STATE Vs. MANPIYARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called IPC) in Sessions Case No.21 of 2000 (Sessions Trial No.07 of March, 2004) thereby acquitting the respondent/accused.

(2.) The prosecution story, in short, is that one R. Ravindran Nair (P.W.1) lodged the First Information Report (in short FIR) at Campbell Bay Police Station on 28th April, 1998 at 7.45 p.m. to the effect that on the said date at about 5.30 p.m. Banu Ram's wife came to his house and told him that at about 3.30 p.m. her husband under the influence of liquor was assaulting her. She then pushed her husband Banu Ram (deceased) and he fell down and became unconscious. P.W.1 then came to Paresh Ram's house and from there he informed the police station over telephone. Thereafter, P.W.1 and S.R. Tiwari came to the house of Banu Ram accompanied by Banu Ram's wife, the present respondent/accused. Coming at the house of Banu Ram he found that Banu Ram was lying unconscious in the second room of his house and there was wound over his chin with bleeding and there was stains of blood also on the neck. P.W.1 and S.R. Tiwari shook the hand of Banu Ram and found that his body was cool and they could realize that Banu Ram was dead. OB the basis of such FIR Campbell Bay P. S. Case No.21 dated 28.4.98 under section 302 IPC was started against unknown accused. After completing investigation the Investigating Officer (in short IO) submitted chargesheet against the respondent/accused and one Krishna Ram under section 302/34 IPC. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302/34 IPC against both the accused persons named above. During pendency of the trial accused Krishna Ram absconded and case against him was filed for the present respondent/accused faced the trial. As already mentioned above, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 29th June, 2005 acquitted the accused and being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of acquittal the State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances cannot be ignored. The deadbody of deceased Banu Ram was found in his room and at that time his wife, the present accused and another accused Krishna Ram were present there. The deceased was last seen with the accused persons and the deceased was in the company of accused persons before his death. The defence could not give any explanation as to how deadbody of Banu Ram was found inside the house. From evidence, it transpired that the accused developed extra-marital relationship with the other accused Krishna Ram and husband of the accused Banu Ram protested against her illicit relation with the accused Krishna Ram and in order to remove Banu Ram the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention murdered Banu Ram.