Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 135 (GAU)

Ajit Gaur s/o Late Buddhu Gaur v. State Of AP

2023-02-01

NANI TAGIA, SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2023
JUDGMENT : S.Serto, J. This is a Criminal Appeal directed against the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2018 passed in Sessions Case no. 47/L/2012, wherein the appellant was held guilty of having murdered his wife by severing her head from the neck and for which he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. Heard Mr. T. Jamoh, the learned Amicus-Curiae, and also heard Ms. Laxmi Hage, learned Additional PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. On 03.06.2012, one Mr. Chow Jeyawa Mungkham submitted an Ezaharto the Officer-in-Charge of Chongkham Police Outpost, Lohit District stating that at 7:30 AM of that morning one of his Tea Garden laborers, namely Sri Ajit Gaur, has murdered his own wife, Smt. Agni Gaur by cutting her neck with a dao at his own residence. Soon thereafter, the appellant (the convict/Ajit Gaur) surrendered before the Chongkham Police Outpost with the severed head of his wife and a dao, with which he supposedly committed the crime. The Chongkham Police Outpost forwarded the Ezahar to the Officer-in-Charge of Namsai Police Station for registration of FIR along with the appellant. The Ezahar was registered as FIR Case no. 47 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was endorsed to one SI, namely A.N. Singh, who immediately swung into action by visiting the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch-map of the same and took photographs of the dead body and also conducted the inquest over the same in presence of witnesses. And following his timely action, Post Mortem was also conducted on the same day at 11:15 AM over the dead body by Dr. Taka Zirdo, SMO (SG), CHC, Chongkham. After the Post Mortem, the doctor recorded his findings as follows: I-EXTERNAL APPEARANCE 1-Condition of subject-shout emaciated decomposed etc 2-Woundsposition, size and character 3-Bruisesposition, size and nature 4-Make-of ligature on neck dissection Lean and thin body, undecomposed face and hair stained with blood. 1.Head beheaded from neck 2.Cut injury on the dorsal aspect of might wrist 6cms length Nil Not relevant II-CRANIUM AND SPINAL CANAL 1-Scalp, Skill, Vertebrate 2-Membrane 3-Brain and spinal code Cervical vertebrae. Separate from 5th to 6th level embrane covering spinal cord separated at the level of 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae Spinal Cord separated at the level of 5th to 6th cervical vertebrae. Separate from 5th to 6th level embrane covering spinal cord separated at the level of 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae Spinal Cord separated at the level of 5th to 6th cervical vertebrae. POST MORTEM REPORT 1- Walls, ribs and cartilages 2- Pleurae 3- Larynx and trachea e 4-Right lung 5-Left lung 6- Pericardiu m 7-Heart 8- Vessels Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal 4. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the appellant for last rites. In the meanwhile, the Investigation Officer also recorded the statements of nine witnesses including that of the Doctor (who conducted the Post Mortem). After having completed the investigation, the Charge sheet charging that the appellant (convict) had committed murder of his wife by cutting her neck and severing her head from the body; therefore, he is guilty of having committed murder of his own wife was submitted. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 47/L/2012 of the Court of Sessions Judge, East Session Division, Tezu, Lohit District, and it was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of that Court. After careful examination of the evidence in the record and the depositions of the witnesses who stated that they saw the appellant carrying the severed head of his wife with his left hand and the crime weapon, i.e. the dao, on the other hand in the morning of 03.06.2012, and walking towards the Police Station for surrendering himself to the Police, held the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence and the statement of the appellant himself recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved that he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC the appellant has filed the appeal praying for quashing and setting aside of the Judgment and Order of the learned Sessions Judge, impugned herein and praying that he be sentenced under section 304 Part-II of IPC instead. 5. On careful reading of the Appeal Memo and consideration of the submissions of the learned Amicus it appears that the appellant admits as far as the charge that he had killed his wife is concern but his only grievance appears to be that, he had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and not under Section 304 Part-II. His plea as given in the Appeal Memo is that he had no intention to kill his wife but due to circumstances beyond his control which led to loss of his mental balance, he had committed the same; therefore, the crime committed by him does not fall under Section 300 of IPC but could at best have been under Section 299 of IPC and therefore, the sentence meted out to him should have been under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. The circumstance which led to the commission of the offence as narrated in the appeal is that; in the morning of 03.06.2012 the appellant went to a field, which is about 2000 meters from his house, for relieving himself from the nature’s call and when he came back he found his wife having sex with one Budhuwa Praya, and on seeing the same he lost his mental balance and out of sudden and uncontrollable rage he chopped off the head of his wife but; soon he realized his guilt so he went and voluntarily surrendered before the Police. This, however, was never pleaded before or during the trial and no witness or witnesses were examined to prove the same. 6. Mr. T. Jamoh, the learned Amicus submitted that if this Court is of the view that from the evidence available in the record the appellant is guilty of having committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not culpable homicide amounting to murder, he may be sentenced to the punishment as provided under Section 304 Part-II. In support of his submission, Mr. T. Jamoh referred to Paragraph 12 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 2005, Rafiq Ahmed alias Rafi Versus State of UP (reportable judgment).The contents of the paragraph of the judgment is reproduced here below: “12. So far the judicial pronouncements show a consistent trend that wherever an accused is charged with a grave offence, he can be punished for a less grave offence finally, if the grave offence is not proved. For example, a person charged with an offence under Section 302 of the IPC may finally be convicted only for an offence under Section 304 Part II where the prescribed punishment is lesser and the consequences of conviction are less serious in comparison to a conviction under Section 302. For example, a person charged with an offence under Section 302 of the IPC may finally be convicted only for an offence under Section 304 Part II where the prescribed punishment is lesser and the consequences of conviction are less serious in comparison to a conviction under Section 302. But even in those cases, the Court has to be cautious while examining whether the ingredients of the offences are independently satisfied. If the ingredients even of a lesser offence are not satisfied then it may be difficult in a given case for the court to convict the person for an offence of a less grave nature. There can be cases where it may not be possible at all to punish a person of a less grave offence if its ingredients are completely different and distinct from the grave offence. To deal with this aspect illustratively, one could say that a person who is charged with an offence under Section 326 may not be liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 406 IPC because their ingredients are entirely distinct, different and have to be established by the prosecution on its own strength. In other words, the accused has to be charged with a grave offence which would take within its ambit and scope the ingredients of a less grave offence. The evidence led by the prosecution for a grave offence, thus, would cover an offence of a less grave nature. But it is essential that the offence for which the Court proposes to punish the accused, is established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.” 7. After having submitted as stated above, the learned Amicus further submitted that since there are evidences which prove that the accused had carried the severed head of his wife on his left shoulder and the crime weapon on the other hand and walked towards the Police Station to surrender himself it can be concluded that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife and that too without any remorse or regret but was rather gratified with his act. He also submitted that according to the Post Mortem there were signs to show that the appellant did not cut the neck of his wife with one clean strike but with repeated strikes. He also submitted that according to the Post Mortem there were signs to show that the appellant did not cut the neck of his wife with one clean strike but with repeated strikes. Therefore, this also shows that he had knowledge that his act would surely lead to the death of his wife and his intention was to kill her for sure. Thus it appears that all the ingredients of the offence, that is culpable homicide amounting to murder as described under Section 300 IPC and punishable under Section 302 of the same Code are all glaringly present. As such, it is difficult for him to urge the Court to hold the appellant guilty of having committed an offence of a lesser gravity, that is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of IPC and to sentence him to a lesser punishment under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 8. Ms. Laxmi Hage, learned Additional PP appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh submitted that though it is true that there was no eyewitness, who saw the appellant committing the crimebut there are overwhelming circumstantial evidences which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had murdered his wife with the intention to do so. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held him guilty of having committed the offence under Section 300 of IPC and of having sentenced him to life imprisonment. The learned Additional PP also submitted that the appellant admitted both in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC and in the Appeal Memo itself that he had killed his wife and moreover, there are evidences showing that he had done so with intention. Therefore, the act committed by him is nothing but a cold-blooded cruel murder. As such, there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment and Order of the learned Sessions Judge. Lastly, the learned Additional PP submitted that there is no plea of insanity either of temporal or permanent nature and there is no medical certificate produced in evidence which would prove that the same. As such, such a plea at this stage is too late in the day. And moreover, since it is without any evidence it cannot be taken into consideration at all. Ms. As such, such a plea at this stage is too late in the day. And moreover, since it is without any evidence it cannot be taken into consideration at all. Ms. Laxmi in support of the submissions made by her, referred to paragraphs 40, 104 and 105 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri Versus State of Bihar (Faizan Uddin, J.) reported in (1995) SCC 80. The following are the contents of the three paragraphs: “40. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Raj Pal Sharma next contended that there is no direct evidence or ocular testimony with regard to the alleged murder either of Urshia Bahri or that of her two children Richa and Saurabh and the conviction of the appellants has been founded on the approver's evidence and other circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned counsel submitted that the two courts below are not justified in relying on the evidence of accomplice/approver Ram Sagar PW 3 whose evidence is not free from serious doubt particularly in view of the fact that he was examined as a witness by the committing Magistrate on 30-1-1985 after about one year and two months of the occurrence. It was urged that in the absence of corroboration of material particulars no conviction can be based on the testimony of an accomplice and since the circumstances alleged against the appellants are not proved to the hilt, the same cannot be regarded as complete chain of circumstances established against the appellants so as to base their convictions on the same. Similar arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants Suresh Bahri and Gurbachan Singh. Before we discuss the merits or demerits of the aforesaid submissions we would like to state that the law relating to conviction based on circumstantial evidence is well settled and it hardly requires a detailed discussion on this aspect. Similar arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants Suresh Bahri and Gurbachan Singh. Before we discuss the merits or demerits of the aforesaid submissions we would like to state that the law relating to conviction based on circumstantial evidence is well settled and it hardly requires a detailed discussion on this aspect. Suffice to say that in a case of murder in which the evidence that is available is only circumstantial in nature then in that event the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is required to be drawn by the prosecution must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they also must entirely be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 104. Having regard to the principles formulated by this Court discussed above, we have given our anxious consideration to the question of sentence to the appellants and have also examined in depth and with great concern the facts and circumstances of the present case and the reasons assigned by the two courts below for awarding the extreme penalty of death to the three appellants before us. At the cost of repetition we may recall that the appellant Suresh had strong motive and entertained some grievances against his wife Urshia because she had made up her mind to dispose of Ranchi house and migrate to America along with her children with the sale proceeds against the wishes of Suresh and, therefore, to put an end to her life, Suresh planned a long-drawn plot and hatched a conspiracy with the appellants Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma for execution of this plan. Urshia not even having an inkling of the evil designs and hidden unholy intentions of her husband accompanied him from Delhi to Ranchi on 1-10-1983 with a view to finalise the deal of house and execute the sale deed. But according to the pre-plan she was done to death in the intervening night of 10- 10- 1983 and 11-10-1983 and she could not see the light of 11-10-1983 when sale deed was to be executed. But according to the pre-plan she was done to death in the intervening night of 10- 10- 1983 and 11-10-1983 and she could not see the light of 11-10-1983 when sale deed was to be executed. The evidence discussed above shows that her murder was committed in an extremely, brutal, gruesome, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the society. The victim was subjected to inhuman acts of torture and cruelty while causing her murder as her body was truncated into two parts in a devilish style evincing total depravity simply to gain control over the property. Having been not satisfied with the killing of his wife Suresh Bahri was further determined to kill his innocent two children at Dhulli farm making them believe that they were being taken on a pleasure trip to the farm and then after they were done to death by inflicting severe injuries on neck and other parts of the body threw their dead bodies in the Varuna river having no consideration for the human life and that too for his own flesh and blood. Suresh Bahri may be having some differences with his wife with regard to the sale of house and her idea about settlement with the children at America but he certainly had no grievance or even any remote cause against his innocent minor children who could never conceive that their father who was their guardian of the first degree was taking them to Dhulli farm for committing their gruesome murder. 105. The cold-blooded cruel murder of the innocent children by none else but by their own real father shows the enormous proportion with which it was committed eliminating almost all members of the family. We have given our serious thoughts and consideration and posed the question to ourselves whether there could be still a worse case than this where a husband could hatch a 7 conspiracy and kill his wife in a most callous and ghastly fashion as in the present case only on a trifling matter which could have been sorted out in an amicable manner for which no effort appears to have been made by Suresh. Not only this but the appellant Suresh became thirsty of the blood of his own children for absolutely no fault of theirs. Not only this but the appellant Suresh became thirsty of the blood of his own children for absolutely no fault of theirs. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, in our opinion, so far as Suresh Bahri is concerned, the rule of the rarest of rare cases has to be applied as the present case falls within the category of the rarest of rare cases and for the perpetration of the crime of the nature discussed above there could be no other proper and adequate sentence except the sentence of death as there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the present case as far as Suresh Bahri is concerned there is no cause for any interference in the view taken by the two courts below in awarding the death sentence to him. We, therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence of death awarded to Suresh by the High Court. In the event of the execution of death sentence, the sentence awarded under Section 201 of the IPC shall remain only of academic interest.” 9. Now we shall examine the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses: PW-1:-The witness had stated that he was informed by the driver of a tractor of the Tea Estate owned by his family at about 7:30 AM of one morning in 2012, that the appellant after killing his own wife was seen moving towards the village by holding the head of his wife in his hand so he immediately informed his brother Chow Jeyawa Mungkhang (the informer in the FIR). He also stated that after he received the information he went to the police station and saw the severed head of the wife of the appellant. Further, he also stated that he saw a dead body without head in the living quarter of the appellant and his wife (the victim) and a doctor examining the dead body and photographs taken over the same dead body and, the same being taken away for cremation wherein the appellant was also present. The statements of the witness shows that he did not see when the crime took place but saw both the severed head and body of the victim, the first at the Police Station and the latter inside the living quarter of both the appellant and the victim. The statements of the witness shows that he did not see when the crime took place but saw both the severed head and body of the victim, the first at the Police Station and the latter inside the living quarter of both the appellant and the victim. Further, the statement of the witness shows that he was the one who notified the informant. PW-2:-The witness is the informant and owner of the Tea estate in which the appellant was working as a laborer. The statement of the witness confirms that it was the PW-1 who informed him about the incident over telephone. The statement of the witness also shows that after being informed by his younger brother he immediately went to the Police Station to report about the incident and while he was still in the Police Station the appellant himself came there carrying the head of his deceased wife with one hand and the dao used in the crime with the other and surrendering himself before the Police. He also mentioned that the date on which the incident happened was on 03.06.2012 and the time was about 8:00 AM. He also stated that the dao shown to him in the Court was similar to the dao which was brought to the Police Station by the appellant by design and size. The statement of the witness also reveals that he did not see when the appellant committed the actual offence but show the events that unfolded thereafter including the appellant carrying the severed head of his wife in one hand and the crime weapon on the other, surrendering before the Police Station. PW-3:-The witness stated that though he did not see the accused/appellant actually cutting the neck, he had seen him going towards the Police Station on the day of occurrence by carrying the head of his wife on his shoulder with one hand and holding the dao used in the commission of the crime on the other hand. He also stated that he saw the Police and the accused/appellant at the place of occurrence and he had also witnessed the inquest being conducted on the dead body and he had put his thumb impression on the Seizure Memo. He also stated that he had put his thumb impression on the Seizure Memo of the dao as Witness. He also stated that he saw the Police and the accused/appellant at the place of occurrence and he had also witnessed the inquest being conducted on the dead body and he had put his thumb impression on the Seizure Memo. He also stated that he had put his thumb impression on the Seizure Memo of the dao as Witness. On cross-examination he stated that he had seen the accused from a distance of 20-25 meters while he was carrying the head of his wife. From the statements of the PW, it can be concluded that this witness also did not see the actual commission of the crime but he was one of the who saw the events that unfolded thereafter including the appellant carrying his wife’s severed head and the crime weapon and going towards the Police Station; and the Police conducting the investigation. It can also be seen that he was one of the witnesses of the inquest conducted over the dead body and also of the seizure of the crime weapon. PW-4:-The witness stated that before the incident, the appellant used to quarrel with his wife regularly and he had even threatened to cut her because he used to suspect her whenever she visited other houses. He also stated that the appellant also used to insist that his wife should always be with him. The witness also stated that he had seen the accused at around 7:00 AM of one Sunday, two years ago, going towards Chongkham Police Station carrying the head of his wife on his left shoulder holding the same with his left hand by the hair and holding the dao in his right hand. He also stated that the Police had asked him to pack the dead body in a gunny bag but on his refusal they let the accused to do the same. He further stated that photographs of the dead body were taken and he was a witness of the inquest over the dead body. He also identified his thumb impression on the exhibit. The witness further stated that he had seen the seizure of the dao and he had put his signature on the Seizure Memo and identified the same. He identified the dao and stated that, that was the same dao he had seen on the day of the occurrence. He also identified his thumb impression on the exhibit. The witness further stated that he had seen the seizure of the dao and he had put his signature on the Seizure Memo and identified the same. He identified the dao and stated that, that was the same dao he had seen on the day of the occurrence. In his cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen when the offence was committed. The statements of this witness reveal that the appellant and his deceased wife had a story of quarrels or fights and he was suspicious of his wife. The statements also reveal that the witness was one of those eyewitnesses who saw the appellant carrying the head of his wife and the crime weapon and going towards the Police Station. Further the statements also show that the witness was one of the persons who saw the investigation and was a Seizure Witness of the dao. Lastly, it is seen from the statement that he was also one of the witness to the inquest conducted on the dead body. PW-5:-The witness stated that at about 6:00 AM on one Sunday, two years ago he had seen the accused from a distance of about 20 meters, going towards Chongkham carrying the head of his wife on his left shoulder by holding it with his left hand. However, he admitted in his cross-examination that he was not a witness to the crime when it was committed. PW-6:-The witness stated that the incident took place at around 9:00 AM of one day about three years back. He also stated that he had seen the accused/appellant going towards the Police Station carrying the chopped off head of his wife on his left shoulder and holding a dao on his right hand. The witness also stated that he had seen the Police taking photographs of the dead body and the dead body eventually disposed. He also identified the dao shown to him and confirmed that, that was the same kind of dao held by the accused on that day. However, he admitted that he had not seen when the appellant cut off the head of his wife. The statement shows that this witness is also one of the persons who saw the appellant carrying the head of his wife and a dao towards the Police Station. However, he admitted that he had not seen when the appellant cut off the head of his wife. The statement shows that this witness is also one of the persons who saw the appellant carrying the head of his wife and a dao towards the Police Station. It also reveals that he was one of those who saw the entire investigation and the events that unfolded after the crime was committed. PW-7:-The witness stated there are three houses between his house and that of the appellant. He also stated that the incident took place at about 8:30 AM. He further stated that after hearing from the people that the accused/appellant was going towards the Police Station with the chopped off head of his wife he also came out from his house and saw the accused/appellant carrying the head of his wife on his left shoulder holding the same by the hair with his left hand and carrying a dao on his right hand. The statements reveal that this witness was also one of those who saw the appellant carrying the head of his wife and a dao towards the Police Station. PW-8:- The witness is the Doctor who conducted the Post Mortem over the dead body of the victim. The witness stated that the body was identified by her husband and he conducted the Post Mortem at about 11:15 AM on 03.06.2012, at the place of occurrence itself following the requisition received from the Police. Regarding his findings during the Post Mortem the witness stated as follows: 1. External Injuries: Head beheaded from neck and separated from the body. Cut injuries on the dorsal aspect of right wrist. 2. Internal Injuries: Cervical vertebrae separated from 5th to 6th level. Membrane covering spinal cord separated at the level of 5th and 6th of cervical vertebrae. Spinal cord separated at the level of 5th and 6th of cervical vertebrae. He further stated that the injuries were fresh and might have been caused on the same day and the probable weapon for causing the injuries could be a dao. The witness thereafter exhibited the Post Mortem Report. PW-9:-The witness is the Police Officer who investigated the case. Spinal cord separated at the level of 5th and 6th of cervical vertebrae. He further stated that the injuries were fresh and might have been caused on the same day and the probable weapon for causing the injuries could be a dao. The witness thereafter exhibited the Post Mortem Report. PW-9:-The witness is the Police Officer who investigated the case. The witness confirmed that he was the Investigation Officer and on 03.06.2012, he received an Ezahar from the informant, Shri Chow Jeyawa Mungkhang stating that in the morning hours of that day, a laborer working in his tea garden had murdered his own wife. The witness also confirmed that the appellant/accused appeared at Chongkham Police Outpost by holding the severed head of his deceased wife and surrendered himself along with the crime weapon, i.e., a dao. The witness also stated that the dao was seized under a Seizure Memo and that he visited the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map of the same. He also stated that he conducted the inquest over the dead body which was lying in the bedroom of the appellant. Further, the witness stated that a Doctor was called and Post Mortem was conducted at the spot itself, and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased for the last rites. The witness confirmed that he examined the accused and recorded his statement. He further confirmed that he recorded the statements of all the relevant witnesses. Lastly, the witness exhibited all the relevant documents as Exhibits. In his cross examination the witness stated that since he was told by some people that the appellant used to behave abnormally he sent him to a medical doctor but he was found medically fit. He also stated that he did not send the appellant for mental test because he did not find any of unnatural behavior in him. 10. From the statement of the witnesses given above, what can be seen is that none of them have seen the actual commission of the crime charged against the appellant but most of them saw him going to the Police Station with the severed head of his wife and the dao, that is the weapon with which he committed the offence. From the statement of the witnesses given above, what can be seen is that none of them have seen the actual commission of the crime charged against the appellant but most of them saw him going to the Police Station with the severed head of his wife and the dao, that is the weapon with which he committed the offence. Further, some of them also witnessed the inquest that was conducted over the dead body which was lying in the house of the appellant. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all thesefacts and circumstances, which are not refuted is that it was none other than the appellant who killed his own wife by cutting the head off from the neck by using a dao. In fact, the appellant himself has admitted that fact both in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC and in his appealitself. Therefore, the only issue that needs to be determined is whether the accused had suffered from mental imbalance at the time of commission of the crime. It is a fact that he never took such a plea before or during the trial and he also never produced any witness or evidence to show that he was mentally imbalanced even when he committed the crime. Therefore, there is no material to show that he was mentally imbalanced when he committed the offence. In that view of the matter the plea of the appellant that he had committed the murder of his wife out of a sudden rage that arose when he saw his wife having sex with a person namely one Budhuwa Praya cannot be accepted. Therefore, his claim that he should be given a punishment lesser than which has been given by the learned Sessions Judge has no basis at all. 11. From the facts and circumstances which have been proved by the evidence produced by the prosecution, like the total severment of the head from the body, that too after several blows as may be seen from the Post Mortem Report, and the carrying of the severed head on his shoulder by holding the hair and with the crime weapon in the other hand, shows that the appellant had intentionally killed his wife by cutting off her head from the neck. And further, from the statements of some of the witnesses it can be concluded that the appellant did not have a happy relationship with his wife and they had regular fights between the two of them. All these also show that the appellant had premeditated to kill his wife. Furthermore, the facts and circumstances of the case display the height of gruesomeness and the extreme cruelty involved in the commission of the crime. Taking all these into consideration we are of the view that the offence committed by the appellant is nothing less than culpable homicide amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, we find the appeal to be devoid of any merit. Accordingly, we uphold the Judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss the Appeal.