Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.113 of 2005 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2004 and the order of sentence dated 1.11.2004 passed by Sri Syed Ahmad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Munger in Sessions Case No.100/2004) =========================================================== Govind Yadav, son of Basu Yadav, resident of village- Kataria, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 24-07-2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2004 and the order of sentence dated 1.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Munger in Sessions Case No.100/2004 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- under [STATUTE] . and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.113 of 2005 dt.24-07-2012 2 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext.1/2) is that the informant Nageshwar (P.W.1) got information on 12.09.2003 at about 12.30 P.M. that his niece Indu Devi (deceased) was killed by his son-in-law Govind Yadav (appellant) by hanging. Thereafter, he went to the house of his niece Indu Devi and found that her dead body was lying in the courtyard and the appellant has fled away. It has been further alleged that prior to the occurrence, Indu Devi (deceased) was tortured by the appellant. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Muffasil P.S. Case No.291/2003 dated 12.09.2003 was instituted against the sole appellant for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . After investigation, charge- sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The charge was framed under [STATUTE] . against the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 3. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was good relationship between the deceased and her husband (appellant). The appellant had not misbehaved or tortured the deceased. 4. After the trial, the appellant has been found guilty and he has been sentenced, as aforesaid. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.113 of 2005 dt.24-07-2012 3 submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There was god relationship between the appellant and the deceased. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. It has wrongly been held that there are strong circumstances and the circumstances are well interlinked to show that the appellant has committed the occurrence. 6. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the appellant and the learned trial court has found and held that the appellant is addicted to liquor and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by him. The death has been caused by asphyxia. The ocular evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence and the learned trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty and on the question of sentence, the learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by this Court. 7. This Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. They are namely, P.W.1 Nageshwar Yadav, informant and uncle of the deceased, P.W.2 Singho Yadav, brother of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.113 of 2005 dt.24-07-2012 4 the appellant, P.W.3 Heera Yadav, cousin brother of the appellant, P.W.4 Tara Devi, P.W.5 Dr. Prithwi Raj, who conducted the post- mortem examination and P.W.6 Baijnath Choudhary, Investigating Officer. 9. D.W.1 Pankaj Kumar Singh has been examined on behalf of the defence. 10. P.W.1 has stated that on 12.09.2003 at about 12.30 P.M., he got information that his niece Indu Devi (deceased) was killed by hanging by Govind Yadav. Govind Yadav was married to his niece Indu Devi (deceased) in the year 1984. After getting this information, he went to the village-Kataria where the deceased was living. He went there and saw that Indu Devi was lying dead in the courtyard. Rohit Kumar, minor son and Sonu Kumari, minor daughter of the deceased (not examined) were weeping. Both of them told him that their father (appellant) killed their mother (deceased) by tying rope in her neck. In the meantime, the Officer-in-charge of Muffasil police station came there. He has further stated that prior to the occurrence, the appellant used to assault and torture the deceased whenever any demand for medicine etc. was made by her. He has further stated that whenever he (P.W.1) and others went for Vidai of the deceased, the appellant used to tell that she was her wife and he would keep her in the manner as he desired and refused to give Vidai Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.113 of 2005 dt.24-07-2012 5 of the deceased. The deceased had been brought to the informant’s house in a function. After ten days, the appellant took her back to his house then killed her. He has further stated that the appellant was addicted to liquor and was also indulging in gambling. He has stated that fardbeyan was recorded by the police off

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.