Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 98 (TRI)

Ranjit Munda v. State of Tripura

2016-04-06

C.DAS, DEEPAK GUPTA

body2016
ORDER : S.C.Das, J. This criminal appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction of sentence dated 06.08.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Agartala, West Tripura in Sessions Trial Case No. S.T.18 of 2010. 2. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. R. Datta for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. C. Debnath for the State-respondent. 3. One Ramprasad Munda of village-South Kalkalia (Mundapara), P.S. Sidhai, West Tripura set the law in motion, lodging an FIR in writing, addressed to the O/C, Sidhai P.S. on 27.07.2009 at about 11:05 pm alleging that his daughter Smti. Anju Munda was given in marriage with accused Ranjit Munda about 5 years ago. Since after marriage, Anju Munda was subjected to physical assault and torture by accused Ranjit. On 15.07.2009 Anju was physically assaulted and put out of the matrimonial home. Having found no other alternative she took shelter in her paternal home, i.e., house of the informant, Ramprasad Munda. On 27.07.2009 at about 8:00 pm Ranjit Munda came to his house and had some altercation with Anju and thereafter he picked up a spade and hit on the head of Anju Munda causing severe bleeding injuries. Anju was shifted to Taltala Primary Health Centre and her condition was serious. 4. On the basis of that FIR, Sidhai P.S. Case No.55/2009 under Section 326 of IPC was registered and investigation was taken up by S.I., Partha Munda. The injured Anju Munda was shifted to G.B. hospital and she succumbed to the injuries at G.B. hospital on the following evening, i.e., on 28.07.2009 at about 6:00 pm. Section 302 of IPC was added after the death of Anju Munda. S.I. Sajal Dey of G.B. Police Outpost (P.W.7) prepared inquest report over the dead body of Anju Munda and thereafter postmortem examination was done by P.W.5, Dr. Pranab Choudhury. 5. Accused Ranjit Munda was caught red handed with the spade in his hand and was detained in the house of the informant. He was handed over to the I.O. on the night of occurrence itself. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused Ranjit Munda for causing murder of Anju Munda. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in course of trial framed charge under Section 302 of IPC and accused Ranjit Munda pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused Ranjit Munda for causing murder of Anju Munda. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in course of trial framed charge under Section 302 of IPC and accused Ranjit Munda pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents as well as the weapon of offence, i.e., spade, which is marked as Exbt.M.O.1. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in his turn the accused declined to adduce any evidence. He simply pleaded innocence. At the time of cross-examination of the material prosecution witnesses defence put suggestion that the informant and other members of his family used to deal with illicit liquor and Anju Munda raised protest and, therefore, she was killed by the inmates of the house of informant. 9. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 10. Anju Munda died a homicidal death is not disputed. She received severe head injuries in the dwelling hut of the informant, Ramprasad Munda, on 27.07.2009 at about 8:00 pm is also not disputed. 11. P.W.5, Dr. Pranab Choudhury, conducted postmortem examination over the dead body and in his deposition he stated that he found the following injuries : “1. stitched wound present on the right side of occipital region situated 2.4 c.m. right to mid line and 2.5 c.m. below the posterior occipital protubicine with 2 Nos. stitches measuring 1.8 c.m. in length. It is transbersaly place. 2. Stitched would present on the right side of occipital region with one No. stitch situated 2.2 c.m. below the injury No.1 measuring 1 c.m. in length and it is transbersaly place. 3. After removing the stitches injury look like lacerated wound. stitches measuring 1.8 c.m. in length. It is transbersaly place. 2. Stitched would present on the right side of occipital region with one No. stitch situated 2.2 c.m. below the injury No.1 measuring 1 c.m. in length and it is transbersaly place. 3. After removing the stitches injury look like lacerated wound. On removing the scalp there is defusion of extra vasated blood all over right side occipital and temporal region.” He has also stated in his deposition that all the injuries were antimortem in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object and in his opinion the cause of death was coma as a result of injury to the brain and compression of brain by extradural hemorrhage due to head injury by impact of some hard and blunt object. The Injury No.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually or in combination. In cross-examination he stated that the history of the case as per the police information was assault of the victim by her husband on 27.07.2009 at about 7:00 pm and then she was taken to G.B. hospital where she died on 28.07.2009 at 6:20 pm. He denied the suggestion that the report was submitted without proper examination. 12. It is, therefore, evident that Anju Munda died a homicidal death on receipt of severe head injuries. 13. The prosecution case is that the accused inflicted the injuries on the head of Anju Munda and as a result of which she died. 14. It is argued by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence that the accused inflicted the fatal blows on the head of Anju Munda. P.W.13, Bimala Munda, the mother of Anju Munda, also cannot be termed as an eyewitness since she has admitted that she was in a different room and was engaged in cooking when Anju Munda received the injuries. Other witnesses came to the spot after the incident and only found Anju Munda lying with severe bleeding injuries on head and she was not in a position to speak. Since there is no direct evidence that the accused inflicted the blows on the head of Anju Munda, the finding of the trial Court cannot stand and is liable to be interfered. 15. Since there is no direct evidence that the accused inflicted the blows on the head of Anju Munda, the finding of the trial Court cannot stand and is liable to be interfered. 15. Learned Additional P.P., on the other hand, has submitted that P.W.13 made clear statement that accused inflicted the blows on the head of Anju Munda by a spade. There is no cross-examination that P.W.13 did not see the occurrence. Simply because she stated that she was in another room and was engaged in cooking, that much of the statement is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that P.W.13 did not see the occurrence. It is also submitted by Mr. Debnath, learned Additional P.P. that there are material circumstantial evidence which has proved the charge framed against the accused and the circumstances lead to the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused and the accused has not come with any explanation to controvert the positive evidence led by the prosecution. 16. The incident occurred inside the dwelling hut of the informant. The accused is the husband of deceased Anju Munda. Other material witnesses, i.e., P.Ws 8 and 13 are the parents of the deceased and P.Ws 1 and 12 are the brothers of the deceased. They being the inmates of the house are also natural witnesses. For having proper appreciation of the evidence let us first go through the material part of the deposition of witnesses. 17. As already stated hereinbefore P.W.8 is the informant and is the father of the deceased. In his deposition he stated that Anju Munda was his younger daughter and she was given in marriage with accused Ranjit Munda five years ago. After marriage she started residing with accused Ranjit in his house in the same village. After about three years of marriage dispute cropped up between them (Ranjit and Anju) since Ranjit did not go to the work regularly. She used to ask Ranjit in this regard and, therefore, Ranjit used to assault her. Once being assaulted she came to his(witness) house, but they sent her back giving advice. About 8/9 months ago Anju again come to his house with complaint that she was being assaulted by Ranjit. For that reason she did not like to go back. After about fifteen days Ranjit came to his(witness) house and wanted to take Anju back. Once being assaulted she came to his(witness) house, but they sent her back giving advice. About 8/9 months ago Anju again come to his house with complaint that she was being assaulted by Ranjit. For that reason she did not like to go back. After about fifteen days Ranjit came to his(witness) house and wanted to take Anju back. Around 8:00 pm he was sitting outside the hut. Suddenly hearing cries he went to the hut and found Anju lying on the floor of the hut with bleeding injury on the back of her head. He also found Ranjit being detained by his son Amrit, Tupi Munda, Bhutto Munda and Sahadeb Deb. Anju was taken to Taltala PHC by Amrit, Sukhen and Sanjib sarkar and from there she was taken to G.B. hospital. Anju succumbed to her injuries on the following day. On the day of the incident, police came to his house and he handed over a complaint narrating the fact. It was written by Shibulal Shil and he put his signature. He proved his signature marked as Exbt.3/1. In cross examination he stated that he did not state in the complaint petition as well as before the police that the dispute started as Ranjit did not go for work. He also admitted that he did not state in his complaint and also in his statement to police that Anju came to his house and informed him that she was being assaulted by her husband and thereafter also she was sent back to her husband’s house. He dined the suggestion that in his house illicit liquor was sold to which Anju used to raise protest and, therefore, they have assaulted Anju and consequently she died. 18. P.W.13, Smt. Bimala Munda, is the mother of Anju Munda. In her deposition she stated that Anju Munda, her daughter, was given in marriage with accused Ranjit about five years ago. After marriage she resided in her husband’s house in the same village. After the marriage Ranjit started assault on Anju. Accused even used to give threat to kill Anju, which Anju told her while frequently visiting her house. About 8 months ago Anju last came to her house and stayed there for about 12 days. After marriage she resided in her husband’s house in the same village. After the marriage Ranjit started assault on Anju. Accused even used to give threat to kill Anju, which Anju told her while frequently visiting her house. About 8 months ago Anju last came to her house and stayed there for about 12 days. At that time on one evening around 8:00 pm suddenly Ranjit came to their(witness) house and taking a spade lying in the courtyard struck on the head of Anju. At that time Anju was breast feeding her son. Anju started screaming due to the bleeding injuries. Ranjit was caught by Amrit and other local people. Anju was shifted to G.B.hospital, where she died on the following day. She identified the spade, which was marked as Exbt.M.O.1. In cross-examination she stated that she was questioned by police on the date of incident itself. At the time of incident she was cooking food in the kitchen. Anju sustained injuries in another room. She denied the suggestion that Anju was killed by she(witness) and other members of the family and thereafter to save themselves a false case was filed against Ranjit. 19. P.W.1, Sri Tapan Munda, is the younger brother of deceased Anju. He stated that the relation between Anju and Ranjit after marriage was normal for about three years. Thereafter Ranjit started torturing and assaulting Anju. He even started threatening to kill her. His sister used to tell all those facts during her visit to their house. About 15 days before her death, Anju came to their house and informed that she was being assaulted by her husband and being afraid of she came to their house. She stayed in their house till her death. On the 27th day of the month around 7:30 pm Ranjit Munda came to their house and asked his sister Anju to return to the house of the accused, but she refused as she was being assaulted by him. Thereafter he(witness) went to the neighbouring house. Around 8:00 pm hearing hue and cry he returned home and found Anju lying in a pool of blood and she had injuries on the back side of her head. His mother Bimala Munda informed him that Ranjit had given the blow on Anju. He found Ranjit was kept tied in the house. Thereafter he(witness) went to the neighbouring house. Around 8:00 pm hearing hue and cry he returned home and found Anju lying in a pool of blood and she had injuries on the back side of her head. His mother Bimala Munda informed him that Ranjit had given the blow on Anju. He found Ranjit was kept tied in the house. His mother also informed him that Ranjit struck Anju with a spade lying in their house. Sukhen Debnath and Sanjib Sarkar shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there she was shifted to G.B. hospital, where she died on the following evening at about 6:00 pm. Anju was breast feeding her 10 months’ old son when Ranjit came there on that day. In cross-examination he stated that no case was lodged by them before the death of Anju relating to torture on her by the accused. He denied the suggestion that Anju was killed by the members of his family since she used to raise protest about the sale of illicit liquor. 20. P.W.12, Amrit Munda, brother of Anju, in his deposition stated that Anju was his younger sister and she was married to Ranjit about five years ago and she resided with Ranjit in his house. Ranjit used to slap Anju and often threatened her to kill. Being assaulted and threatened one day about 8 months ago she came to their house. She stayed with them for about 12 days. At that time one evening he (witness) returned home at about 7:00 pm and heard cries from the hut of his mother and immediately he rushed there and found Ranjit Munda near the door with a spade and was about to flee. He caught hold of him and tied him with the help of others. He found Anju lying in the floor with bleeding head injuries and she was screaming. His mother informed him that Ranjit had struck on the head of Anju. He along with others shifted Anju to the hospital where she died on the following day. In cross-examination he stated that he did not state to I.O. that his mother informed him that Ranjit had struck on the head of Anju. 21. His mother informed him that Ranjit had struck on the head of Anju. He along with others shifted Anju to the hospital where she died on the following day. In cross-examination he stated that he did not state to I.O. that his mother informed him that Ranjit had struck on the head of Anju. 21. P.W.2, Sanjib Sarkar, is a close neighbour of the informant and in his deposition the witness stated that on 27.07.2009 at about 8:00 pm he was in a shop near the house of Ramprasad Munda of his locality. Suddenly hearing cries from his house he rushed there and found Anju Munda lying in a pool of blood in the floor on the room and the house inmates caught Ranjit Munda. Immediately a Commander Jeep was arranged and he along with Tapan Munda and Sukhen Debnath shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there to G.B. hospital, Agartala. She died on the following evening. Amrit Munda, Ramprasad Munda and Bimala Munda informed him that Ranjit had struck on the head of Anju with a spade. Except denial and suggestions there is nothing in his cross-examination. 22. P.W.3, Sri Sukhen Debnath, is also a neighbour and in his deposition he stated that hearing hue and cry he went to the house of Ramprasad Munda and found Anju Munda lying in the floor with bleeding injuries and he also found Ranjit Munda was detained by the members of the house. He along with others shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there to G.B. hospital. 23. P.W.4, Shibu Munda, is a resident of the locality and close neighbour of the accused. In his deposition he stated that about 8 months ago one night at about 8:00 pm he was near a shop nearby the house of Ramprasad Munda. At that time hearing the cries he went to the house of Ramprasad Munda and found Ranjit Munda leaving the house with a spade in his hand and Amrit Munda was chasing him. He and Amrit caught Ranjit. Entering the hut he found Anju lying with bleeding injuries on the back of her head including right side of the face and he along with Sanjib, Sukhen, Babul Munda shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there to G.B. hospital. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and the Court allowed the prosecution to cross-examine the witness. Entering the hut he found Anju lying with bleeding injuries on the back of her head including right side of the face and he along with Sanjib, Sukhen, Babul Munda shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there to G.B. hospital. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and the Court allowed the prosecution to cross-examine the witness. At the time of cross-examination his previous statement “Going there I saw that after entering the room Ranjit Munda hit his wife on her head with a spade with the intention of killing her”. That part of the statement was marked as Exbt.1, subject to prove by I.O., which the witness denied to have made. In cross-examination by the prosecution he also stated that his house and the house of Ranjit Munda were nearby and they used to move together. He denied the suggestion that because of his closeness with the accused he suppressed a part of the material fact. He also stated that Anju came to her father’s house about 15 days before her death as Ranjit used to assault her. There is nothing material in the cross-examination made on behalf of the accused. 24. P.W.6, Sri Shanti Bhusan Bhuiya, is the O/C of Sidhai P.S., who registered the case. 25. P.W.7, Sri Sajal Dey, is a Sub Inspector of G.B. Outpost and he prepared the inquest report over the dead body. 26. P.W.9, Shibulal Shil, is the scribe of the FIR and he proved it. 27. P.W.10, Sri Babul Munda @ Mangal, in his deposition stated that Ranjit Munda and Ramprasad Munda were his neighbours. About eight months ago, one night around 8:00 pm hearing hue and cry he went to the house of Ramprasad Munda. Entering the house he found Anju Munda lying on the floor with bleeding head injuries and he found Ranjit Munda being detained by Amrit Munda with a spade in the hand of Ranjit. Amrit informed him that Ranjit had struck on the head of Anju. Bimala, wife of Ramprasad, was there in the house. Ramprasad was also there in the house. He along with others shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there to G.B. hospital. Anju succumbed to the injuries on the following day. The same day in his presence police seized the spade on the spot and he put his signature in the seizure list. Ramprasad was also there in the house. He along with others shifted Anju to Taltala PHC and from there to G.B. hospital. Anju succumbed to the injuries on the following day. The same day in his presence police seized the spade on the spot and he put his signature in the seizure list. He proved his signature marked as Exbt.7 and also proved the spade marked as Exbt.M.O.1. In cross-examination he stated that he did not state to the police that he found Amrit catching hold of Ranjit Munda. He also did not state to police that Amrit told him that Ranjit gave the blow on the head of Anju. He also did not state to police that Bimala and Ramprasad were at their house at that time. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of Ramprasad hearing cries and did not find Ranjit Munda detained there by Amrit and others. 28. P.W.11, Babul Munda, in his deposition stated that both Ranjit Munda and Ramprasad Munda were his neighbours. Ranjit was married to Anju, daughter of Ramprasad about 6 years ago. He found Anju to frequently come to her father’s house. She last came to her father’s house about 8 months back. After about 10 days of her arrival one night around 8:00 pm he was at his shop when he heard hue and cry in the house of Ramprasad. He did not go there immediately hearing the cries. After about two hours he went there when police arrived. He found Anju Munda with bleeding head injury. Ramprasad and Bimala informed him that Ranjit caused the injury striking Anju with a spade. He found Ranjit being detained by Amrit and others with the spade. Police seized the spade by preparing seizure list and he signed the seizure list as a witness. He proved his signature in the seizure list and identified the seized spade marked as Exbt.M.O.1. In cross-examination he stated that he did not state to the police that Ramprasad and Bimala informed him that Ranjit caused injuries. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of Ramprasad hearing cries and that Amrit and others did not detain Ranjit in the house of Ramprasad. 29. P.W.14, the I.O. of the case, has prepared a hand sketch map with index of the place of occurrence, which are marked as Exbt.8 series. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of Ramprasad hearing cries and that Amrit and others did not detain Ranjit in the house of Ramprasad. 29. P.W.14, the I.O. of the case, has prepared a hand sketch map with index of the place of occurrence, which are marked as Exbt.8 series. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred inside the dwelling hut of the informant. In the hand sketch map I.O. has shown a hut marked “A” as the place of occurrence. The fact that Anju received head injuries inside the dwelling hut of her father is not in dispute. P.W.13, Smt. Bimala Munda, according to the prosecution, is the eyewitness. She stated that suddenly Ranjit came to their house and taking a spade lying in the courtyard struck on the head of Anju. She being an illiterate lady put her thumb impression in the deposition sheet. It was the duty of the prosecution to bring it clearly on record that she had seen striking of the blows by the accused on the head of Anju. Apparently, it would appear that she had seen the accused striking on the head of Anju. At the same time in her cross-examination she stated that she was engaged in cooking food in the kitchen and Anju sustained injury in another room. There is also no cross-examination that the living hut where Anju was assaulted was not visible from the kitchen. No kitchen hut has been shown in the hand sketch map also. Neither the prosecution nor the defence made attempt to bring out clear statement from the mouth of P.W.13 that she had directly seen the occurrence or that she had not seen the occurrence. 30. A careful reading of the deposition of P.W.13 makes it abundantly clear that she was inside the living hut and Anju was assaulted in one room and she was cooking in another room. Nothing is before us either in her statement or in the deposition of I.O. that the living room where Anju was assaulted was visible or not visible from the kitchen room. As already discussed hereinbefore no kitchen room was separately shown in the hand sketch map. Nothing is before us either in her statement or in the deposition of I.O. that the living room where Anju was assaulted was visible or not visible from the kitchen room. As already discussed hereinbefore no kitchen room was separately shown in the hand sketch map. There is also no cross-examination from the side of the accused that the kitchen room was a separate hut than that of the living room which is marked as “A” in the hand sketch map. The evidence of a witness is to be evaluated with a sense of reality; with an awareness of life in its ordinary quality and not from unrealistic angle. Here the witness, i.e., P.W.13, is the mother of Anju and the mother-in-law of the accused. No doubt the witness lost her dear daughter, but in the given facts and circumstances of the case it does not appear that the witness made a false statement altogether. 31. It is a settled law that totality of evidence of a witness to be seen and not one or two sentences from it. Witnesses are normally classified as; (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two, conclusion may be arrived at by accepting or rejecting evidence. In the third, Court requires to be circumspect and to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial. In the given situation of the statement of P.W.13, we can neither wholly rely her nor reject her evidence and, therefore, we are of the view that we must look for other evidence on record direct or circumstantial. 32. Following aggravating circumstances have clearly been made out from the deposition of the witnesses, namely: (i) Marriage between Anju and the accused was solemnized about five years before the date of occurrence and thereafter they lived and cohabitated as husband and wife in the house of the husband in the same village. (ii) She was subjected to physical assault by the accused in the matrimonial home and, therefore, she often took shelter in her parental home. (iii) About 10/15 days before the date of occurrence she took shelter in her parental home, i.e., the house of the informant, Ramprasad Munda with her ten months old breast sucking baby for the accused beaten her out of the matrimonial home. (iii) About 10/15 days before the date of occurrence she took shelter in her parental home, i.e., the house of the informant, Ramprasad Munda with her ten months old breast sucking baby for the accused beaten her out of the matrimonial home. (iv) P.W.4, a neighbour and associate of the accused also stated that Anju came to her father’s house about 15 days before her death as the accused Ranjit used to assault her. (v) On 27.07.2009 at about 7:00/8:00 pm accused came to the house of the informant, i.e., the paternal house of Anju and asked Anju to return to the matrimonial home which she refused. (vi) P.W.13 was inside the dwelling hut and P.W.8 was outside the dwelling hut at that point of time. P.W.1 was in a neighbouring house and P.W.12 reached the house at that relevant point of time. (vii) P.Ws 1, 8 and 12 rushed to the dwelling hut hearing cries and found accused Ranjit with a spade in hand trying to flee away. (viii) Ranjit was caught with the spade by P.W.12 and others and was kept tied. (ix) P.W.4 also found the accused trying to leave the house of Ramprasad Munda with a spade in his hand and Amrit (P.W.12) chasing him and he and Amrit caught the accused Ranjit. (x) Neighbourers, i.e., P.Ws 2, 3, 10 and 11 on reaching the spot found Anju Munda lying in a pool of blood and Ranjit was detained. (xi) Police was reported immediately after the occurrence and the FIR was lodged within three hours. (xii) Accused was arrested from the spot by P.W.14, the I.O. and was taken to custody. (xiii) The weapon of offence, i.e., spade, was seized from the place of occurrence and proved as Exbt.M.O.3. 33. The above aggravating circumstances support the statement of P.W.13 and the circumstances are so complete that it excludes every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. 34. At the time of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.Ws 1, 8, 12 and 13, defence put some suggestions that the inmates of the house killed Anju since she raised protest in the selling of illicit liquor. A suggestion denied is no evidence. There is no iota of evidence at all to show that the inmates of the parental house of Anju were engaged in selling illicit liquor or that they had any intention to kill Anju. A suggestion denied is no evidence. There is no iota of evidence at all to show that the inmates of the parental house of Anju were engaged in selling illicit liquor or that they had any intention to kill Anju. 35. Circumstantial evidence means communication of facts creating a network from which there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference except the guilt of the accused. 36. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. He has also not uttered a single word in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to how his wife was killed. He is the husband of deceased Anju. Admittedly, Anju died a homicidal death. He was present in the house of his parents-in-law at the time of occurrence and it is proved with overwhelming evidence. He has failed to come out with any sort of explanation to controvert the aggravating circumstances. Normally in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the charge. But in a case where the accused is found shrouded with suspicion and is enmeshed in an incriminatory network of facts, an adverse inference should be drawn against the accused. 37. In the case at hand, the victim Anju came to take shelter in her parental home about 10/15 days before the date of occurrence alleging that she was assaulted by the accused and was put out of the matrimonial home. The accused came to the paternal home of Anju and intended to take her back, but she refused. Anju was engaged in breast feeding her baby. The accused picked up a spade from the house of the informant and hit on the head of Anju causing severe bleeding injuries and she succumbed to the injuries in the G.B. hospital on the following evening. The accused was caught with the spade and was kept tide by the inmates of the house and thereafter handed over to police immediately after the occurrence. The accused failed to create any dent in the prosecution story and so, the charge framed against him, in our considered opinion, has been proved. 38. Learned counsel, Mr. The accused was caught with the spade and was kept tide by the inmates of the house and thereafter handed over to police immediately after the occurrence. The accused failed to create any dent in the prosecution story and so, the charge framed against him, in our considered opinion, has been proved. 38. Learned counsel, Mr. Datta submitted that if the facts and circumstances of the case is relied, it would suggest that there was altercation between Anju and the accused and so, the offence might come under the purview of Section 304 Part-II of IPC. We have considered the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Datta. Anju received two fatal injuries on her head and the autopsy surgeon has opined that the injury Nos. 1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course individually or in combination. The accused hit on the head of his wife repeated blows (two blows) and both the blows caused severe damage to the head of the deceased and as a result she fell unconscious on the spot and could not speak. 39. Section 299 of IPC defines culpable homicide. Section 300 of IPC prescribes that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse or incurring the risk of causing death for such injury as aforesaid. 40. Illustration (c) to Section 300 of IPC is applicable here in the facts and circumstances of this case. Illustration (c) reads as follows : “(c) A intentionally gives Z a swordcut or clubwound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. 40. Illustration (c) to Section 300 of IPC is applicable here in the facts and circumstances of this case. Illustration (c) reads as follows : “(c) A intentionally gives Z a swordcut or clubwound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.” 41. There is no evidence at all to draw any inference that any of the exception as contained in Section 300 of IPC is applicable in this case. The victim is the wife of the accused. He dealt blows on the head of his wife with a spade which is a heavy substance and that has smashed the head of deceased. So, the intention of the accused is clear that he inflicted the blows with a view to cause death of the deceased and the blows were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the case, in our considered opinion, squarely comes under the purview of murder and we find no scope at all to accept the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Datta. 42. In view of the discussions made above, the criminal appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and hence, stands dismissed. The accused should serve out the sentence. 43. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.