Judgment

JUDGMENT - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court where by the respondent accused was acquitted in reversal of the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 I P.C. in Sessions Case No.4 of 1975. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:-

2. On the evening of 27th October; 1974, at about 6.00 p.m. the respondent-accused and his wife Laxmi Bai were in their house in village Kodakpura. Shrieks of a lady were heard by one Thakurain and she reported the matter to P.W. 2 Wazir Khan, a neighbour, and requested him to inquire into the matter. Wazir Khan went to the house of the accused and found the door bolted from within. He, therefore, knocked on the door but there was no response. Thereupon he abused the inmates, yet there was no response and so he withdrew to a distance of 8 or 10 paces. Thereafter the accused opened the door, emerged from within and ran away towards the jungle. Information in regard to this incident was conveyed to the police by the village chowkidar P.W. 4 Prem Raj, who was informed about the incident by the accuseds father Bharu Lal (not examined). On the basis of information supplied by P.W. 4 the First Information Report Exhibit P-6 was recorded, the offence was registered and investigation commenced. P.W. 14, Head Constable Nand Lal, went to the scene of occurrence and held an inquest and thereafter arranged to send the dead body of Laxmi Bai to the hospital for autopsy. P.W. 1, Dr. D. W. Dutta, found four anti-mortem incised wounds on the body of Laxmi Bai and opined that she died due to the injury inflicted on the left side of the neck which had cut the large blood vessels causing heomorrage and shock. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that she died a homicidal death.

3. The accused contended that he was falsely involved by his father who had caused the death of his wife and had thereafter tried to inflict injuries on his person also. That is how he claimed to have received three injuries on his person which were noticed by Dr. D. K. Gupta when he examined him on 30th October, 1974. The evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. Gupta, shows that the accused had three injuries; (i) an incised wound l/2"x 1-1/2" X 1/16" on right side of chest; (ii) a superficial injury of 4" x I / 12" on the back of neck under the left ear and (iii) 6" x long linear scar in the shape of a thin strip. All these injuries were simple in nature and could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like a sickle. The doctor has further opined that these could be self-inflicted.

4. There is no eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has placed strong reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2 Wazir Khan (wrongly mentioned as Gafoor Khan by the High Court), a neighbour, who claims to have gone to the place of occurrence at the behest of P,W. 3 Thakurain alias Mehtab, also a neighbour. As stated earlier the father of the accused had informed P.W. 4 Prem Raj, a village watchman, about the incident and it was the latter who had lodged the complaint Exhibit P-6. Weapon of assault was found from the room and was stained with blood. The High Court has rejected the evidence in regard to the discovery of this weapon at the behest of the respondent. We do not propose to doubt that part of the High Courts finding. We will assume that this weapon was found and attached in the course of investigation when the police reached the scene of occurrence. The stains of blood on the weapon have been found by the Serologist and the chemical analyser, to be of human origin. In addition thereto a banian of the accused was also attached as it was bloodstained. It was also stained with blood of human origin. The group was identified. Thus the circumstances on which the prosecution relied are (1) the accused did not open the door when P.W. 2, Wazir Khan knocked at it and even after the latter showered abuses till he had withdraw