Rajesh Mahali, Dalohatia vs State Of Assam

Ajit Singh, C.J.

The appellant, namely, Rajesh Mahali has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and

fine of Rs. 5000/-, with default stipulation.

The victim of the incident was appellant’s wife - Putali Mahali, aged about 35 years.

According to the prosecution case, appellant and Putali Mahali used to live together ina house at village Dirju Chapori. The daughter of appellant -

Mina Manki (PW-2) used to live separately in another place with her husband Brojen Manki (PW-1). On 11.11.2012, Mina Manki got a telephonic

information from someone that her mother â€" Putali Mahali was found dead with injuries on her head, who, in turn, informed the said fact to the

police. The information given by Mina Manki was registered at North Lakhimpur Police Station vide Case No. 744/2012 for an offence under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sub-Inspector Girish Chandra Nath (PW-8) came to the place of occurrence and gotthe inquest over the dead body Putuli Mahali done in the

presence of Jiten Kurmi (PW-3). Thereafter, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also recorded statements of the witnesses,

drew sketch map Exhibit-5 and arrested the appellant.

Dr. Phul Konwar Deori (PW-6) conducted the post mortem examination on the deadbody of Putuli Mahali. He found bruise on right temporal

region in the scalp and blood clot on parietal occipital region compressing the brain matter (subdural haematoma). The doctor opined that the death

was due to shock as a result of those injuries. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit 2. After completing the investigation and collecting the

post mortem examination report, Investigating Officer - Girish Chandra Nath submitted Exhibit 6 charge-sheet against the appellant for an offence

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He howeverdid not offer any explanation as to how his wife Putali Mahali

died an unnatural death.

The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced theappellant, as aforesaid.

It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court erroneously convicted theappellant in absence of cogent evidence purely on surmises and

conjectures, whereas the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the impugned conviction and sentence.

The death of Putuli Mahali is not disputed. Undeniably, the dead body of Putuli Mahaliwas found in the house of the appellant. Brojen Manki (PW-

1) - son in law of the appellant, deposed that appellant and Putuli Mahali used to reside together and Mina Manki also testified that the appellant and

Putuli Mahali used to reside together with their three years old daughter-Piria Mahali. Therefore, it is clear that there was none in the house of the

appellant when Putuli Mahali except the appellant and his three year daughter and as such, the appellant was expected to explain under what

circumstances his wife died inside the house with injuries on her head.

In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106, the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his

house. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that when the death had occurred in the custody of accused, he is under an obligation to give a

plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the

prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the

hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.

The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled

principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is

found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In this case the Supreme Court has

also held that where a husband is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that

shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally

resided and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a

strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime.

In the instant case, the appellant did not offer any such explanation and his plea wasinnocence only. The medical opinion reveals that Putuli Mahali

sustained one injury on right temporal region in the scalp and blood clot on parietal occipital region compressing the brain matter was found. Though,

Md. Ayub Ali (PW-3) testified that the appellant told him that Putuli Mahali died due to excessive consumption of alcohol, the same is not supported

by medical evidence and as such, his evidence is not reliable. Again, neighbour Padmeswar Phukan (PW-5) testified that the appellant confessed

before him that he gave a slap to Putuli Mahali as a result of which she died. This version is also not reliable since, a slap could no way inflict the

injuries as reported by the doctor. So, it is not believable that the appellant truly confessed before either Md. Ayub Ali or Padmeswar Phukan

regarding the cause of death of Putuli Mahali. But, at the same time, it is the testimony of Brojen Manki, Mina Manki, Ayub Ali, Padmeswar Phukan

and Jahar Ali (PW-7) that both appellant and Putuli Mahali used to consume alcohol and often raised hue and cry quarrelling with each other in

intoxicated state. Hence, it can be inferred that on the date of occurrence too, the appellant quarrelled with her being intoxicated and hit her head with

some blunt hard object for which she died.

As such, we are of the considered view that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. We are also of the view that he dealt blow on

the head of Putali Mahali in a fit of anger after having a quarrel with her. Earlier also quarrels between them were reported. No apparent reason has

been given by the prosecution for which the appellant would commit the murder of Putali Mahali. Therefore, although the appellant had no intention to

commit the murder of Putuli Mahali, he had knowledge that any such forceful assault made on the head might cause her death. We, accordingly, set

aside the impugned conviction and sentence of the trial court and hold appellant guilty of committing offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal

Code. The appellant has a minor daughter, who was just 3 years of age at the time of incident and the guidance of a father is of utmost importance for

her well being.Having said so, we alter his sentence to 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment. The fine imposed is, however, affirmed. The appellant is

in jail and has already served more than 6(six) years of jail sentence. Hence, he is directed to be released forthwith.

The appeal is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove.