IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

Initially four persons filed the special leave petition but as three of them, namely, Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 refused to surrender, their special leave petition stood dismissed by an order dated 05.01.2004.

2. Leave was granted in respect of the present appellant on 27.03.2006.

3. This appeal which is now surviving only at the instance of Birender Poddar, the husband of the deceased woman, is directed against the concurrent judgment and order of his conviction. In the Sessions Trial No. 380 of 1994, the appellant stood convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment, sentence to run concurrently. The High Court on appeal, affirmed the conviction and the sentences.

4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully and also the judgment of the High Court and also of the learned Sessions Judge.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal raised several contentions. His main contention is that there is no direct evidence in the case. He further submitted that there is substantial contradiction in the matter of identification of the dead body. He also submitted that out of the several witnesses cited by the prosecution, PWs 1, 2 and 3 have turned hostile and the other witnesses, namely, PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 are relations and interested witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that there is substantial contradiction in this matter between the medical evidence and the oral evidence. He, therefore, submitted that in the facts of this case, the conviction against the appellant should be quashed and considering the fact that he has been in custody for all these years, he should be set free immediately.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further raised a defence that the deceased died a natural death as she was suffering from jaundice. Learned counsel further urged that the entire evidence on which the prosecution relied consists of evidences of interested persons who are related with the deceased woman.

7. The learned counsel for the State supporting the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and that of the High Court urged that there is no contradiction in the material part of the prosecution case and the defence taken by the appellant has not at all been proved. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidences of the so-called hostile witnesses do not support the defence version of the case and there is no discrepancy in the material part of the prosecution case and both the courts, especially the High Court, have correctly appreciated the facts of the case.

8. It is obviously true that this case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. It is true that in cases where death takes place within the matrimonial home, it is very difficult to find direct evidence. But for appreciating circumstantial evidences, the court has to be cautious and find out whether the chain of circumstances led by the prosecution is complete and the chain must be so complete and conclusive as to unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused. It is well settled that if any hypothesis or possibility arises from the evidences which is incompatible with the guilt of the accused, in such case, the conviction of the accused which is based solely on circumstantial evidences is difficult to be sustained.

(See1 AIR 1952 SC 343 ‘Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh’,2 AIR 1954 SC 621 ‘Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab’ and3 AIR 1956 SC 316 ‘Eradu and others v. State of Hyderabad’)

9. Following the aforesaid time honoured principles, if we look into the facts of the case, we find from the evidence of PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 on which the prosecution relied that there is consistent evidence of ill-treatment of the deceased. There is also evidence of beating and injury mark on the decea