The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for his wife's death.

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2013 whereby and whereunder it confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) punishable under Section 302, IPC, 201 and 498A of the IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2012 and the sentences imposed therefor.

2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as hereunder: -

The marriage between the appellant-convict and the deceased Smt. Pushpa was solemnised in the year 2006. The incident which led to the conviction of the appellant in connection with the death of Smt. Pushpa occurred on 26.01.2012 at his house, which is the matrimonial home of the deceased. The paternal home of the deceased is also proximately situated viz., around 50 meters from her matrimonial home. The appellant is addicted to gambling and to lash out money therefor, he used to torture her physically and mentally. He had even mortgaged the jewellery of the deceased for the said purpose. The deceased used to share such sorrowful incidents with PW-8 Aarti, who is her own sister. On 26.01.2012, also when PW-8 went to the house of the deceased she told that she was thrashed by the appellant-husband. At about quarter to 7 pm on 26.01.2012, the appellant went to his in-laws’ house and informed them that Pushpa hanged herself and thereupon, he along with her parents gone back home where Pushpa was seen on bed on her knees and still knotted by dupatta around the neck, which in turn, was tied to a piece of wood near the ceiling fan. Despite the opposition, the appellant cut the noose and took her in a vehicle to Sector-9 Hospital, where the doctor checked and declared her as dead. Autopsy on her body was conducted by PW-11, Dr. P. Akhtar. In fact, initially a case was registered only under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “Cr.P.C.”) but, later FIR No.269/12 was registered on 07.04.2012 under Sections 302, 201 and 498A, IPC against the appellant. On being tried, the trial Court convicted him as noted above and for the conviction under Section 300, IPC, he was sentenced under Section 302, IPC, to undergo life imprisonment and also with a fine of Rs.1000/-, for the conviction under Section 201, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- and for the conviction under Section 498A, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-. Default sentences were also passed in case of payment of fine imposed for the conviction under the aforesaid sections. The corporeal sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. In the appeal viz., in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2013, the High Court confirmed the conviction under the aforesaid sections and also the sentences imposed therefor.

3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The facts expatiated earlier would reveal that the appellant was convicted concurrently for the aforesaid offences and there is concurrency even with respect to the sentences imposed therefor. In such circumstances, there is, in fact, very little scope for interference in an appeal by Special Leave. In such cases, overlooking of a vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the convict-appellant or that the finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence, which if eschewed from evidence, the prosecution case would be substantially discredited or it would impair the prosecution case, are some such situations where this Court may interfere with. When the contentions raised are pitted against the evidence on record, they would reveal no such circumstances. Still, we will proceed to consider the contentions raised to find out any other tenable grounds are raised by the appellant which may persuade us to entertain this appeal against the concurre