Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 99 (TRI)

Prem Singh Gour v. State of Tripura

2020-07-20

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY, S.TALAPATRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict, the appellant hereinafter, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, Unakoti Judicial District in Sessions Trial number 45 of 2016 (T-I) whereby the learned trial court found the appellant guilty and on conviction sentenced him to imprisonment for life (RI) and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in short, IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Kamalpur PS case number 16 of 2015 was registered under section 302, IPC against the appellant on the basis of the first information report (FIR) lodged by Sri. Pradip Gour [PW-4] with the Officer in Charge of Kamalpur Police Station at 10.10 pm on 12th March, 2015 alleging inter alia that his appellant father had killed his mother at about 07.30 pm on the day. It was alleged by PW-4 in his FIR that at about 07.30 pm, his appellant father had given several fatal blows with a dao [sharp cutting weapon] on her mother Smt. Droupadi Gour in their dwelling hut in presence his sisters. As a result, his mother received bleeding injuries and fell unconscious. Seeing the incident, his sisters raised hue and cry and the neighbouring people appeared at the spot. His injured mother was then taken to BSM hospital at Kamalpur, where she was declared dead. 3. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sri. Subhankar Debbarma [PW-18] who carried out major part of the investigation. After he was transferred to elsewhere before completing the investigation, the last part of the investigation was conducted by Sri. Satya Baman Debbarma [PW-17] who on conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 302, IPC sending up the appellant for trial. 4. On receiving the charge sheet and the case diary, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kamalpur had taken cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur where the trial began with the framing of charge. 5. 4. On receiving the charge sheet and the case diary, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kamalpur had taken cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur where the trial began with the framing of charge. 5. The learned trial court after perusal of the prosecution papers had framed the charge against the appellant which is as under: "That you on 12.03.2015 at 07.30 pm in your residential house situated at Mahavir T.E. under Kamalpur Police Station committed murder, by intentionally causing the death of Smt. Droupodi Gour and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge." The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 6. To substantiate the charge under section 302, IPC against the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 18 [eighteen] witnesses [PW-1 to PW-18]. Among them PW-1 is Dr. Anjan Das, a medical officer of BSM hospital, Kamalpur who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased along with his colleague Dr. Pranab Debbarma. PW-2, Sri. Sanjoy Gowala is a neighbour of the deceased who arrived at the spot immediately after the occurrence and found the deceased lying with bleeding injuries on her head. PW-3, Smt. Madhuri Gour is another neighbour of the deceased who stood in the witness box and said that she had no knowledge about the occurrence. PW-4, Sri. Pradip Gour is the first informant, son of the deceased. PW-5, Smt. Dulali Gour is one of the daughters of the deceased who noticed her father leaving the hut with blood stained dao in his hand where her mother was found lying dead with bleeding injuries. PW-6, Smt. Mongali Gour is another daughter of the deceased. PW-7, Sri. Biswa Gour is another neighbour of the deceased who also appeared at the spot immediately after the occurrence. PW-8, Sri. Subal Tati is another neighbour of the deceased who only heard about the occurrence. PW-9, Dr. Pranab Debbarma is a medical officer who along with PW-1 conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. PW-10, Sri. PW-7, Sri. Biswa Gour is another neighbour of the deceased who also appeared at the spot immediately after the occurrence. PW-8, Sri. Subal Tati is another neighbour of the deceased who only heard about the occurrence. PW-9, Dr. Pranab Debbarma is a medical officer who along with PW-1 conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. PW-10, Sri. Achinta Sinha is another neighbour of the deceased from whose house the weapon of offence was recovered at the behest of the appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement. PW-11, Sri. Janardhan Sinha was a guest in the house of his daughter Smt. Sapna Sinha on the day when police came there along with the appellant and recovered the weapon of offence which was kept hidden by the appellant in the staircase of the house. PW-12, Sri. Amrit Debnath is the scribe of the FIR [Exbt. 3(b)]. PW-13, Sri. Richard J. Lalnunkima was a Deputy Magistrate & Collector who accompanied the investigating Police Officer day after the occurrence to the place from where the weapon of offence was recovered at the behest of the appellant. PW-14, Sri. Pradip Debbarma was another Deputy Collector & Magistrate who heard the appellant making the disclosure statement [Exbt. 6]. PW-15, Sri. Ratan Uria is another neighbour of the deceased who came to know from others about the death of the wife of the appellant. PW-16, Smt. Sunati Uria is another neighbour of the deceased who also heard about the occurrence from her neighbours. PW-17, Sri. Satya Baman Debbarma is the second IO of the case who submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. PW-18, Sri. Subhankar Debbarma was one of the Investigating Officers who carried out the major part of the investigation of the case. 7. Apart from the ocular testimony of the witnesses, prosecution relied on 15 [fifteen] documents [Exbt. 1-Exb. 15] to prove the case against the accused. 8. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over, the appellant was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. He made the following statement during his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C. in reply to question number 22: "Question 22: Are you willing to say anything more?" "Answer: I am innocent. She used to meet with Dulan Gowala and Sudhir Munda at night and had illicit relationship. She used to meet with Dulan Gowala and Sudhir Munda at night and had illicit relationship. She herself disclosed the same." The appellant further stated in his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C. in reply to question number 1 that he was in market at the relevant time and having returned home from the market he came to know about the incident. He denied to have killed his wife. Though opportunity was given, no evidence was adduced on his defence. 9. On the culmination of trial, the learned trial judge after hearing the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record found the appellant guilty and on his conviction under section 302, IPC sentenced him to RI for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/- which is under challenge before us. 10. The sole point for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the charge under section 302, IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. It is submitted by Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstances must be complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of accused. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, there are missing links in the chain of circumstances in this case particularly with regard to recovery of the weapon of offence. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, the dao which was found in the hand of the appellant by his daughter [PW-5] was stated to be stained with blood but the dao which was seized by police as the weapon of offence had no blood stain on it and even in its forensic test, blood stain could not be detected. It is, therefore, argued by learned counsel that conviction of the appellant on the basis of such evidence is grossly erroneous and unsustainable. 12. It is further argued by learned counsel of the appellant that if for argument's sake it is assumed that the weapon was discovered, the discovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused alone would not lead to his conviction unless a link between the discovery and the commission of the offence is established. In support of his contention Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. In support of his contention Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724 wherein the Apex Court vide paragraph 25 has held as follows: "25.........With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution." 13. Further submission on behalf of the appellant is that apart from the discovery evidence there is no other evidence against the accused because none had seen the accused killing his wife. According to learned counsel, the discovery evidence is very weak piece of evidence and on the basis of discovery evidence alone conviction of the appellant cannot be held to be sustainable. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 14 SCC 609 wherein the Apex Court vide paragraph 18 & 19 has held as follows: "18......... It is to be emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. Insofar as these two appellants are concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they were with Rajinder Thakur till Sainj and the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful. The chain should be such that no other conclusion, except the guilt of the accused person, is discernible without any doubt. Insofar as these two appellants are concerned, there is no circumstance attributed except that they were with Rajinder Thakur till Sainj and the alleged disclosure leading to recoveries, which appears to be doubtful. When we look into all these facts in entirety in the aforesaid context, we find that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to convict the appellant only on the basis of the aforesaid recoveries." "19......... In Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu this Court made the following pertinent observation on this very aspect: (SCC p. 279, para 26) 26......... The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case." 14. It is further contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel that no link between the discovery of the weapon and the commission of the crime has been established in this case and no motive for committing the murder of his wife has been established against the appellant and the other circumstances do not also stand established against him beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the appellant deserves the order of acquittal. In this regard, learned counsel has relied on the decision of this High Court in Rabindra Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura reported in (2019) 2 TLR 363. 15. Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand has contended that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant killed his wife in his dwelling hut which was witnessed by one of his daughters and thereafter the weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement from the adjoining house. According to Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., the medical evidence has also proved deep incised wound on the neck and scalp of the deceased and the autopsy surgeons were of the opinion that the cause of the death was due to hemorrhagic shock which was homicidal in nature. According to learned Addl. P.P., the learned trial judge rightly found the appellant guilty and convicted him on proper appreciation of evidence and finding of the learned trial judge does not call for any interference in appeal. According to learned Addl. P.P., the learned trial judge rightly found the appellant guilty and convicted him on proper appreciation of evidence and finding of the learned trial judge does not call for any interference in appeal. Learned Addl. P.P., therefore, urges us for dismissing the appeal. 16. For the purpose of appreciating the submissions made by learned counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to take a brief stock of the evidence recorded before the learned trial court. 17. From a perusal of the evidence of Sri. Pradip Gour [PW-4], it appears that the PW was away from home when his mother was killed in the house. Immediately after he received the information he rushed into his house and found his mother lying dead inside the dwelling hut with bleeding injuries on her body. He shifted her to Kamalpur hospital where she was declared dead. The PW has asserted in his examination in chief that when the incident took place his two sisters namely Smt. Dulali Gour [PW-5] and Smt. Mongali Gour [PW-6] were present in the house. On the same day the PW lodged the FIR [Exbt. 3(b)] at the police station. We have also taken note of the cross examination of the PW. A suggestion was put to him on behalf of the appellant that some villagers reported to the PW that his mother was attacked by some unknown persons. The suggestion was straightaway denied by the PW. To the query of the learned trial judge, the PW told the court that his sisters Dulali and Mongali told him that their father killed their mother. Apart from putting few suggestions to the PW, the accused could not extract any material from the PW to shake his evidence. His statement made out in his examination in chief remains unaffected in his cross examination. 18. Smt. Dulali Gour [PW-5] is the daughter of the deceased who has asserted that she was watching TV along with her mother in their dwelling hut at about 6 O'clock in the fateful evening. Her mother had taken break and she went to the kitchen and after taking water she was taking betel nut. She then saw her father going out with a blood stained dao in his hand. She raised cry seeing the weapon. Her mother had taken break and she went to the kitchen and after taking water she was taking betel nut. She then saw her father going out with a blood stained dao in his hand. She raised cry seeing the weapon. Her elder sister [PW-6] also came out and saw their mother lying on the floor of the room with bleeding injuries. Following their cry, the neighbouring people gathered in their house. Seeing them her father left home. Her injured mother was also not able to speak. After her brother [PW-4] arrived home, her injured mother was taken to hospital. The PW stated that when her mother was killed, her elder sister Mongali [PW-6] was in the kitchen. The same suggestion which was put to her first informant brother [PW-4] was also put to this witness. It was suggested to her that some unknown persons killed her mother. The PW denied the suggestion. She also denied the suggestion that she did not see her father going out with blood stained dao. In her cross examination, she also stated that there was no dispute between her deceased mother and father and she did not hear any cry of her mother at the time of occurrence. We have noticed no contradiction on any material point in the statement of the witness and her evidence appears to be absolutely consistent and trustworthy. 19. Smt. Mongali Gour [PW-6], daughter of the deceased has asserted in her examination in chief that at the material time she was cooking food in the kitchen which was located at a distance of 2/3 cubits from their dwelling hut and their dwelling hut had two rooms. From the kitchen she heard cry of her younger sister Dulali [PW-5] and following the cry of her sister she arrived at the dwelling hut and saw her mother lying there with cut injury on her neck. The neighbouring people also gathered there and her mother was shifted to hospital. In her examination in chief, she stated that her marriage took place after the death of her mother. In her cross examination, she stated that few days before the occurrence a thief came to their house who was chased by the villagers. 20. Sri. The neighbouring people also gathered there and her mother was shifted to hospital. In her examination in chief, she stated that her marriage took place after the death of her mother. In her cross examination, she stated that few days before the occurrence a thief came to their house who was chased by the villagers. 20. Sri. Biswa Gour [PW-7] is a neighbour of the deceased who appeared at the spot immediately after the occurrence and found the deceased lying in the courtyard with bleeding injuries on her neck. 21. Sri. Subal Tati [PW-8] did not also see the occurrence. He came to know about the occurrence from others. Two days after the occurrence police seized blood stained soil from the dwelling hut of the deceased in his presence and he signed the seizure list as witness. 22. Dr. Pranab Debbarma [PW-9] held post mortem examination along with Dr. Anjan Das [PW-1] on the body of the deceased on 13.03.2015 and during post mortem he found several injuries on the body of the deceased including one deep incised wound over the right side of her neck measuring 8 x 3 x 3 c.m. According to the PW, the incised wound over the neck was sufficient to cause death of the deceased and the wound was probably caused by a sharp cutting weapon. About the cause of death, the PW opined that her death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock which was homicidal in nature. The post mortem report has been exhibited at the trial as Exbt. 1. 23. Dr. Anjan Das [PW-1] has also supported the evidence of Dr. Pranab Debbarma [PW-9] with whom he held the post mortem examination of the body of deceased Draupadi Gour on 13.03.2015 in Kamalpur hospital. The evidence of the PW with regard to his observation is as follows: "During autopsy we observed deep incised wound on the right side of the neck extending from the midline of the neck upto just above angle of right scapula measuring about 8 x 3 x 3 c.m. On opening it was found that sternocleido-mastoid, trapezium, anterior and posterior scalene muscle were affected along with external jugular, carotid, internal carotid and common carotid vein were also injured. The injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. In our opinion the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock which is homicidal in nature. The injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. In our opinion the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock which is homicidal in nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The death had occurred within 48 hours of our autopsy." 24. Sri. Achinta Sinha [PW-10] is a neighbour of the appellant in his adjoining house. Being a neighbour, he knew the deceased, her appellant husband and other members of their family. According to him both the appellant and his wife used to work under him as day labourers. When police came to conduct a search for arresting the appellant, the PW came to know that he killed his wife Smt. Droupadi Gour. 2/3 days thereafter police again came along with the appellant. The appellant in presence of the PW brought out a dao which was kept hidden by him under stairs in the house of the PW. The Dao was then seized by police and as a witness the PW signed the seizure list. In his cross examination, the PW stated that the appellant worked in his house as a labourer for about 7/8 years. He also stated in his cross examination that the accused did not work on the date of the occurrence. The PW also stated that he could not say who was the owner of the dao when the seized weapon [Exbt. MO1] was shown to the PW during the trial. He told the court that he could not say with certainty whether the same dao was found out by the accused from his house. 25. Sri. Janardhan Sinha [PW-11] is another discovery witness. This PW is the father in law of PW-10 who was a guest in the house of PW-10 when police came there along with the appellant in the morning at about 8/9 O'clock. The PW witnessed the appellant going to the stair case of the house and bringing out a dao which was kept concealed in the stair case. The PW identified the dao [Exbt. MO1] at the trial and confirmed that the same dao was discovered at the behest of the appellant in his presence. In cross examination, the PW gave more details about how the dao was recovered. He also stated in his cross examination that in his presence the investigating Police Officer asked the accused where he kept the dao. MO1] at the trial and confirmed that the same dao was discovered at the behest of the appellant in his presence. In cross examination, the PW gave more details about how the dao was recovered. He also stated in his cross examination that in his presence the investigating Police Officer asked the accused where he kept the dao. The accused brought out the dao from the stair case. The evidence of the PW remains unembellished in cross examination. 26. Sri. Amrit Debnath [PW-12] scribed the ejahar [Exbt. 3(b)] which was filed by Sri. Pradip Gour [PW-4] at the police station. On behalf of the appellant it was suggested to the PW that the ejahar was not written as per the version of the informant which was straightaway denied by the PW. 27. Sri. Richard J. Lalnunkima [PW-13] was an Executive Magistrate at Kamalpur. At around 10.30 am on 14.03.2015 i.e. the day after the occurrence, the PW accompanied the Police Officer [PW-18] to the house of PW-10. Having reached there, the appellant went to the staircase of the building and brought out the dao which was kept concealed by him under stairs. The investigating Police Officer [PW-18] then seized the dao in presence of the PW. In his cross examination, the PW stated that he was not sure as to whether the owner of the house was present at the time of recovery of the weapon of offence. The PW denied the suggestion that the appellant did not recover the dao. 28. Sri. Pradip Debbarma [PW-14] is a disclosure witness in whose presence the disclosure statement was recorded by police. According to the PW, the appellant made the disclosure statement in his presence and he certified that the disclosure statement was recorded in his presence. The statement on identification is marked as Exbt. 6. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not notice any sign of injury on the body of the accused when he was at the police station. The PW did not also see the appellant in handcuff. He denied the suggestion of the appellant that the disclosure statement was not made in his presence. 29. Sri. Ratan Uria [PW-15], a neighbour of the deceased learnt from his neighbours that the appellant killed his wife. Day after the occurrence the police came to the spot and seized blood stained soil in his presence. 30. He denied the suggestion of the appellant that the disclosure statement was not made in his presence. 29. Sri. Ratan Uria [PW-15], a neighbour of the deceased learnt from his neighbours that the appellant killed his wife. Day after the occurrence the police came to the spot and seized blood stained soil in his presence. 30. Smt. Sunati Uria [PW-16] also told that he learnt from her neighbours that the wife of the appellant was killed. The PW said that she had no idea as to who killed the wife of the appellant. The PW was then declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. 31. Sri. Subhankar Debbarma [PW-18] is the investigating Police Officer who had conducted the major part of the investigation. After him the investigation was carried out by PW-17. PW-17 simply collected the Forensic report from State Forensic Science Laboratory and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. During his part of investigation, PW-18 held inquest over the body of the deceased in BSM hospital at Kamalpur in presence of the son [PW-4] of the deceased and other inquest witnesses. Therefrom, the PW went to the spot and seized blood stained soil from the dwelling house of the deceased vide seizure list [Exbt. 4(2)]. Thereafter, the PW collected blood sample of the deceased from hospital. He was informed that the accused was hiding in a jungle. Day after the occurrence he arrested the accused appellant from the jungle at about 12.35 pm. Before he was produced in court the appellant made statement to the PW that he had kept the weapon of offence viz. dao concealed in the house of his employer Sri. Akhshay Sinha, father of Sri. Achinta Sinha [PW-10]. PW-10 was then examined by the investigating Police Officer and it was known from the PW that after committing the offence the accused took shelter in his house where he was given food by the PW-10 and the appellant spent the night in the cow shed of the house before he escaped into the jungle. The investigating Police Officer [PW-18] recorded the disclosure statement [Exbt. 6] of the witness in presence of Executive Magistrate [PW-14] and pursuant to the disclosure statement, the weapon of offence viz. dao [Exbt. MO1] was recovered from under the stairs in the house of Sri. The investigating Police Officer [PW-18] recorded the disclosure statement [Exbt. 6] of the witness in presence of Executive Magistrate [PW-14] and pursuant to the disclosure statement, the weapon of offence viz. dao [Exbt. MO1] was recovered from under the stairs in the house of Sri. Akhshay Sinha, father of PW-10 and whole process of recovery was videographed by the investigating Police Officer. Thereafter, the PW collected the post mortem examination report [Exbt. 1] from the hospital wherein it was reported that Smt. Droupadi Gour died as a result of hemorrhagic shock which is homicidal in nature. The investigation of the case was then endorsed to Sri. Satya Baman Debbarma [PW-17] due to transfer of PW-18 to elsewhere. 32. Sri. Satya Baman Debbarma [PW-17] has deposed that he collected the forensic report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory and after perusal of the statements of the witnesses and evidence collected during investigation, he found prima facie case against the appellant and submitted charge sheet against him under section 302, IPC. 33. It is apparent on the face of the record that the prosecution case is fully based on circumstantial evidence. In view of this matter, it needs to be established that the chain of circumstances was complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. 34. The learned trial judge relied on the law culled out by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 and highlighted on the following circumstances vide paragraph 34 of the judgment for drawing up the conclusion of guilt of the appellant: "34. Applying the principles of appreciation of the circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Apex Court to the case on hand, the following circumstances are found in the prosecution evidence: i. Deceased and PW-5 (younger daughter of deceased) were watching TV in a room, ii. The deceased went out the TV room to drink water iii. Immediate after that accused Prem Singh Gour was seen to leave the adjacent room with a blood-stained 'Dao' to which PW-5 has cried out iv. Thereafter the body of the deceased was found lying with bleeding injury in the adjacent room v. The death was homicidal and that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon marked in the case vi. Thereafter the body of the deceased was found lying with bleeding injury in the adjacent room v. The death was homicidal and that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon marked in the case vi. That the accused fled and was found hiding at Devicherra after the incident and vii. That on arrest of the accused the weapon of offence 'Dao' was recovered by the I.O. at the instance of accused. 35. Unquestionably, the death of Smt. Droupadi Gour, wife of the appellant was homicidal in nature. In the inquest report, proved as Exbt. 10, Sri. Subhankar Debbarma [PW-18] who held the inquest found deep cut injuries on the neck of the deceased which has been supported by the post mortem report, proved as Exbt. 1. Dr. Anjan Das [PW-1] who held the post mortem examination also found the deceased having deep incised wound on the right side of the neck of the deceased extending from the middle of the neck upto just above angle of right scapula measuring about 8 X 3 X 3 c.m. According to Dr. Das[PW-1], all injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon and those were anti mortem in nature. In the opinion part of the PM examination report [Exbt. 1] it was specifically opined by him as follows: "In my opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock which was homicidal in nature." Therefore, the fact that deceased Smt. Droupadi Gour died a homicidal death as a result of injuries inflicted to her by a sharp cutting weapon stands established beyond reasonable doubts. 36. With regard to the involvement of the appellant in the alleged murder of the deceased, Smt. Dulali Gour [PW-5] who is the daughter of the deceased as well as of the appellant, has held her appellant father responsible for the death of her mother. As discussed above, she has categorically stated at the trial that her father killed her mother. According to her, in the fateful evening she and her mother were watching TV in their dwelling hut. Her mother had taken a break to have a glass of water and betel nut from the adjoining room. Soon after her mother went to there, she noticed her father coming out from there with a blood stained dao in his hand. According to her, in the fateful evening she and her mother were watching TV in their dwelling hut. Her mother had taken a break to have a glass of water and betel nut from the adjoining room. Soon after her mother went to there, she noticed her father coming out from there with a blood stained dao in his hand. She cried out and rushed into the adjoining room where she found her mother lying with bleeding injuries. Her elder sister also came there and following their hue and cry, the neighbouring people also appeared there. Her appellant father then left the house. It has, thus, become abundantly clear from her evidence that after killing his wife the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. Nothing has come out from her cross examination to infer that she [PW-5] had a strained relationship with her appellant father for any reason, whatsoever, to falsely involve him in the case. Both the appellant father and her deceased mother were equally dear to her and in all probability, being the daughter, she would be the last person to screen the actual assailant of her mother and falsely implicate her father. Had she been hostile to her father for any reason, she could have exaggerated her statement and said that she had seen her father chopping her mother with the dao. But, she made no exaggeration at all. She said only what she saw with her own eyes. Furthermore, she is a literate lady and at the time of occurrence she was quite matured in age and understanding. Her evidence has also remained unshaken and unembellished in cross examination. We have no doubt about the truthfulness of her statement and there is no reason for disbelieving her evidence. 37. It is quite true that though her elder sister Smt. Mongali Gour [PW-6] was also present in the house when her mother was killed, Mongali did not give any evidence involving her appellant father in the murder of her mother which took place inside their dwelling hut. According to her, the main dwelling hut in their house had two rooms and there was a separate kitchen where she was working at the time of occurrence. According to her, the main dwelling hut in their house had two rooms and there was a separate kitchen where she was working at the time of occurrence. Following the cry of her younger sister Dulali, she came out and found her mother lying with bleeding injuries on her neck inside one of the rooms in their dwelling hut. The villagers also came there following their cry. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not see as to who caused the injuries of her mother. Noticeably, she did not also say anything to exculpate her father from the charge of the murder of her mother. Her brother, Sri. Pradip Gour[PW-4], on the other hand, in reply to a question asked by the presiding judge of the trial court during his cross examination has categorically stated that having returned home immediately after the occurrence when he asked his sisters as to who killed their mother, both of his sisters told him that their appellant father had killed their mother. 38. There is clear and abundant evidence that immediately after the occurrence, the appellant fled from the crime scene. No witness had seen him in his house after his wife was killed. In his reply to question number 01 during his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C., he categorically stated that he was in the local market at the time of occurrence and he came to know about the occurrence after returning from market. For argument's sake, even if we believe his statement, in all probability he, being the husband of the deceased, would be seen in the house or at least in the hospital after he heard about the murder of his wife. But, none of his daughters and son and even none of the neighbours had seen him anywhere after the murder of his wife. 39. Rather, the investigating Police Officer [PW-18] in his convincing and persuasive evidence, unembellished in cross examination, has stated that he arrested the accused day after the occurrence from his hide out at Devicherra jungle. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the appellant resorted to falsehood in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated in reply to question number 04 that he was away from home in the market when the occurrence took place. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the appellant resorted to falsehood in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated in reply to question number 04 that he was away from home in the market when the occurrence took place. This was clearly an attempt on the part of the appellant to absolve himself from the charge of the murder of his wife by stating falsehood. 40. As regards the plea of alibi taken by the appellant, we have examined the plea in the light of the evidence and the facts and circumstances brought on record. The alibi set up by the appellant is that he was in the local market when his wife was killed and therefore, it was physically impossible for him to kill his wife. The Apex Court has culled out the law of alibi in Jumni and Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 11 SCC 355 wherein it has been held as follows: "20. It is no doubt true that when an alibi is set up, the burden is on the accused to lend credence to the defence put up by him or her. However the approach of the court should not be such as to pick holes in the case of the accused person. The defence evidence has to be tested like any other testimony, always keeping in mind that a person is presumed innocent until he or she is found guilty. 21. Explaining the essence of a plea of alibi, it was observed in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166 ] that: "19......... The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed." This was more elaborately explained in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (1997) 1 SCC 283 ] in the following words: "22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant." Illustration (a) given under Section 11 of the Evidence Act is then partially reproduced in the decision, but it is fully reproduced below: "(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant." 22. This Court then went on to say, [Binay kumar Singh case (supra)] "23. The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi." This view was reiterated in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat. (2002) 8 SCC 165] 23. On the standard of proof, it was held in Mohinder Singh v. State AIR 1953 SC 415 ] that the standard of proof required in regard to a plea of alibi must be the same as the standard applied to the prosecution evidence and in both cases it should be a reasonable standard. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) goes a step further and seeks to bury the ghost of disbelief that shadows alibi witnesses, in the following words:(Dudh Nath case)(supra) "19....... Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses." 41. We have examined the plea of alibi of the appellant in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court. It is noted by us that Smt. Dulali Gour[PW-5], daughter of the appellant has given unimpeachable evidence with regard to the presence of her appellant father at the crime scene. She noticed her father leaving the house with a blood stained Dao and immediately thereafter, the blood smeared body of her mother with deep cut injury on her neck was discovered by the PW from their dwelling hut. In these circumstances the plea of alibi of the appellant without any legal proof is totally unacceptable. 42. As regards the recovery of the weapon of offence viz. Dao [Exbt. In these circumstances the plea of alibi of the appellant without any legal proof is totally unacceptable. 42. As regards the recovery of the weapon of offence viz. Dao [Exbt. MO1], the prosecution version is that it was recovered at the instance of the appellant by Sri. Subhankar Debbarma [PW-18] from the house of Sri. Akhshay Sinha, father of Sri. Achinta Sinha [PW-10] pursuant to the disclosure statement [Exbt. 6] of the appellant. With regard to the disclosure statement we have found that Sri. Sanjoy Gowala [PW-2], Sri. Pradip Debbarma [PW-14] and Sri. Ratan Uria [PW-15] were made disclosure witnesses in whose presence the disclosure statement was allegedly made by the appellant. Among them Sri. Sanjoy Gowala [PW-2] and Sri. Ratan Uria [PW-15] are silent about such disclosure statement being made in their presence. None of these PWs heard the appellant passing on such disclosure information to the Investigating Officer [PW-18]. Similarly, Pradip Debbarma [PW-14] said that a disclosure statement was made by the appellant in his presence but the PW in his testimony did not say anything about the contents of the disclosure statement. He never said that he heard the appellant saying to PW-18 that he hid the dao in the house of Sri. Akhshay Sinha. In these circumstances we cannot rely on the disclosure statement [Exbt. 6] recorded by PW-18. Moreover, there was no blood stain on the weapon seized by police. Though the recovery witnesses namely Sri. Achinta Sinha [PW-10] and Sri. Janardhan Sinha [PW-11] supported the seizure of the weapon at the instance of the appellant from the house of one Sri. Akhshay Sinha, father of Sri. Achinta Sinha [PW-10] only two days after the occurrence, admittedly no blood stain was found on the seized weapon [Exbt. MO1]. In this regard PW-18, the Investigating Officer of this case in his cross examination has categorically stated that there was no visible blood stain on the Dao. Though the seized weapon was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic examination, no forensic report has been proved at the trial. Therefore, it cannot be said without doubt that the said weapon was used for committing the murder of the deceased. As a result, we are unable to accept the recovery evidence produced by the prosecution. 43. Though the seized weapon was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic examination, no forensic report has been proved at the trial. Therefore, it cannot be said without doubt that the said weapon was used for committing the murder of the deceased. As a result, we are unable to accept the recovery evidence produced by the prosecution. 43. It is clear from the above that except the recovery of the weapon all other links in the chain of circumstances have been satisfactorily proved in this case. It has been proved that the deceased was watching TV in her house with her younger daughter Smt. Dulali Gour [PW-5]. While watching TV the deceased had gone to the adjoining room to have a glass of water and betel nut. Soon thereafter, Smt. Dulali Gour [PW-5] had seen her father getting out of the room with a blood stained Dao in his hand and immediately thereafter, Dulali and her elder sister Mongali found their mother lying with deep cut injury on her neck in the adjoining room. In post mortem examination Dr. Anjan Das [PW-1] who held the post mortem found deep incised wound caused by sharp cutting weapon on the neck of the deceased and opined in his PM report [Exbt.-1] that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock which was homicidal in nature. It has also been proved that the appellant fled from his house after the occurrence. His daughter, PW-5, has categorically stated that when the people started gathering in their house his father left the house. It is also proved that the investigating officer of the case arrested the accused from his hide out in Devicherra Jungle day after the occurrence. The accused on the other hand could not prove the plea of alibi set up by him in his defence. A complete chain of circumstances against the accused is thus proved which unerringly point to his guilt. 44. The prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only on the ground of absence of adequate proof in respect of recovery of weapon of offence. In this regard the Apex Court in Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabir Singh and Ors. reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 while addressing a similar issue held as follows: "47. 44. The prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only on the ground of absence of adequate proof in respect of recovery of weapon of offence. In this regard the Apex Court in Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabir Singh and Ors. reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 while addressing a similar issue held as follows: "47. The next line of contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the recovery evidence was false and fabricated. We feel no need to address this issue since it had already been validly discarded by the Trial court while convicting the respondents. In any case, it is an established proposition of law that mere non-recovery of weapon does not falsify the prosecution case where there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence. [See Lakahan Sao Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 82 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh & Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 115 and Manjit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 746 ]." 45. As regards the motive of the appellant to commit the crime, prosecution could not establish any clear motive against the appellant. But, the appellant in reply to question number 22 in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. said that his deceased wife maintained illicit relationship with two persons and she used to meet them during night. Even though, no definite conclusion about motive can be drawn from such statement, in the given facts situation, it was quite likely that such suspicion of the appellant against his wife manifested itself in the outburst of his anger against her resulting in her murder. Even though, there is no clear proof of motive in this case, there is ample evidence worthy of reliance against the appellant as to the charge of murder brought against him and such evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of proof of motive. 46. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court. The evidence of the daughter [PW-5] of the appellant that she saw her appellant father leaving the house with a blood stained dao in his hand and immediately thereafter the blood smeared body of her mother with deep incised wound on her neck was recovered from their house is unimpeachable. The evidence of the daughter [PW-5] of the appellant that she saw her appellant father leaving the house with a blood stained dao in his hand and immediately thereafter the blood smeared body of her mother with deep incised wound on her neck was recovered from their house is unimpeachable. It has also been established by unflinching medical evidence that the deceased died of homicidal death and the cause of her death was hemorrhagic shock resulting from anti mortem injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon. The fact that the appellant fled from his house after the occurrence and he was later apprehended by police from a jungle also stands established. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the recovery of the weapon of offence could not be proved satisfactorily cannot demolish the prosecution case. Rather, from the aforesaid chain of circumstances established against the accused, no other conclusion except the guilt of the appellant can be drawn. 47. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. Resultantly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is affirmed.