2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (PANAJI BENCH)

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND U.V. BAKRE, JJ.

Raghunath Sitaram Naik Vs. The State Of Goa

Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2011

29th March, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. RYAN MENEZES
Respondent Counsel: Mr. C. A. FERREIRA

(A) Penal Code (1860), S.300 - Murder - Evidence and proof - Prosecution case that accused assaulted his wife in bedroom of his house resulting into her death - Number and nature of injuries sustained by deceased showing that her death is homicidal - Evidence of witnesses that accused and deceased were inside bedroom and accused had latched door of bedroom from inside - No evidence to prove that accused was not in proper state of mind at time of causing death of deceased - It is proved beyond doubt that accused intentionally caused bodily injuries to his wife which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Further accused after assault quietly went and sat in verandah of house without giving any assistance to deceased - Offence committed by accused clearly falls under S.302. (33 to 35)

(B) Penal Code (1860), S.84 - Evidence Act (1872), S.105 - Plea of Insanity - Burden of proving that mental condition of accused was not proper at time when offence was committed - Lies on accused in view of S.105 of Evidence Act. (Para 34)

Cases Cited:
Abdul Kader Vs. Emperor, AIR (34) 1974 Bom.345 [Para 6]
Karu Marik Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2381 (S.C.)=(2001)5 SCC 284 [Para 8,35]
T. N. Lakshmaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 3828 [Para 34]
State of M.P. Vs. Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 998 [Para 34]
Madhukar G. Nigade Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1347=2006 Cri.L.J. 1305 [Para 34]


JUDGMENT

U. V. BAKRE, J. :- This appeal is filed by the accused, in Sessions Case No. 21/2007, who has been convicted and sentenced of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11/08/2007 between 15.30 hours to 17.20 hours at Madhalawada, Mencurem, the accused assaulted his wife by name Satyawati Naik in the bedroom of his house, by latching the door of the said bedroom from inside, as a result of which Satyawati Naik sustained injuries and succumbed to the same in Goa Medical College Hospital at Bambolim, while undergoing treatment.

3. To the charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused answered that he had assaulted his wife since he was not mentally well. However, the accused was directed to face the trial.

4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined altogether 21 witnesses. PW1, Suresh Navelkar is one of the Panch witnesses for the panchanama of the arrest of the accused, which is at exhibit 9. PW2, Krishna Mayekar is the draughtsman working for PWD, Bicholim, who drew the sketch of the scene of offence which is a part of exhibit 15 colly. PW3, Vishakha Naik is a member of Swadhyay Pariwar of which the complainant Prajyoti Prakash Naik, the daughter-in-law of the accused, is also a member. PW4, Dr. Sanjay Korgaonkar was working as a Medical Officer in the blood bank at Goa medical College Hospital at Bambolim and he did blood grouping examination of the deceased. The certificate issued by him is at exhibit 19. PW5, Uma Mahadev Mishal, PW6, Aarti Anant Naik and PW7, Anant Naik are all neighbours of the deceased and the accused. PW8, Dattadas Parab is the owner of the Sumo Vehicle by which the deceased was shifted to Asilo Hospital, Mapusa. PW9, Satyawan Naik acted as one of the panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama which is at exhibit 30. PW10, Prajyoti Naik is the said daughter-in-law of the accused and the deceased, who lodged the complaint with the Bicholim Police and which is at exhibit 35. PW11, Dr. Siddharth Banaulikar, the Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Forensic Medicine at Goa Medical College Hospital conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The memorandum of autopsy is at exhibit 42. PW12, Nakul Naik, the Sarpanch of Mencurem acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of the attachment of a small black coloured shirt with checks and yellow coloured towel, with which the complainant had wiped the floor in the bed room. The panchanama is at exhibit 45. PW13, Satyabhama Naik is the sister-in-law of PW10. PW14, Prakash Dessai acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of the scene of offence which is at exhibit 51. PW15, Vishal Naik is the nephew of PW10. PW16, Rajendra Rane acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of the disclosure statement made by the accused and recovery of his clothes, at his instance, which panchanama is at exhibit 57. PW17, Pratap Govekar acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of the attachment of some gold ornaments handed over by the son of the accused to the police, which panchanama is at exhibit 67. PW18, Dr. Madhu S. Ghodkirekar is the lecturer in Forensic Medicine at Goa Medical College Hospital and he had examined the accused on 30/08/2007. The certificate is at exhibit 74. PW19, Kalidas Naik is the brother of the husband of PW10, PW20, Braz Menezes was working as officer-in-charge of Bicholim Police Station and PW21, Shri Chandrakant Naik was Police Sub-Inspector attached to same police station and they conducted the investigation of the case. The examination reports received from Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.F.S.L.) are at exhibit 71D and 72C.

5. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.), the accused stated that he was sitting in the courtyard of the house whereas his wife was inside the house and he did not kill her. The accused did not examine any witness.

6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Panaji, Goa ('Trial Judge'), vide the judgment and order dated 26/10/2009, held that the plea of guilt by the accused is an additional factor to be taken into consideration along with the prosecution evidence and it fortifies and substantiates the evidence of the prosecution. In this regard, the Trial Judge relied upon "Abdul Kader Vs Emperor"[AIR (34) 1974 Bombay 345]. The learned Trial Judge further held that the evidence of PW11, Dr. Banaulikar proves that the deceased Satyawati was brutally assaulted. She found from the evidence on record that at the time of assault on the deceased, the deceased and his wife were the only persons present in the house and all other family members had gone out. The learned Trial Judge has held that the burden of proving that the mental condition of the accused was not proper at the time when the offence was committed, lies on the accused in view of Section 105 of the Evidence Act and there is nothing on record to prove that the accused was mentally unsound at the relevant time. The learned Trial Judge further held that looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is clear that the accused brutally assaulted his wife fully knowing that the said injuries were so imminently dangerous that they must, in all probability, cause death or likely to cause death and the accused committed such act without any excuse for incurring risk of causing the death or such injury. She, therefore, held that the offence clearly falls under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused, therefore, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced as already stated earlier.

7. Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel, appointed for the accused under the Legal Aid Scheme, contended that there is no direct evidence in the case and that the prosecution case rests only on the circumstantial evidence. He pointed out that merely because the accused and the deceased were found to be the only persons in the house after which the deceased was found in the injured condition, the Trial Judge has held the accused guilty of murder. According to Shri Ryan Menezes, causing death of his wife was never the intention of the accused. He pointed out that the assault on the deceased was not by means of any weapon. He further pointed out that the deceased was about 65 years old and the accused was about 80 years old and the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW20) reveals that he came to know during the course of investigation that the motive for the offence was that the deceased had refused to entertain the accused for having sex with him and that is why he committed the said offence. Learned Counsel contended that for the said reason, the accused might have become angry and, therefore, might have assaulted his wife, but death was neither intended nor anticipated. From the evidence on record, he also pointed out that there are circumstances on record showing that the mental condition of the accused was not proper. He invited our attention to the evidence of PW11, Dr. Banaulikar and the postmortem examination report which reveals that most of the injuries are bruises. Learned Shri Menezes submitted that looking to the said injuries, it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death. The said injuries are an expression of anger of the accused. The learned Counsel for the accused pointed out that the accused was found sitting in the courtyard and did not run away from the house nor did he cover up his acts and this conduct of the accused also shows that he did not anticipate the death of his wife. Learned Shri Menezes invited our attention to the evidence of several family members, who have been examined by the prosecution but who do not speak about any animosity of the accused with the deceased. According to him, there is no motive for the accused to kill his wife. He, therefore, urged that the offence, if any, is under Section 325 of I.P.C. or at the most under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. He contended that considering the old age of the accused, he should be directed to be released now as he has undergone more than four and half years of imprisonment.

8. Per contra, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge and, therefore, this is an additional factor which strengthens the prosecution case. He argued that the fact that the accused and the deceased were the only persons present in the house, goes to prove that the accused is the author of the injuries, which have been sustained by the deceased. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the nature of the injuries is a factor for deciding whether Section 302 of I.P.C. is applicable or whether it is Section 304 of I.P.C., which is applicable. He submitted that in the present case, since there are multiple assaults on an old lady and fatal injuries sustained by her, the inference to be drawn is only that what is applicable is Section 302 of I.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Karu Marik Vs. State of Bihar", [(2001)5 SCC 284] : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2381 (S.C.)].

9. We have gone through the impugned Judgment and the entire record and proceedings.

10. Let us first see whether it is proved that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

11. PW11, Dr. Siddharth Banaulikar, Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Forensic of Medicine at Goa Medical College, Bombolim had conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Smt. Satyawati Raghunath Naik i.e. the wife of the accused. PW11 has stated that the deceased was referred from Asilo Hospital to the Goa Medical College on 11/08/2007 at 6.35 p.m. and the dead body was identified by Mr. Sadanand Naik, son of the deceased. The autopsy was conducted by PW11 on 12/08/2007. The Memorandum of Autopsy is at exhibit 42. PW11 noticed the following external injuries on the dead body :

1. Bruise, measuring 6 x 5 cm, over the right temporal scalp.

2. Bruise, measuring 5 x 5 cm, over the left temporal scalp.

3. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 3 x 2 cm, over the right forehead, just above the eye brow.

4. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 3 x 2 cm, over the outer canthus of right eye.

5. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 6 x 3 cm, over the outer canthus of the left eye and surrounding region.

6. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 2 x 1 cm, over the under surface (mucosa) of upper lip, mid part.

7. Laceration, reddish in colour, measuring 6 x 3 x 1 cm, over the junction of mucousa of lower lip with the gum and gingival surface.

8. Abrasion, brownish black in colour, measuring 4 x 3 cm, with the underline bruise bluish in colour, measuring 6 x 4 cm, over the front of chin and under surface of chin as shown.

9. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 8 x 7 cm, over the right cheek.

10. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 15 x 12 cm, over the right upper chest and shoulder region.

11. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 12 x 10 cm, over the left upper chest and shoulder region and medial part of left sterno clavicular joint.

12. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 3 x 2 cm, over the back of mid part of right palm.

13. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 2 x 1 cm, over the back of mid part of left palm,

14. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 5 x 4 cm, over the left cheek in front of ear,

15. Injection prick mark for the lateral part of left wrist joint done during treatment.

16. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 4 x 3 cm, over the right side of upper neck.

17. Bruise, bluish in colour, measuring 6 x 5 cm, over the left side of neck.

12. The internal injuries noticed by PW11 are as follows :

There was extravassation of blood seen underneath the scalp at injuries no.1, 2 and 3. Blood stains were seen over the scalp, hair and face. Brain was congested and severally edematous with atrophic changes. There was Subdural Haematoma of right temporo-parietal region of maximum 3 mm thickness and another Subdural Haematoma of 4mm thickness over the left temporal region of brain white matter. Sub Arachnoid haematoma was seen over the high parietal region of parietal lobes on both sides. There was also Sub Arachnoid Haematoma over the cerebellum and both frontal poles of brain. CSF was blood tinged and there were multiple sub centric cortical contusions over the under surface of both temporal and frontal lobes. There were bruising effects as described in injuries no. 16 and 17. Extravassation of blood was there in the soft tissues of neck underneath the injuries no.16 and 17. There were fractures in the greater cornua of hyoid bone on both sides. Streakes of blood mixed in mucous secreation was seen in the lumen of larynx and trachea. The examination of thorax showed that there was fracture for the right side second, third, fourth and fifth ribs along the mid clavicular line with extravassation of blood in the intercoastal muscles. There were fractures in the left side second, third and fourth ribs seen along para sternal region with extravassation of blood in the intercoastal muscles. Both lungs were congested with sub centric laceration with the right upper lobe due to piercing of fracture fragments for the paranchyme.

13. According to PW11, the cause of death was due to combined effect of head and neck injuries vide injuries no.1, 2, 3, 16 and 17 associated with chest injuries consequent to blunt force impact by object or surface and all the injuries were ante-mortem and fresh at the time of death. PW11 has specifically stated that injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 16 and 17 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW11 did not find any smell of pesticides. He also did not find any physical finding suggestive of poisoning. He has opined that all the injuries mentioned by him as suffered by the deceased can be caused if she was hit on a hard surface such as wall, bed, floor and was kicked and given fist blows.

14. From the examination report of C.F.S.L., Hyderabad (exhibit 72/C), no common poison could be detected in the viscera of the deceased.

15. The number and the nature of the injuries including the internal injuries sustained by the deceased, is sufficient to prove beyond doubt that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

16. The next question which arises for determination is whether the accused caused the said injuries to the deceased.

17. PW10, Mrs. Prajyoti Naik is the wife of Mr. Prakash Naik, son of the accused and of the deceased. She is the daughter-in-law of the accused. She has stated that after the marriage with Prakash Naik, she started residing at Mencurem, Bicholim along with her husband, her son by name Pranav Naik, who is 9 years old, daughter by name Siddhi Naik, who is 5 years old, accused and her late mother-in-law by name Satyawati as also her nephew by name Vishal Naik.

18. PW13, Mrs. Satyabhama Naik is the sister-in-law of PW10. She is married to Sadanand Naik, brother of the husband of PW10. PW13 has stated that earlier she and her husband used to stay in their ancestral house along with her father-in-law (the accused), mother-in-law- late Satyawati, brother-in-law, Prakash and his wife Mrs. Prajyoti Naik. She has stated that since they constructed new house in Mencurem close to the ancestral house, they left the ancestral house.

19. PW15, Vishal Naik has deposed that the accused is his grandfather i.e. his mother's father and that PW10 is his Aunty i.e. wife of his maternal uncle. PW15 has also stated that he was residing in the house of the accused along with grandmother - Satyawati Naik, his uncle - Prakash naik and Aunty - Prajyoti Naik and two children namely Pranav and Siddhi.

20. The evidence of above witnesses, with regard to the occupants of the house, has not been challenged. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that the accused and the deceased being husband and wife used to reside together at Mencurem in their ancestral house along with PW10, PW15 and other family members.

21. PW10 has deposed that on 11/08/2007, her nephew Vishal left the house at about 6.45 hours to go to his school at Colvalem, whereas her husband left the house at 12.00 hours along with her son to reach him to the school at Mapusa. She has stated that at home she along with her mother-in-law, father-in-law (the accused) and her daughter were present and they had lunch at 1.30 p.m. and at about 2.00 p.m., Vishal came home for lunch. PW10 has further deposed that thereafter she along with her mother-in-law and her daughter went to sleep in her bedroom by about 2.00 p.m. She has explained that her mother-in-law had come to her bedroom as she wanted to put eye-drops in her eyes. PW10 put eye-drops in the eyes of her mother-in-law, who then went to sleep and thereafter PW10 latched the door from inside and went to sleep. She has further stated that she got up at about 3.00 p.m. and when she tried to open the door of her bedroom, she found that it was not opening and, therefore, she called Vishal and thereafter her father-in-law i.e. the accused came and unlatched the door from outside the room. PW10 has further stated that she asked Vishal as to whether he had latched the door of her bedroom from outside, who told her that he had not done so and then, she asked the accused whether he had latched the door of the bedroom and he also answered in the negative.

22. PW10 has further stated that she is a member of Swadhyay Pariwar and they have their religious programme in Mauli temple at Mencurem and their programme is scheduled on every second and fourth Sunday. PW10 has stated that at about 3.30 p.m. On 11/08/2007, she took her daughter and left the house at about 3.30 p.m. and went to the house of Uma Mahadev Mishal where she waited for about half an hour as she had gone there to remind her about the religious programme of Swadhyay Pariwar which was to take place on 12/08/2007. PW10 has stated that from the house of Uma Mishal, she went to house of Vishakha Namdev Naik to remind her also about the programme. According to PW10, when she left the house, her father-in-law (the accused), mother-in-law (deceased) and Vishal were the only persons present in the house. The evidence of PW10 is natural and there is nothing in her cross-examination, which can render the same unreliable.

23. PW5 is the said Uma Mahadev Mishal, at whose house, PW10 had gone on 11/08/2007. PW5 has stated that on 11/08/2007, she was at her residence at around 3.30 p.m. when Mrs. Prajyoti Naik along with her minor daughter came. PW5 has stated that Prajyoti is a member of Swadhyay Pariwar and that they had arranged a programme at Mauli temple and Prajyoti had visited her house to remind her that Swadhyay Pariwar had fixed a programme on 12/08/2007 in the evening time at Mauli Temple. PW5 has stated that Prajyoti Naik requested her to attend the programme along with her family. PW5 has also stated that Prajyoti Naik had waited at her house for about half an hour and thereafter had left the house along with the daughter. The evidence of PW5 has also gone unchallenged.

24. PW3 is the said Vishakha Naik at whose house, also, PW10 had gone. PW3 has stated that she knows Prajyoti Prakash Naik as she is a member of Swadhyay Pariwar of which PW3 is also a member. PW3 has further stated that on 11/08/2007 at about 4.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m., said Prajyoti Naik had come to her house along with her minor daughter at Mencurem, Bicholim to tell her that on the next day in the evening, there was Pravachan in the Mavli temple at Mencurem and that the said programme was fixed by Swadhyay Pariwar and that she should attend the same with her family. PW3 has stated that Prajyoti Naik left her house at about 5.15 p.m. along with her daughter. The evidence of PW3 has not at all been challenged.

25. PW6, Mrs. Aarti Anant Naik, the neighbour of Prajyoti Naik had also seen Mrs. Prajyoti leaving her house on 11/08/2007 at about 3.30 p.m. along with her minor daughter. PW6 also left her house for personal work and while she was returning back home at about 5.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., she met Prajyoti Naik on the way, who was also returning home. This evidence of PW6 has also gone unchallenged.

26. PW15, Vishal Naik has stated that he was residing with his Aunty Prajyoti Naik on account of his study as he was in the 10th standard studying in Saint Rita's High School at Colvale. PW15 has stated that he used to leave the house to go to the school at about 6.45 a.m. and used to return back home by about 2.30 p.m. and thereafter in the evening at about 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. he used to go the house of his uncle Kalidas for tuitions. PW15 has stated that on 11/08/2007, he left the residence at about 6.45 a.m. and returned back from school at about 2.30 p.m. and after returning home, he had his lunch and went to sleep and woke up at 3.30 p.m. According to PW15, at that time his aunty Prajyoti, his grandfather and grandmother were all present in the house. PW15 has stated that after giving him tea, his Aunty Prajyoti along with her daughter Siddhi left house and at that time, her grandmother was sitting at the dining table in the dining room, having tea, whereas his grandfather was in the verandah. PW15 has further stated that his grandfather called the grandmother inside the bedroom of his Aunty Prajyoti Naik and at that time his grandfather latched the door of the bedroom of Prajyoti from inside. According to PW15, he questioned his grandfather from outside as to why he had latched the door of the bedroom, when, his grandfather told him that he should go for tuitions as it was time for his tuitions. PW15 has stated that he, therefore, went for tuitions at about 4.30 p.m. According to PW15, at the time when he left the house, only his grandfather and grandmother were present in the house. In his cross-examination, mere suggestions have been put to PW15 to deny whatever he has stated in the examination-inchief. There is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination of PW15 to render his testimony unreliable.

27. The combined effect of the evidence of all the above witnesses is that after PW15 left the house by about 4.30 p.m., the accused and the deceased were the only persons present in the house. The evidence of PW15 further establishes that the accused and the deceased were inside the bedroom of PW10 and the accused had latched the door of the bedroom from inside.

28. PW10 has further deposed that she reached home at about 5.20 p.m. and when she reached the courtyard, she got some smell and, therefore, asked the accused, who was in the verandah, about the said smell, but he did not reply. PW10 has stated that at that time, there was no other person present in the house except the accused. She stated that she opened the door of her bedroom which door was latched from outside and saw her mother-in-law lying on the floor with blood oozing out from her mouth and she also got strong smell in the bedroom. PW10 has stated that looking at her mother-in-law, she started screaming and shouting and saying that something had happened to her mother-in-law and on hearing her shouts, her neighbour namely Smt. Purushottam Naik came running to the house at the first instance and at that time, the accused continued sitting in the chair and did not move therefrom. PW10 has further stated that she went running to the house of brother-in-law Kalidas Naik and told him that something has happened to her mother-in-law and that he should come and see. According to PW10, on the way she also met Anant Naik and informed him about the said fact. PW10 has further stated that when she came back home, Sadanand Naik, his wife Vidya Naik, Kalidas Naik and some other neighbours had gathered and her mother-in-law was then shifted by a Sumo vehicle to Asilo Hospital and she also went along her sister-in-law Vidya Naik, Anant Naik and Sadanand Naik to the Hospital. PW10 has further stated that the Sumo vehicle was of Dattaram Parab and that her mother-in-law was shifted from Asilo Hospital to Goa Medical College, Bambolim. PW10 has stated that she, however, came back home in the same Sumo vehicle along with Vidya Naik and Anant Naik, whereas Sadanand Naik and Kalidas Naik went along with her mother-in-law to Goa Medical College, Bambolim. According to PW10, she reached home at about 8.30 p.m. and saw that there were blood stains on the floor of her bedroom and strong smell was coming due to which she cleaned the floor of her bedroom. She has stated that she enquired with Vishal as to what had happened after she left the house and Vishal told her that after she left the house only her father-inlaw and mother-in-law were in the house and the father-in-law had called mother-in-law after which Vishal had gone out for his tuitions. PW10 has further stated that when she returned home, she enquired with her father-in-law as to where is her mother-in-law to which he replied that she was lying in her bedroom.

29. It is seen that in the cross-examination of PW10, more stress is given to show that the accused had some mental problems. She has stated that her mother-in-law was of good temperament having self-respect and her nature was such that she would break but would never bend and her nature was such that she would maintain dignity and prestige of her family. A suggestion has been put to PW10 that it was she who had manhandled her mother-in-law and has falsely implicated her father-in-law and that due to her said action, the accused had mental shock and was forced to be admitted in mental hospital. The above suggestion has been denied by PW10. The said suggestion has no substance because it is proved beyond doubt that PW10 had gone out of the house in the afternoon and had come back at about 5.30 p.m. and the incident of assault on the deceased had taken place in the absence of PW10.

30. PW7, Anant Naik, PW8, Dattadas Parab and PW13, Satyabhama Naik have all corroborated the testimony of PW10, insofar as their part is concerned.

31. The fact that the accused and the deceased were the only persons present in the house, when the deceased received the injuries, has been proved beyond doubt.

32. The strong circumstances which emerge from the depositions of the above witnesses, as duly established, are as follows :

(i) All the family members had gone out of the house and only the deceased and the accused were inside the house after 4.30 p.m. On 11/8/2007.

(ii) The accused had called the deceased inside the bedroom of PW10 and had latched the door of the bedroom from inside.

(iii) After PW10 returned home by about 5.20 p.m., she saw that there was no one else except the accused present in the house and that the door of her bedroom was latched from outside.

(iv) The accused was, however, sitting in the verandah and when he was questioned by PW10 as to where is her mother-in-law, he answered that she was lying in the bedroom of PW10.

(v) PW10 opened the door of her bedroom and saw that the deceased was lying on the floor in a seriously injured condition.

(vi) Even after the neighbours came to the house, the accused continued to sit in the chair in the verandah of the house and did not move.

(vii) The postmortem examination of the deceased conducted by PW11 reveals that she died due to combined effect of neck injuries vide injuries no.1, 2, 3, 16 and 17 associated with chest injuries which injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

33. The above established circumstances read with the answer of the accused to the charge that was explained to him to the effect that he had assaulted the deceased, sufficiently proves that it is the accused, who caused the death of the deceased.

34. There is no evidence on record to prove that the accused at the relevant time was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. There is also no sufficient evidence to prove that the accused was not in a proper state of mind at the time of causing death of the deceased. Admittedly, the accused has not taken defence of insanity under Section 84 of I.P.C. The burden of proving that the mental condition of the accused was not proper at the time when the offence was committed, lies on the accused in view of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, the learned Trial Judge has relied upon "T. N. Lakshmaiah Vs. State of Karnataka", [AIR 2001 SC 3828] and "State of M.P. Vs. Ahmadulla", [AIR 1961 SC 998]. The learned Trial Judge has also relied upon "Madhukar G. Nigade Vs. State of Maharashtra", [2006 Cri.L.J. 1305] : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1347]. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of Mr. Ryan Menezes that the accused was not in a proper frame of mind to know as to what he was doing was wrong.

35. The only question that now remains to be seen is whether the offence committed by the accused is of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the case of "Karu Marik", [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2381 (S.C.)] (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the intention to cause such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm is caused may be inferred not merely from the actual consequences of his act, but from the act itself also. Hence, the manner of causing injuries, the nature of the injuries caused, the parts of the body where they were inflicted, the weapon of assault employed in the commission of the offence and conduct of the accused are relevant factors in determining whether the offence committed in one of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, it is proved beyond doubt that the accused intentionally caused bodily injuries to his wife which bodily injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW20, Investigating Officer has deposed that during the course of investigation, he came to know that the motive for the offence was that the deceased had refused to entertain the accused for having sex with him and that is why he committed the said offence. This fact has not been denied by the accused in the cross-examination of PW20. Looking to the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased, it can be easily understood that the accused had brutally assaulted the deceased by inflicting on her injuries which he knew to be so imminently dangerous that they would in all probability cause the death. The accused committed the said act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death. In spite of the above, after the assault, the accused quietly went and sat in the verandah of the house without giving any assistance to the deceased. The offence committed by the accused, therefore, clearly falls under Section 302 of I.P.C.

36. The impugned judgment, order and sentence is, therefore, in accordance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and no interference is, therefore, called for.

37. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.