UMAPADA ROY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Umapada Roy was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of his wife Karmi Ghatwarin. The trial Court, having found the charge being proved convicted the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 30.3.2006 and on the same day sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. It is the case of the prosecution, as has been made out in the fardbeyan (Ext. -4) that Karmi Ghatwarin (deceased) the daughter of the informant Satish Rai -P.W. 2 had been married to the appellant 7 to 8 years before. Out of their wedlock, one son and one daughter begotten. Over the passage of time, the appellant started raising doubt over the character of his wife and thereby, he used to assault her. Six days before the deceased was done to death, Ashok Roy -P.W. 1, cousin of the deceased had visited the place of the deceased to whom she narrated that she is being subjected to torture by her husband. This was communicated by Ashok Roy -P.W. 1 to the informant Satish Rai -P.W. 2 and on hearing this he was making plan to visit his daughter but in the meantime two persons came on 28.10.2002 and informed him that his daughter has been killed by her husband. The informant -Satish Rai -P.W. 2 went to the place of his daughter and gave his fardbeyan to S.I., Sanjay Kumar Singh -P.W. 8, Officer -in -charge of Kalubathan outpost on 28.10.2002 at about 7.00 p.m. wherein he stated about the incident as disclosed above.

(2.) On the basis of such fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. (Ext. -5) was drawn. Said Sanjay Kumar Singh -P.W. 8 took over the investigation during which he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Shailendra Kumar -P.W. 7, who on holding autopsy on the dead body did find the following injuries:

(3.) Meanwhile, the I.O. -P.W. 8 seized earth smeared with blood and also basuli/hasuli in presence of P.W. 5 -Rampad Rai under seizure list Ext. -2/1. After completion of the investigation, when the charge -sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offence against the appellant and in due course when the appellant was put on trial the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1 -Ashok Roy, the cousin of the deceased, P.W. 2 -Satish Rai (informant), the father of deceased and P.W. 3 -Subhas Rai, the brother of the deceased are the witnesses on the point that the appellant was in habit of subjecting his wife to assault. P.W. 1 -Ashok Roy has categorically deposed that six days before the occurrence when he had gone to the house of the deceased, deceased told him that she is being subjected to torture. When Ashok Roy -P.W. 1 came back, he informed about it to P.W. 2 -Satish Rai, the father of the deceased and also to P.W. 3 -Subhas Rai, the brother who has also stated by referring to the statement of Ashok Roy -P.W. 1 that deceased was being subjected to torture by the appellant. P.W. 4 -Smt. Kajal Rai and P.W. 6 -Aghanu Rai are the hearsay witnesses.