IMPORTANT POINT
An accused cannot be convicted unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

Pooja, daughter of Pramod Bhatnagar (Informant) went missing on November 01, 1995. On that day, she had left her home at 5.30 PM to attend her MBA classes. However, she did not return back. Her father and family members became anxious and worried when they found that she had not returned till 9.00 PM. Before they could go out to search for her, one Ashok informed them around 10.00 PM, that Pooja was admitted to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. On receiving this information, the informant rushed to the hospital. After reaching there, he found that body of Pooja was lying there as she was already dead. As per the informant she was murdered by the appellant herein, who had strangulated her neck by squeezing the same. Next morning, the Informant lodged written report of the murder of Pooja with the Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, stating the aforesaid facts.

2. On the basis of the report, case was registered and police sprung into action. Dead body of Pooja was subjected to autopsy. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and necessary memos were drawn. The appellant was arrested. Challan was filed in the court implicating the appellant alleging that the appellant had committed the murder. The case came up for trial before the Special Judge (Communal Riots/Man Singh murder), Jaipur who framed the charges under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The trial was held wherein the prosecution produced as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the appellant, thereafter, was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) wherein the appellant claimed innocence and rebutted the prosecution story. The version projected by him was that Pooja was madly in love with him and wanted to marry him. However, her parents did not agree for their marriage. Accordingly, both, the appellant and Pooja had decided to commit suicide. Both of them consumed copper sulphate, though the quantity taken by the appellant was lesser in comparison with that of Pooja. Soon after Pooja started vomiting. At this juncture, he went out of the room to seek help. When he returned back he found Pooja hanging. He untied the noose of cable wire which was used for the purpose of hanging and removed her to the hospital with the help of the neighbours.

3. Arguments were heard by the Special Judge. Aforesaid story put forth by the appellant did not convince the trial court judge, who after analyzing the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, charges against the appellant. Holding that Pooja did not commit suicide but was murdered, the trial court found the appellant guilty of murder. It imposed the sentence of life imprisonment for committing that crime, punishable under Section 302, IPC. The trial court also held that since the appellant had himself admitted that he had consumed copper sulphate with the intent to commit suicide, offence under Section 309 also stood proved. For this offence, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Monetary fines for both the offences were also inflicted with default clauses.

4. The appellant preferred appeal against the said judgment under Section 374 Cr.PC by approaching the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. This appeal has been dismissed by the High court vide impugned judgment dated February 19, 2007. Aggrieved by this outcome, he has challenged the order of the High Court, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

5. From the aforesaid prosecution story narrated in brief along with the defence version, it becomes clear that it is only the appellant who is involved in the episode in-question. The only aspect on which the controversy revolves around is as to whether it is the appellant who committed murder of Pooja or Pooja had committed suicide? Since, this is the only narrow scope of the ap