SAROJ CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction -recorded by 7th Addl. Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi vide her judgment dated 8.6.90 in S.T. No. 100/88 through which the sole appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the informants daughter, namely, Kamala Devi was married to the appellant in the year 1983 and prior to occurrence Kamala Devi came to her Naihar i.e. in the house of the informant and in the night of 14/15-8-97 the appellant alongwith her wife were sleeping together in a room of the residential house of the informant situated in Lower Chutia, P.S. Chutia. It has been alleged that in the mid night the informant and his wife heard alarm of their daughter and she was asking for help. Accordingly, informant and his wife rushed to the bed room where her daughter was sleeping at 12.30 P.M. or so and in the electric light they had seen the appellant assaulting Kamala Devi by knife and the moment the appellant had seen the informant he had thrown the knife in that very room and escaped from the other door but a alarm was raised and neighbours came and the appellant in order to save himself jumped in a well. It is also the prosecution case that the injured Kamala Devi was immediately rushed to R.M.C.H. Bariatu but in course of treatment she died at about 2.30 A.M. or so in that very night and police was also informed who came in the morning and rescued the appellant from the well and took him in custody and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at about 7.30 A.M.

(3.) The inquest of the deceased was prepared at the R.M.C.H. itself for post mortem examination and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted as against the appellant. The appellant claimed himself innocent in the trial court and denied to have committed the murder of deceased who is admittedly his wife and alternatively a plea was taken about the legal insanity of the appellant and suggestion was thrown to the witnesses that the appellant was mentally unsound and insane right from the year 1985. In that view of the matter, he under the influence of insanity and not aware of the legal consequences might have committed the murder. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to protection in view of the provision of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found the prosecution case to be true and rejected the plea of legal insanity and recorded an order of conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by this order this appeal had been preferred.