Sri Raj Kumar Goala vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 100 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 25




                         THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA
                              CRL A(J) 24 OF 2019

Sri Raj Kumar Goala,
S/o Lt. Sankar Goala of Bagbassa, Hindusthani Para,
Ward No.5, P.S. Dharmanagar, Dist. North Tripura.
                                                              .... Appellant
                                      - Vs -
The State of Tripura,
                                                             ....Respondent

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For the appellant : Mr. R.G.Chakraborty, Advocate

For the respondent : Mr. S. Debnath.

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Date of hearing                     : 27.01.2021

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order                    : 03.02.2021

Whether fit for reporting : YES

                            JUDGMENT & ORDER

(Arindam Lodh,J)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 24.04.2018, passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, North Tripura District, Dharmanagar, in Case No.

ST(T-1)/14 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been

convicted under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I.

for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case, as projected by the learned

Sessions Judge is as under:

"In this case the ejahar was lodged by Sri Ajit Goala, son of Sri Rajkumar Goala of Bagbasa, Hindusthani Para, PS- Dharmanagar on 22-07-2016 to the O/C, Bagbasa Out Post to the effect that on 22-07-2016 he along with his father, mother namely Gita Goala, sister namely Anupama Goala and his another brother and other two sisters were at their home and at that time he was sleeping and hearing hue and cry he woke up and he saw that his mother drenched in blood and his father was sitting beside her and his younger sister, Anupama Goala was in crying condition and then he dispersed his father from the side of his mother. It is also stated that when his father was giving blows by an axe upon his mother then his younger sister tried to resist his father for which his younger sister also received injury at her head and he also mentioned that due to the blows of axe by his father his mother died. It is also mentioned that due to thinking of financial crisis his father murdered his mother."

4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned Sessions

Judge while deciding the case had taken into consideration the

following points for decision:

(a) Whether the death of Gita Goala was homicidal in nature.

(b) Whether the accused on 22-07-2016 at about 9.30 pm at his house situated at Bagbasa Hindusthanipara, Ward No.5, PS-Dharmanagar of North Tripura District committed murder of his wife Gita Goala.

5. Having appreciated the evidence on record, the learned

Sessions Judge came to the findings that it was none but the accused

convict who is the appellant herein, committed the murder to his wife

by an axe and accordingly, being convicted the appellant was

sentenced to suffer R.I. for life as aforestated.

6. Mr. R.G.Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant opposing the findings of the learned Sessions Judge would

contend that the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge

were based on no evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that

there was no eye witness to the incident because the maker of the FIR

as well as other sons and daughters of the convict were sleeping at the

relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the appellant further

emphasized that learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the

material fact that the convict was suffering from insanity at the time of

commission of alleged offence.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State-respondent defending the

findings of the learned Sessions Judge has contended that the

prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

There were eye witnesses. According to learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, not only the FIR maker Ajit Goala (PW-5), the son of the

deceased and the appellant, but also other sons and daughters of the

deceased victim had seen the occurrence that their father Raj Kumar

Goala, the convict-appellant herein, had committed murder to their

mother Gita Goala by an axe. The axe was seized by the police in

course of investigation. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further

contended that the medical report and the evidence of the doctor (PW-

11), Sri Aparanta Debnath clearly had established the nature of

injuries as suffered by the deceased at the left side of her neck and for

that reason, there was no doubt that the appellant had committed the

murder of his wife.

8. To determine the credence of the findings arrived at by

the learned Sessions Judge, we have re-appreciated and re-evaluated

the evidence on record. At the outset, we would like to visit the

evidence of PW-5, Ajit Goala, the son of the appellant and the victim

who lodged the ejahar against his father Raj Kumar Goala.

9. While deposing, PW-5 had identified his signature in the

ejahar being marked as Exbt.6. He deposed that he lodged the

complaint stating inter alia that his father had murdered his mother by

an axe about one year back from the date of deposition. At one night,

at the relevant point of time, he was sleeping in a room adjacent to the

room where his father and victim mother used to sleep. He rushed to

the room after hearing the cries of his mother and sister. PW-5 further

deposed that he had seen his mother on the floor with bleeding injury

and noticed an axe in the hand of his father which he snatched away

and had thrown it away and dashed his father on the bed. Thereafter,

PW-5 deposed that he took his mother on his lap and administered

water upon her when she died. He further deposed that he rushed to

his „pisi‟s (aunt of his father) house. After 15 to 16 minutes when he

returned home he found the blood on the floor had been washed off.

His mother had sustained cut injury at her neck and he found that the

place of occurrence was changed and a new bed cover was placed on

the body of his mother. Deposing further, PW-5 stated that after 20

minutes, the police came being informed by the local people. Next, he

deposed that initially many people had gathered and seeing the

condition they left. The police came again when he got the ejahar

scribed and handed over the same to the police. Deposing further,

PW-5 stated that the police prepared the inquest where he put his

signature (Exbt.1/a). Continuing his statement, PW-5 deposed that

when second time he came to the place of occurrence he did not find

the axe at the place of occurrence where he placed it. The police

interrogated his father when he disclosed that he had thrown the axe

away and placed it under an Agar plant at the backside of their house.

Police had taken his father in presence of other people and recovered

the axe. PW-5 had confirmed that the said axe was belonged to them

as it was known to him. PW-5 had identified the axe and he deposed

that it was used to cut fire wood. He identified the axe as Exbt. MO 1.

Deposing further, PW-5 stated that though relationship between his

mother and father was not bad but a dispute was there regarding

money matters which he did not know in details. PW-5 had

categorically deposed that his father was not suffering from any

mental disorder and he was totally a sound person. PW-5 further

deposed that police had recorded his statement under Sections 161 of

CrPC.

10. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion

put forth by the defence that his father did not kill his mother by an

axe and that he did not see the axe in the hand of his father. Being

further confronted with cross-examination, he denied that his father

did not assist the police to recover the axe and that the axe was not

recovered from the backside of their house near Agar plant.

11. PW-3, Miss Anupama Goala is one of the vital witnesses

who is the daughter of both the victim and the appellant. PW-3 in her

examination-in-chief deposed that all her two brothers and three

sisters were at the house at the relevant point of time and she had one

elder brother namely Ajit Goala (PW-5). She deposed that she was

sleeping in the very room where the incident took place. In their house

there was one building consisting of two rooms making partition of it

having scope to go one room to the another room and when she was

sleeping at the same room an electric bulb was lighted therein.

Deposing further PW-3 stated that suddenly she woke up hearing the

cries of her mother when she noticed that her father had already given

one blow of an axe in one side of the neck of her mother and when he

was about to give another blow by that axe at the neck of her mother,

at that time, she caught hold the axe and prevented her father. She

further deposed that when the incident had taken place her mother was

sleeping on the floor beside her and his father on that day had slept in

a cot. The said witness had deposed that her father was a sound person

and she had no knowledge why her father had killed her mother since

she never noticed any quarrel between her parents. Deposing further

she clarified that on that very date there were no quarrel between her

parents. She further deposed that when she prevented her father from

giving second blow, she was scuffling with her father and at that time

the iron portion of the axe (blunt side) touched her head and she

sustained injury and she was treated for that injury.

PW-3 further deposed that hearing alarm her brother

namely Ajit Goala (PW-5) came and snatched away the axe and threw

her father on the nearby bed. Thereafter, his brother took her injured

mother at his lap and administered water to her and after taking water

her mother had expired. Thereafter, her brother went out to inform

Sabita Goala, her pisi (aunt) leaving them including her father. Taking

that opportunity her father took the axe and threw it away at the

backside of their house near Agar plant, coconut tree and betel nut

tree. She further deposed that though neighbouring people came to

their house at that time but they went away seeing everything.

Deposing further, PW-3 stated that while she was crying, then, her

father asked her not to cry and also stated to her that he would put the

dead body of her mother into latrine and thereafter her father brought

water from the water tank and cleared up the blood on the spot and he

asked her also to participate in clearing the said blood and out of fear,

she also cleaned blood and thereafter her father placed the blood

stained clothes at the backside of water tank and had kept a fresh bed

cover on the body of her mother. She could not say who informed the

police. However, she deposed that subsequently police came and she

was taken to Sanicherra PHC for treatment. After observing all

formalities police took the dead body of her mother for postmortem

examination. She further deposed that she was required to be treated

as an admitted patient. PW-3 further deposed that when police came

she also saw one Prasenjit Das accompanying the police. Her

statement was recorded by the police. She further deposed that she

made statements before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5)

of CrPC. Her signatures being identified marked as Exbt.3 and 3/a.

She further deposed that her father was totally "able bodied fit

person".

12. Being confronted with cross-examination, PW-3 had

denied that on that very date and time she was not at home and that

she did not see any incident and that she deposed falsely before the

Court. She further denied the suggestion made by the defence that her

father was mentally ill on that relevant date and time.

13. PW-1, Bajrang Ray, deposed that hearing the information

that Raj Kumar Goala had killed his wife he went to that house and

when he went to the place of occurrence he found Raj Kumar Goala

i.e. the appellant and many other persons. He further deposed that the

people had gathered there and encircled Raj Kumar Goala and the

dead body of his wife was lying on the floor. PW-1 further deposed

that he had seen cut bleeding injuries at the neck and below the ear.

Police had arrived at the spot and recovered the axe which Raj Kumar

Goala i.e. the appellant herein had used to kill his wife. Deposing

further, PW-1 stated that the police recovered the said axe and seized

the same by preparing seizure list and the axe was found near one

Agar tree at the backside of their hut. He further deposed that at the

time of seizure the axe was bearing blood stain. Police had obtained

his signature (Exbt.1) in the inquest which PW-1 had identified. The

said witness further deposed that police also had obtained some blood

stained clothes from the body of the deceased and thereafter police

seized the same where he put his signature in the seizure list (Exb.2).

During his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that true it

was that Raj Kumar Goala was in financial crisis and that he had a

Maruti vehicle which he sold due to financial trouble prior to one

month from the date of incident. PW-1 further stated during cross-

examination that it was true that Raj Kumar Goala had taken some

loan and after selling of the vehicle 2/3 times he left the house due to

demand of money by others. He further stated in cross that he had no

knowledge whether he had any mental trouble or not and that he had

no knowledge whether he had treated at Dharmanagar Hospital or not.

Being confronted with further cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he

did not notice anything regarding his abnormal behaviour of the

appellant. There is no other material surfaced in the cross-examination

which could support the defence case.

14. PW-2, Prasenjit Dutta, a neighbour deposed that he

received the information first by Upa Pradhan namely Abhimunnyu

Bhumiz through mobile at about 10 pm when he was informed that

Raj Kumar Goala had murdered his own wife by means of an axe. He

further deposed that he informed the O.C., Bagbasa P.S. through

mobile. After some time police came to his house and asked him to

identify the place of occurrence when he went to the place of

occurrence house along with the police and in the hut of Raj Kumar

Goala, he had seen the body of his wife lying on the floor with cut

injury at the neck below the ear. He further deposed that Raj Kumar

Goala was also present at that time at his house.

During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that being a

public representative, he had good connection with Raj Kumar Goala

and many others and it was true that he purchased Maruti vehicle 2/3

times and also sold them out. Being confronted with cross-

examination, the said witness stated that he never noticed any mental

troubles of Raj Kumar Goala. In his cross-examination, he denied the

suggestion put forth by the defence that he did not inform the police

through his mobile and that he did not see the recovery of the weapon

(axe) by the police being shown by Raj Kumar Goala, the appellant

herein and that since he did not see the recovery of weapon (axe) the

police did not cite him as a seizure witness.

15. PW-4, Smt. Rupali Majumder deposed before the Court

being a Scientific Officer of District Mobile FSL, Kailashahar, North

Tripura that she received one requisition from O.C.,Dharmanagar P.S.

in respect of Dharmanagar P.S. Case No.40/2016 and accordingly, on

that date at about 11-10 am she had seen the place of occurrence

accompanied with the O.C. Bagbasa PS in the house of one Raj

Kumar Goala, where his wife namely Gita Goala, aged about 35 years

old was allegedly murdered by him. PW-4, assisted the I.O. of the

case who collected materials from the scene of crime. Deposing

further, PW-4 stated that she also observed the following:

(i) Scene of crime was found disturbed and was cleaned with water.

(ii) The body of the deceased was not found in the spot as it was shifted to Dharmanagar Mortuary for postmortem examination.

(iii) Red coloured stain was observed at a few places on the floor of the room (scene of crime) and from the front side of the showcase of the room where dead body was allegedly found.

(iv) One yellow colour shirt measuring (1 ft. 2 inches X 2 ft. 4 inches approx.) bearing few red colour stain on it was detected near the water tank of the house.

During her cross-examination she denied that she did not

go to the place of occurrence.

16. PW-6, Dhirendra Sukla Baidya, a constable of police

deposed that as per direction of their officer, Raj Kumar Jamatia, he

took the dead body of one female to the Dharmanagar hospital for

postmortem examination along with the dead body challan and inquest

and introduced the dead body to the medical officer. Postmortem was

conducted. He further deposed that after completion of postmortem

examination, he handed over the dead body to her relatives. He further

deposed that S.I. Raj Kumar Jamatia had seized one yellow colour

blouse and one sari of the deceased, the colour of which he could not

recollect. He put his signature in the seizure list and being identified, it

was marked as Exbt.7.

17. PW-7, Dr. Pranay Das appeared before the Court as

witness when his attention was drawn to a medical report dated

28.08.2016 allegedly issued by him being medical officer of

Sanicherra PHC. He deposed that this is the medical report in respect

of one injured namely Anupama Goala, aged about 16 years where

there was history of physical assault by her father and found cut injury

at the backside of her head and in the finding column it was

mentioned that one cut injury (sharp) in nature which was measuring 3

X 0.5 X 0.5 cm was found at the occipital region and he mentioned

that the said cut injury was caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

The defence had declined his cross-examination.

18. PW-8, Smt. Ratna Deb deposed as a Nurse who had

witnessed the seizure of blood sample collected by Dr. Debashis Deb

Roy. She identified her signature (Exbt.10) in the seizure list

19. PW-9, Sri Matilal Teli deposed that on the fateful night

he went to the house of Raj Kumar Goala on being called by Pradhan

and there police seized one blood stained axe from the backside of the

house of Raj Kumar Goala, which Raj Kumar Goala collected from a

jungle area behind his hut. He put his signature in the seizure list

which being identified marked as Exbt.11. Deposing further, PW-9

stated that when the offence had taken place Raj Kumar Goala i.e. the

appellant herein, was temporarily suffering from insanity. He further

deposed that on the following day, at about 11:50 hours, police had

seized a blood stain shirt of Raj Kumar Goala which was lying in front

of the water tank situated on the northern side of the hut of Raj Kumar

Goala. Seizure list was prepared where he put his signature, which

was marked as Exbt.12.

Cross-examination of this witness was declined.

20. PW-10 is not a material witness being a seizure witness

of the blood sample.

21. PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem

examination over the dead body of deceased Gita Goala. On

examination of the dead body so far as external appearances, PW-11

deposed that he found the body was stout and Rigor mortis was

present. He also found the following injuries:

"(1) one incised injury over left side of the neck with blood clot measuring 10cm X 5cm X 5cm and (2) another Incised injury over the left side of the neck measuring 10cm X 5cm X 5cm. No other abnormality was detected. There was a history of chopping by an Axe made by police. No other injury was seen. After the Postmortem examination, I opined that cause of death could be due to severe shock due to loss of blood as a result of cut throat. Moreover, viscera like liver and stomach was collected for histo pathological examination. I issued my certificate on 23.07.2016. During that time I did not give any opinion regarding Toxicological report and my final opinion. But after receipt of toxicological result I found that there was absence of any poison in viscera which was sent for histo

pathological examination and thereafter, I opined that it was an case of homicidal in nature. The toxicological report was received after 23.07.2016 and my opinion that death was homicidal in nature was also given by me after 23.07.2016. But for that I did not put my signature with date showing that subsequently, I put that comments. The injury which was found on the body of the deceased was anti-mortem in nature and that was sufficient to identify the cause death. In my report though I did not mention that the injury was anti-mortem in nature but from my report I can simply say that it was antimortem in nature and the injury found, shows that due to loss of blood the deceased expired. This is my report dated 23.07.2016. On identification the entire report is marked as Exhibit-14 as a whole."

The defence had only suggested that his report was not

justified.

22. PW-12, Munna Gour was the scribe of the ejahar. He

deposed that he had written the ejahar on the basis of the facts

supplied by Ajit Goala (PW-5). He identified the ejahar being marked

as Exbt.6/a. He deposed that contents of the ejahar was read over and

explained to Ajit Goala.

23. PW-13, Raj Kumar Jamatia was the investigating officer.

He deposed that having taken the responsibility to investigate the case

he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report,

recorded the statements of the available witnesses under Section 161

of CrPC. He further deposed that he arranged for recording of the

statement of PW-3 under Section 164 of CrPC. He prepared the hand

sketch map of the scene of occurrence, seized the blood stained blouse

and sari which were worn by the deceased Gita Goala at the time of

her murder. He has also seized the axe which was used as weapon of

offence (Exbt.MO 1) which was recovered at the instance of the

convict-appellant in presence of other witnesses. He collected the

Forensic and Postmortem reports.

24. Having careful perusal of the aforesaid evidences, it is

surfaced that the incident was occurred in a hut where there were two

rooms being partitioned in such a manner was that one can travel

easily from one room to another room. PW-3 has categorically stated

in her deposition that she was sleeping in the same room where her

parents were there. On the fateful night her mother was sleeping on

the floor. She suddenly woke up hearing the cries of her mother when

she found a deep cut injury at the neck below the ear of her mother

and her father was about to inflict another blow by an axe in hand

which she had tried to resist and suffered injury at the backside of her

head and later on, she was treated at the PHC. Entire floor of the room

was blood stained. Hearing the cries of her mother and herself, her

elder brother, Ajit Goala (PW-5) woke up and rushed to the room.

25. During his deposition, Ajit Goala (PW-5) had

categorically stated that he had seen his father with an axe in his hand.

He took his mother at his lap and administered water and within a

short while she died at his lap. PW-5 had snatched away the axe from

his father and had kept it at a place inside a room. He had rushed to

the house of his aunt (father‟s sister) and returned back after 15/16

minutes when he found that the blood on the floor was cleaned up.

PW-3 has categorically stated that her father had brought water from

the water tank of their house and cleaned the blood soaked floor of the

room and she also assisted in the cleaning up process being threatened

by her father.

26. Both PW-3 and PW-5 are acquainted with the axe which

belonged to them as it was used for cutting fire wood. It has also come

to light that the appellant had thrown away the axe at the backside at

their house near Agar tree where other trees are also there.

From the evidences of the witnesses it is established that

the axe was recovered at the disclosure of the convict-appellant.

27. PW-2, Prasenjit Datta has deposed that he had seen the

body of the wife of the appellant lying on the floor with cut injury at

the neck below the ear. PW-1, Bajrang Ray has categorically deposed

that when he went to the place of occurrence he found gathering there

and Raj Kumar Goala. The dead body of wife of Raj Kumar Goala

which was lying on the floor were encircled by the said gathering. The

said witness also has noticed the bleeding injuries at the neck below

the ear of the deceased. He has specifically deposed that Raj Kumar

Goala the appellant herein, had shown the axe by which he had killed

his wife when police being recovered the same has seized it by

preparing the seizure list. The said witness has identified his signature

in the seizure list.

28. According to us, the evidence of PW-3 does not suffer

from any infirmity that she had seen her father inflicting blows by the

axe to the neck of her mother and thereafter her brother Ajit Goala

arrived at the spot and took the body of her mother at his lap and

administered water and immediately thereafter her mother died. The

injury she had suffered at the backside of her head further fortifies her

statement that when she was trying to remove the axe from the hand

of her father at that time she was hit by the sharp side of the axe. If we

read cumulatively to the statement of PW-5, we find that PW-5 had

snatched away the axe and had thrown it at a place inside the room

and dashed his father on the bed. PW-5 has further corroborated the

statements of his sister that he rushed to the house of his aunt and

when returned after 15/16 minutes he found that the blood was

washed off from the floor and the bed cover was changed and a fresh

bed cover was kept on the body of her mother.

29. According to us, both PW-3 and PW-5 have embedded to

their versions and remained unshaken while describing the incident at

which their father had killed their mother with the axe (Exbt.MO 1)

and their statements, according to us, are enough to justify the

conviction of appellant as declared by learned Sessions Judge.

30. Now, coming to the other aspect of the defence case that

has been surfaced from the trend of cross-examination that the

appellant, Raj Kumar Goala at the time of incident was suffering from

insanity or unsoundness of mind. The defence has tried to project a

case that on the issue of selling a Maruti vehicle the appellant was

suffering from mental disorder. We have noticed that even the PW-3

has stated that her father used to drive the vehicle for about two years

but he failed to make the payment of installments and PW-1 has stated

that the appellant was suffering from financial troubles and he left the

house due to demand of money by others but these factors do not

come within the purview of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

31. Section 84 of IPC may be quoted here-in-below, for

convenience:

"84. Act of a person of unsound mind.--Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law."

32. We repel the submission of learned counsel for the

appellant that the appellant had inflicted injury upon his wife out of

his unsoundness of mind. Firstly, the defence during the course of trial

has failed to come out with any scrap of paper that the appellant was

ever medically treated before or after the commission of crime that he

is a man of unsoundness mind. More so, according to us, the crucial

point of ascertaining existence of insanity is the time, when the

offence is committed. Absence of motive to commit offence cannot be

a ground to prove insanity. To prove insanity or unsoundness of the

mind of an accused, his previous as well as post mental status may be

considered. Further, every insanity is not legal insanity and there may

be a case, where a person may be suffering from medical insanity but

it may not be sufficient to treat the same as legal insanity so as to give

benefit of Section 84 of IPC.

33. Discussing the requirement of accused proving his

insanity, the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Misra Vrs. State

of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 495 has dealt with the

nature of insanity required to be proved by the accused in the

following words:

"11. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term "insanity" carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer, are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Penal Code."

34. Further, unsoundness of mind means a state of mind in

which an accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that

he is incapable of knowing that he is doing wrong or contrary to law.

The burden of proving this is upon the person who takes the plea. To

invokes the defence of insanity, it must clearly be proved that at the

time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a

defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and

quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not

know he was doing what was wrong. Mere abnormality of mind or

partial delusion affords no protection under section 84 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

35. In the above backdrop, in the instant case, we do not find

any material that at the time of commission of the offence the

appellant was suffering from unsoundness of mind.

36. To say the least, there is overwhelming evidence that the

appellant was a sound and able bodied person and was not suffering

from any mental disorder at any point of time. In the case in hand, we

have noticed that the appellant has not only inflicted blows upon the

neck of his wife with the axe belonged to the family, but, also was

about to hit another blow when his daughter had tried to resist him and

due to that she also suffered injury. The subsequent act of the

appellant further has dislodged the story of insanity when the

appellant himself had brought water and washed off the blood from

the floor of the room and also threatened his daughter (PW-3) to assist

him in such cleaning up process and had thrown the axe in a nearby

jungle of his house. The doctor appearing before the witness box has

confirmed that the injury as suffered by the deceased wife was caused

by sharp cutting injury and it was possible by the weapon of offence

i.e. the axe that was used by the appellant in committing the offence. It

transpires that the appellant in his examination under Section 313,

CrPC has not stated that he was suffering from insanity or that he was

treated for that at any point of time.

37. In the case in hand, the doctor (PW-11) has specifically

stated that the victim has suffered the following injuries:

(i) one incised injury over left side of the neck with blood clot measuring 10 cm X 5 cm X 5 cm and

(ii) another incised injury over the left side of the neck measuring 10 cm X 5 cm X 5 cm.

38. In view of the aforesaid evidence and materials on

record, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Sessions

Judge that the convict-appellant is not entitled to get any compassion.

The way the appellant had caused injury at the neck of his deceased

wife and his subsequent act of concealing the weapon of offence and

washing off blood from the floor of the room, we find justifiable

reasons to hold that it was a cold blooded murder without any

provocation from the side of the deceased which suggests that the

appellant deserves to be punished with sentence to suffer Rigorous

imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of IPC as

declared by the learned Sessions Judge.

39. Having held so, the instant appeal stands dismissed being

devoid of merit.

40. Send down the L.C. records along with a copy of this

judgment.

         (ARINDAM LODH), J                  (AKIL KURESHI),CJ.