PRADIP CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code') and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of his father- in-law (hereinafter to be described as the 'deceased') on June 21, 1980, at M. P. V.31 by intentionally causing his death by means of M. O. I. (a knife) and the trial Court has accepted the case of the prosecution based mainly on the evidence of P. W. 2, the mother- in-law of the appellant, who is the widow of the deceased and P. W. 3, the wife of the appellant, who had figured as witnesses to the occurrence and that of P. Ws. 1 and 6, the co-villagers to whom P. Ws. 2 and 3 had immediately reported about the occurrence naming the appellant as the author of the crime, besides the evidence of P. W. 5 who had seen the appellant running away from the village towards the jungle at the relevant time and the recovery of M. O. I consequent upon the statement said to have been made by the appellant while in custody and his pointing out the place of discovery and in addition, the recovery of a shirt (M.O. III) from his person. It was in evidence that on chemical examination, blood was detected in M.Os. I and III and its origin could not be determined.

(2.) Mr. Nanda, appearing for the appellant has strenuously urged that the evidence on which the prosecution had placed reliance was highly unsatisfactory and could not be the foundation for an order of conviction. It has been submitted in the alternative that in case this Court holds, agreeing with the trial court, that the appellant had stabbed the deceased to death by means of M.O.I, the offence would come within the purview of Section 304 Part II of the Code. Mr. Sahu, the learned Standing Counsel, has submitted that neither of the two contentions raised on behalf of the appellant can prevail.

(3.) We have been taken through the evidence of P. Ws.2 and 3 and the other relevant evidence. It would clearly appear from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who would not normally implicate the appellant if he was not the author of the crime, that having married P. W. 3 on the condition that he would look after the cultivation of the deceased, the appellant moved here and there and did not mind for his work. On the day of occurrence, he returned from the market after sale of Mahula fruits and the deceased asked him as to what he did with the money and further told him to purchase a saree out of the sale proceeds. At this, the appellant brought out M.O.I.which had been kept inside his Dhoti and stabbed the deceased on his chest causing his instantaneous death. It would also be seen from their evidence that immediately thereafter, the appellant took to his heels. P.W.5 had seen the appellant running away towards the jungle and there was no reason to discard the evidence of this witness. Both P. Ws. 2 and 3, who were in the house of the deceased where the occurrence had taken place, were natural and competent witnesses and there was no material to show that they were not in a position to witness the occurrence and that therefore, they could not have said as to who had stabbed the deceased to death.