Judgment:
A.B. Pal, J.
1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 5.12.2001 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 83 (WT/ K) of 2000 convicting the appellant Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a tine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment, to suffer R. I for 3 (three) months in addition.
2. We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Sr. counsel for the convict-appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
3. The convict-appellant is charged with murdering his own wife. He was a driver by profession. He married the deceased Jyoti Rani Debnath and lived together for only a short period before her premature passing away. The marriage did not bring peace for her as the husband mounted pressure for money from her father to buy a vehicle and a Colour Television. The acrimony between them turned into physical and mental torture forcing her to leave the marital home and stay with her parents for eight months. During her absence the husband, it is alleged, began to live together with another woman. The deceased got the information and approached a local club for justice. The appellant was compelled by the club members to snap relation with the second woman and bring back the deceased for a fresh inning of conjugal life. Though within a year a male child was born, but peace did not return to their conjugal relation. On the date preceding the night of occurrence the convict-appellant had picked up a quarrel with the deceased before he left for his duty as temporary driver of the B. D.O. Khowai. He returned home at 9 p.m. The deceased slept with him in the same room. In the mid night he had throttled his wife to death. The dead body was found on the floor of the room in the following morning when the convict himself opened the door. He pleaded that due to drowsiness he had killed his wife without knowing what he was actually doing.
4. Indisputably thus, the murder was committed on 6.09.1997 at mid night in the bed room of the convict-appellant. One Chinu Rani Ghosh (neighbour) lodged an information with Khowai police station on 7.9.1.997 in the morning. She simply informed in writing (Ext. P/2) that the appellant and the deceased in sound health had gone to their bed room in the night of 6.9.1997. But on the following morning the wife was found dead on the floor of the room.
5. The police registered U.D. case No. 26 of 1997 and inquired into the cause of death Under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inquest was done during inquiry. In the inquest report marks of injury on her neck and back were recorded. Post mortem was done on the same day. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death was strangulation. The death being found homicidal in nature, the police officer (P.W. 17) submitted a report which was registered Under Section 302/34 IPC against the convict-appellant Sri Biplab Debnath, his brother Gautam Debnath, father Sri Jatindra Debnath and mother Sandhya Rani Debnath. Thus, a regular investigation was set in motion which finally ended into a charge-sheet against all the four accused persons Under Section 302/ 201/34 IPC. The charge was framed by the learned trial court against all of them under the provisions aforementioned.
6. During investigation the convict-appellant made a confessional statement which was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai, West Tripura. The convict-appellant was given all caution and warning that he was not bound to make a confession and that if made it would be used against him for securing his conviction. The convict-appellant, however, remained firm on his decision and disclosed that he went to bed before his wife. He did not know when she came to sleep. But he woke up in the mid night and felt, in his drowsiness that some one was sleeping in his room. He then, due to drowsiness, throttled the person to death and slept over the body. Only in the morning he woke up at the call of his father and opened the door. He found that he himself had killed his wife.
The only defence in the confessional statement and in the cross-examination part of the depositions of the witnesses is that he had killed his wife in drowsiness and, therefore, sought escape route under-fourth exception of Section 300 IPC. No other direct or indirect defence has been taken by the convict-appellant.
7. During the course of trial the prosecution examined 18 (eighteen) witnesses, none of whom is eye witness. As the offence had occurred at midnight in the bedroom of the convict-appellant himself, there cannot be any eyewitness to the occurrence. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of circumstances is, therefore, called for. P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased who rushed to the place of occurrence to see the dead body of her daughter inside the room. She narrated the plight of her daughter who had her conjugal life disturbed by mental and physical torture. P. Ws. 2,3,9,10 and 12 are hostile witnesses. P.W. 5,7 and 8 are inquest witnesses. The inquest report indicates that the dead body was found in the north viti hut which is, according to the confessional statement, in the bedroom of the convict-appellant and the deceased. P.W. 4 stated about bitter conjugal relation and P.W. 6 informed that the club members had occasion to settle the dispute between the couple. P.W. 11 is the seizure list witness. P.W. 14 is the Medical Officer and P.W. 15 is the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai, who recorded the confessional statement. P. W. 17 is the police officer who enquired into the U.D. case and P. W. 18 is the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet.
8. Upon perusal of the evidence of the ' witnesses and the confessional statement, learned trial court had no hesitation to take the view that the victim was strangulated to death in the midnight in her own bed room. As the convict-appellant, being her husband, was the only person in the bedroom and he himself admitted that he had strangulated her to death in drowsiness there is no escape for himself. He was thus convicted Under Section 302 IPC. The other accused persons have, however, been acquitted.
9. As the convict-appellant has taken a clear defence that he had strangulated her wife to death in dream/drowsiness without knowing the person he had strangulated was his own wife learned Sr. counsel for him would seek protection of exception No. 4 under Section 300 IPC. The said exception reads as follows:
Exception-4 Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Mr. Talapatra give emphasis on the words 'unusual manner' and wants this Court to read the exception in a manner to understand that 'culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in a cruel or unusual manner'. As the defence taken by the convict-appellant is that he had strangulated some body in his bedroom in dream or drowsiness, it should be taken to be an unusual manner and therefore such a culpable homicide done in an unusual manner cannot be a murder falling within the exception No. 4 Under Section 300 IPC, Mr. Talapatra argues. We remain unconvicted. The exception No. 4 has to be read in a manner to give a complete meaning to the same, not in a fragmented way. A correct reading would be as follows:
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having-(i) taken undue advantage; or (ii) acted in a cruel; or (iii) unusual manner. Thus the words 'unusual manner' has to be read with the principal part of the exception to understand that 'culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden flight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having acted in unusual manner'. As there is no question of sudden fight or sudden quarrel before strangulation of the deceased this exception does not come to the rescue of the convict-appellant. The circumstantial evidence noticed above are so strong that the convict-appellant failed to give explanation how in his bedroom she died in the mid night. As it is a case of homicide the only legal presumption would be none but he had done her to death.
10. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment impugned. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, affirmed. The appeal having no merit is dismissed.