Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 476 (JHR)

Sunit Beck v. State of Jharkhand

2021-06-29

RATNAKER BHENGRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Simdega PS Case No. 69 of 2012 was lodged on 01.06.2012 under Sections 302/201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the written report of David Sunil Kumar Minj. 2. Sunit Beck, Mariana Tigga @ Marium and Patrick Beck have faced the trial in ST No. 207 of 2012 on the charge of committing murder of Jasinta Minj in the intervening night of 31.05.2012/01.06.2012. 3. By the judgment dated 15.12.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega has convicted and sentenced Sunit Beck, Mariana Tigga and Patrick Beck to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with default stipulation to undergo further sentence of RI for 1½ years. The accused were further convicted and sentenced to RI for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 14 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 4. The convict Patrick Beck who had preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 85 of 2015 died on 11.07.2018 and since there was no application for substitution filed by the legal heirs/ successors of Patrick Beck, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 85 of 2015 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.04.2021. 5. In his written report, David Sunil Kumar Minj who is the elder brother of Jasinta Minj has stated that his sister was married to Sunit Beck on 17.01.2006 and soon after the marriage his sister informed him that her husband has illicit relationship with Mariana Tigga, her neighbour. Due to his extra-marital affair Sunit Beck would frequently abuse and assault his sister and called her banjh (issue-less) because she could not bear child. The informant has further alleged that he, his father, brother and nephew had visited the matrimonial house of his sister several times to reason with Sunit Beck, however, he did not amend his ways and continued to inflict various acts of harassment and torture upon his sister. On 30.05.2012, at about 02:00 P.M. his sister informed him that after she returned from anganbadi centre and found her husband talking to Mariana Tigga. On 30.05.2012, at about 02:00 P.M. his sister informed him that after she returned from anganbadi centre and found her husband talking to Mariana Tigga. When she protested to her husband about his relations with Mariana Tigga her husband thrashed her on the ground and assaulted her. The next day, at about 08:00 A.M. his sister informed him that a panchayati was convened at 12:00 noon regarding relationship of her husband and Mariana Tigga and in the said meeting both apologized and promised not to continue with her relationship with Sunit Beck. The same night they committed murder of his sister and in the early hours next day informed him that his sister Jasinta Minj has committed suicide by hanging herself in the well. During the investigation the informant and his other family members made statements before the police regarding ill-treatment of Jasinta Minj at the hands of her husband and father-in-law and they spoke about illicit relationship of Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga. The co-villagers of Sunit Beck also stated before the police about illicit relationship between Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga and that a panchayati was convened in the village on this issue. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid in the Court against Sunit Beck on 28.08.2012 under sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was submitted against Mariana Tigga @ Marium and Patrick Beck on 10.05.2013 for the aforesaid offences. The charges were framed against the accused Sunit Beck on 23.01.2013 in ST No. 207 of 2012 and against the accused Mariana Tigga and Patrick Beck on 01.08.2013 in ST No. 123 of 2013, and the records of ST No. 123 of 2013 were amalgamated in ST No. 207 of 2012 vide order dated 01.08.2013. 6. During the trial the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to prove the charge under sections 302/201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, out of which PW-1 Emil Tigga who is husband of Mariana Tigga, PW-2 Lorentus Beck and PW-4 Birentus Beck who are co-villagers of the accused did not support the prosecution in the Court and accordingly, they were declared hostile. Dr. Rakesh Kumar who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead-body of Jasinta Minj has rendered an opinion that she had died of cardio-repository arrest due to asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation. 7. Dr. Rakesh Kumar who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead-body of Jasinta Minj has rendered an opinion that she had died of cardio-repository arrest due to asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega held that the informant and other prosecution witnesses have tendered credible evidence on the basis of which the prosecution has proved the circumstances and the chain of which is so complete as to prove guilt of the accused by excluding every hypothesis of innocence of the accused. 8. In Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2012, the learned Trial Judge has held as under: “10. Now, from the perusal of case record, the evidences adduced and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels from both the sides, I find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt because PW-5 informant David Sunil Kumar Minj has fully supported the prosecution story in course of his evidence and there is absolutely nothing in his cross-examination to affect his credibility in any manner, although there are no eye witnesses of the occurrence in this case but each and every circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused persons have been supported by the informant. Furthermore, PW-6 Asrita Toppo, the wife of the elder brother of the informant has also supported the fact that all the three accused persons committed murder of the deceased and hanged her into the well. She has also corroborated the version of the informant that there were injuries on the person of the deceased. PW-7 Shashibala Kindo the wife of the informant has also fully supported the prosecution story and has also corroborated the fact that there were injuries on the person of the deceased and her bangles were broken. PW-8 Santosh Minj the father of the deceased has also supported the prosecution story in course of his entire evidence and certainly there nothing in his cross-examination to effect his credibility. Similarly PW-9 Xeviour Minj another brother of the deceased has also supported the entire prosecution story. PW-12 Dr. Rakesh Kumar who was a member of the Medical Board which conducted the Postmortem of the deceased has stated in Para-2 that the mouth of the dead-body was closed and her both eyes were also closed. Similarly PW-9 Xeviour Minj another brother of the deceased has also supported the entire prosecution story. PW-12 Dr. Rakesh Kumar who was a member of the Medical Board which conducted the Postmortem of the deceased has stated in Para-2 that the mouth of the dead-body was closed and her both eyes were also closed. This fact clearly suggests that the death of the deceased was not due to suicidal hanging. Moreover, the postmortem also supports the fact that there were scratch injuries, bruise and finger nail marks on the dead-body which shows that the deceased was assaulted prior to her death. The doctor has also stated in Para-4 that the ligature mark found on the dead-body can be possible both by suicidal hanging or by forced hanging. PW-11 Niranjan Singh the 1.0 has established the place of occurrence. Hence it has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the murder of the deceased was committed by the three accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy and thereafter an attempt was made by them to give this murder the colour of a suicide. I, therefore, find and hold all the accused persons namely (1) Sunit Beck (2) Mariana Tigga and (3) Patrik Beck guilty U/s 302, 201/120B of IPC. They are convicted and accordingly the bail of accused Mariana Tigga and Patrik Beck who are on bail are cancelled and they are taken into custody. So, the accused Sunit Beck who is already in custody along with the remaining two accused persons who have been taken into custody are remanded to jail custody with a direction to be produced on 18.12.2014 for hearing on the point of sentence.” 9. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha-II, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that no one has seen how Jasinta Minj was murdered and the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has not rendered a definite opinion that she has died a homicidal death and while so only on the basis of the circumstance that dead-body of Jasinta Minj was found in her matrimonial home the appellants cannot be convicted for committing her murder. 10. 10. No doubt no witness has come forward to depose in the Court that he has seen the appellants strangulating Jasinta Minj in the intervening night of 31.05.2012/01.06.2012 and to prove the charges against the appellants the prosecution has laid circumstantial evidence and, therefore, we need to keep in mind that in a case of this nature an inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused and the combined effect of all the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be the one and only inference that the accused has committed the crime. 11. In Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9.......When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence....” 12. PW-5 David Sunil Kumar Minj is the brother, PW-6 Asrita Toppo and PW-7 Shashibala Kindo are the sisters-in-law, PW-8 Santosh Minj is the father, PW-9 Xaviour Minj is the other brother and PW-10 Edward Minj is the nephew of the deceased. These witnesses are intimately related to Jasinta Minj and for that reason their testimony is challenged on the ground that it was tainted with malice. No doubt relationship is not a ground to discard the testimony of a witness and merely because a witness has been labeled as interested witness the Court cannot begin with initial distrust or doubt, but, at the same time we must keep in mind that sometimes the related witnesses may be partisan and on account of enmity, doubt or other reasons they may falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in a case of this nature at the time of scrutinizing evidence of the related witnesses we would keep in mind the kind of care and caution which has been indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. 13. In Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts are required as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid rule of caution, when we examine the evidences tendered by the prosecution through the aforesaid related witnesses we find that notwithstanding minor inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments in their testimony PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 have proved the circumstances that (i) there was illicit relationship between Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga; (ii) there was constant quarrel between Jasinta Minj and her husband; (iii) Sunit Beck would frequently abuse and assault Jasinta Minj and (iv) in spite of persuasion by the informant and other prosecution witnesses and apology tendered by Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga in the panchayati they did not end their relationship and continued their extra-marital affair. 15. PW-5, the informant has deposed in the Court that about 1½ years after the marriage his sister informed him about relationship of her husband with Mariana Tigga. She was not happy in her matrimonial home and whenever she protested to illicit relationship of her husband with Mariana Tigga her husband would abuse and assault her. On his request Neel Justin Beck who is brother of Sunit Beck has also tried to persuade his brother not to continue with his illicit relationship with Mariana Tigga but he did not listen. The informant has further stated that his sister was harassed and tortured by the accused by calling her banjh (issue-less) because she could not bear a child and they would falsely allege that Jasinta Minj was a drug addict. On 30.05.2012 before the panchayati was convened his sister had called him and in the evening also she called to inform him that in the panchayati both Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga had tendered apology. On 30.05.2012 before the panchayati was convened his sister had called him and in the evening also she called to inform him that in the panchayati both Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga had tendered apology. Early next morning the accused informed him that Jasinta Minj has committed suicide whereupon the informant along with his family members had gone to Simdega where they found the dead-body of Jasinta Minj lying on the ground and they have seen mark on the neck of Jasinta Minj. PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 have deposed in the Court about ill treatment of Jasinta Minj and illicit relations between Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga. They have seen marks of external injury such as injury caused by broken bangles on the dead-body of Jasinta Minj. 16. Jasinta Minj died a violent asphyxial death has been proved by the prosecution. Several external injuries such as abrasion over cheek, breast and finger nail marks on her body were caused during struggle when the accused tried to strangulate her. 17. A medical board consisting of three doctors was constituted to conduct postmortem over the dead-body of Jasinta Minj. PW-12, Dr. Rakesh Kumar who was a member of medical board has tendered evidence in the Court and proved the postmortem examination report. On external examination of the dead-body the following injuries were found on the person of Jasinta Minj: “(i) Abrasion on left cheek, three in numbers, size about 1/4” x 1/4.” Each abrasion is 2 cm apart. (ii) Bruise on the flexor aspect of forearm on both sides, which is about 1½” x 1” inside. (iii) Finger nail marks on the left side of the breast two in number which is ¼ x ¼” incised. (iv) Yellow white colour rope tied around the neck. (v) Ligature mark around the neck below the thyroid, horizontally size of ligature mark. Knot tied at the back of neck. (vi) Another ligature mark on the thyroid cartilage encircling the neck completely; groove or ligature mark in deep, ecchymosed. (vii) Nails of both hands, fingers are blue and cymosed. (viii) the face was congested, petechia on both arm, forearm and hands and palm of both hands deeply cymosed.” 18. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl. (vi) Another ligature mark on the thyroid cartilage encircling the neck completely; groove or ligature mark in deep, ecchymosed. (vii) Nails of both hands, fingers are blue and cymosed. (viii) the face was congested, petechia on both arm, forearm and hands and palm of both hands deeply cymosed.” 18. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl. PP has referred to relevant extract from the Textbook of Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th edition) to submit that there is sufficient indication in the medical evidence on the basis of which it is conclusively established that Jasinta Minj has died a homicidal death. 19. In the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition), Modi writes that in homicidal strangulation by rope or cloth ligature mark would be horizontal or transverse, continuous, round the neck as also lower down in the neck below the thyroid. The Injury No. (v) observed by PW-12 over neck of Jasinta Minj was a ligature mark around the neck below the thyroid and it was horizontal with knot tied at the back of the neck. The Injury No. (vi) which is another ligature mark encircled the neck around the thyroid cartilage completely with deep ligature mark. In homicidal strangulation there would be abrasion and ecchymoses round about the edges of ligature mark, which was prominently present around the ligature mark found on the neck of Jasinta Minj. Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (6th Edition) also mentions that abrasions and bruises around the ligature mark are common in a case of homicidal death by strangulation. There are further conclusive indications in the observations of PW-12, such as: (i) subcutaneous tissues ecchymosed; (ii) neck muscles ragged; (iii) injury to trachea, laryngeal cartilage and carotid arteries, which would establish that Jasinta Minj was strangulated to death. 20. The aforesaid observations of PW-12 clearly indicate that Jasinta Minj was first strangulated and then she was hanged with a rope to give murder the color of suicide. We further find that the opinion of PW-12 that the death was caused between 12-18 hours from the time of postmortem examination corroborates the prosecution story that Jasinta Minj was done to death in the midnight of 31.05.2012/01.06.2012. 21. We further find that the opinion of PW-12 that the death was caused between 12-18 hours from the time of postmortem examination corroborates the prosecution story that Jasinta Minj was done to death in the midnight of 31.05.2012/01.06.2012. 21. The appellants were in the village on 30.05.2012 and though the co-villagers have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case there is ample evidence on record to infer that they were present in the panchayati convened on 30.05.2012. Still, the husband has failed to put forth any intervening circumstance to rule out his involvement in the murder of Jasinta Minj. The appellants did not set up a plea of alibi and they seem to accept the prosecution case that in the night of the occurrence they were present in their house. It is the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence and prove its case, but then, it is also well-settled that such information which are not available to the prosecution rather the accused has exclusive knowledge about the same must be revealed by the accused and non-disclosure thereof by the accused would be an incriminating circumstance against him. Under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the Court is under a legal duty to raise an inference against the accused who has failed to put forth a plausible and acceptable explanation to the incriminating materials appearing against him. 22. In State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “37. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.” 23. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha-II, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 to submit that the Courts must remain cautious in dealing with the circumstantial evidence and must draw a distinction between proof beyond reasonable doubt and suspicion. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha-II, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 to submit that the Courts must remain cautious in dealing with the circumstantial evidence and must draw a distinction between proof beyond reasonable doubt and suspicion. Plainly speaking, the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants is that Sunit Beck being the husband and alleged to have extra-marital relations with Mariana Tigga may be suspects of the crime but no clinching evidence has been produced by the prosecution to establish that they were actually involved in the crime. 24. In Sujit Biswas the prosecution case against him was that he had demanded Rs. 20/- to reveal the place where he had seen a dead-body and immediately after showing the place where dead-body of Sima Khatoon was lying, left and boarded the bus. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved.” In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.” 25. Sunit Beck is the husband of Jasinta Minj but that was not the ground to find him guilty for committing murder of his wife. His status as husband and presence in the village on the night of occurrence would definitely give rise to suspicion and the suspicion against him was found correct by the prosecution in course of investigation. During the trial the prosecution has laid sufficient evidence to prove his complicity in committing murder of his wife and it was just not suspicion on the basis of which he has been convicted by the learned Trial Judge. 26. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha-II, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the circumstances that there was illicit relationship between the accused and that was the reason Jasinta Minj was done to death were not put to the appellants and the effect of this lapse would be that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants have committed murder of Jasinta Minj. 27. We have carefully examined the materials on record and find that even if we exclude motive part of the prosecution case, for a moment, there is abundance of material against the appellant Sunit Beck to hold him guilty for murder of his wife -the evidence against Mariana Tigga is very cryptic. From the evidence of the medical man it is conclusively established that Jasinta Minj suffered a homicidal death and given the facts of this case the Court can justifiably raise an inference about presence of Sunit Beck in his house in the fateful night, but, in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Sunit Beck has exercised his right to remain silent and did not offer any explanation. 28. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “15. 28. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” 29. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha-II, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that Sunit Beck and Mariana Tigga had hatched a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of which Jasinta Minj was strangulated to death. 30. Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code which defines criminal conspiracy provides that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. By now it is not a debatable issue that direct evidence about criminal conspiracy is hard to find and generally the Courts are left with evidences circumstantial in nature on the basis of which it has to form an opinion whether a criminal conspiracy existed between the co-accused. In Devender Pal Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) 5 SCC 234 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that unless the statute so requires no overt act need to be done in furtherance of the conspiracy and it is also not an essential condition that the object must have been accomplished to constitute an indictable offence. The evidence against Mariana Tigga is that she had illicit relationship with Sunit Beck, the husband of Jasinta Minj. The evidence against Mariana Tigga is that she had illicit relationship with Sunit Beck, the husband of Jasinta Minj. They are neighbors and on several occasions Sunit Beck was found talking to Mariana Tigga which was objected to by Jasinta Minj. Though this evidence has come from the prosecution witnesses who do not claim that they have seen Sunit Beck talking to Mariana Tigga and they have claimed in the Court that Jasinta Minj had informed them about her husband talking to Mariana Tigga, we would proceed on the premise that Jasinta Minj was objecting to her husband talking to Mariana Tigga but on that basis it is difficult to infer that she hatched a conspiracy with Sunit Beck to commit murder of Jasinta Minj. 31. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega after scrutinizing testimony of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 has arrived at a conclusion that murder of Jasinta Minj was committed by Sunit Beck, Mariana Tigga and Patrick Beck in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. But we do not find any evidence laid by the prosecution regarding criminal conspiracy between the appellants and obviously the learned Trial Judge has also not discussed the conspiracy angle of the prosecution case in the judgment. The appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge in the concluding paragraph of the judgment may not be faulted insofar as involvement of Sunit Beck is concerned and to that extent the witnesses are reliable, but, we do not find any indication regarding criminal conspiracy between the accused and therefore, the judgment under challenge insofar as the offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned is liable to be interfered with. 32. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. We further find that the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved against the appellants and, accordingly, their conviction for the said offence is set-aside. 33. The charge under sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is not proved against Mariana Tigga and she is acquitted of the charges framed against her in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2012. 34. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 69 of 2015 is allowed. 35. 33. The charge under sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is not proved against Mariana Tigga and she is acquitted of the charges framed against her in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2012. 34. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 69 of 2015 is allowed. 35. Insofar as complicity of Sunit Beck in the crime is concerned, we find that on the basis of the materials which we have discussed herein above the prosecution has successfully proved that he committed murder of his wife and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 117 of 2015 is dismissed to that extent. 36. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Spl. PP states that Mariana Tigga who has remained in custody for about one year is on bail. 37. Accordingly, the appellant Mariana Tigga shall be discharged of liability of the bail bonds furnished by her. 38. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP states that the appellant Sunit Beck is in custody. 39. Accordingly, the appellant Sunit Beck shall serve the remaining sentence as awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2012. 40. I.A. No. 1953 of 2021 stands disposed of. 41. Let lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 42. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX. Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2015 allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2015 dismissed.