GOPINATH KARWA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 16.7.1991 passed by the 2nd. Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T.No.109 of 1990, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife, Sabitri Karwa, on 10.10.89.

(2.) THE prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. is that on 10.10.89 at about 12.00 noon, when the informant, Keshbati Karwa, the minor daughter of the appellant, was taking bath in the bathroom, she heard her father (appellant) and her mother (deceased) abusing each other and thereafter she heard sound of assault on her mother by her father and she came out taking her bath quickly and found the room of occurrence closed and her father beating her mother who was crying for help, whereupon she opened the door forcibly and saw her mother lying in dying condition and his father sitting in another room. Seeing the condition of her mother deteriorating, she approached Yakub Khes (P.W.2) and Madhusudan Das (P.W.3) who came to the place of occurrence and told her that her mother had already died. Thereafter, the informant along with P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 went to the police station where she lodged the F.I.R. naming her father as the person who has killed her mother by iron rod. The I.O. went to the spot of occurrence and made enquiry and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the hospital for post -mortem examination and after receiving the said report, the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of session for trial.

(3.) THE triaf court had convicted the appellant on the evidence of P.W.1, who was declared hostile, holding that "the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that accused Gopi Nath Karwa assaulted his wife, Sabitri Karwa, till she died". In support of the above finding, the trial court has also held that the evidence of P.Ws.2,3,4 and I.O. (P.W.5) have supported the entire facts and circumstances which find place in the F.I.R. It has rejected that part of the informant 's testimony wherein she has said that she has seen nothing because she was not present at the relevant time on the place of occurrence as she had gone to township to see Durga Puja, with the observations that she wants to help her father.