9 went to the place of occurrence, where people had assembled. He found that the Shila Singh said to be wife of the appellant was lying dead. He along with others and the lady owner of the house -P.W. 1 inspected the place of occurrence. The dead body was lying at the stairs of the basement. The appellant to d that Shila used to work as a maid servant and he along with her lived in the servant quarter in the first floor. The appellant further said that after returning from his duty, he took meal and took rest with Shila. At about 5:00 P.M., she went for work in the house of the owner lady and he went to bring children. When he returned at about 7:00 P.M., he found that the door of the staircase was closed. He pushed the bell on several occasion, but no body replied. Then P.W. 1 opened the door. He went to his room in the upper floor, but Then P.W. 1 opened the door. He went to his room in the upper floor, but did not find his wife. While searching her, he went to the basement, and found that she was hanging from the fan. He shouted on which P.W. 1 came and called the security guards. The appellant further said that in the meantime, he brought down the dead body and told the people that she has committed suicide. The inquest report was prepared. P.W. 10, the informant narrated in detail how it could not be a case of suicide, by taking measurement of the height of the basement, the height of the deceased, the Dupatta etc. He also found that the Dupatta around the fan came down on a slight pull. P.W. 10 clearly alleged that it was not a case of suicide. P.W. 1 denied that the appellant rang the bell at about 7:00 P.M. and she did not open the door as alleged. Thus he found that the appellant was telling lie. P.W. 1 further told that in the previous month at about 10:00 P.M. in the night, the appellant assaulted the deceased mercilessly when P.W. 1 and her husband intervened. Deceased used to tell that she is not happy with the appellant. The deceased used to work in the house of P.W. 2 earlier where also, the appellant used to assault her. Therefore, P.W. 10 alleged that the appellant had killed the deceased and hanged her to project it as a case of suicide.
(2.) Mr. R. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various] grounds. He submitted that the evidences show that it was a case of suicide. There was no motive for the appellant to commit the crime. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The appellant be given benefit of doubt.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.;