The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for the appreciation of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Pavithran, the learned Counsel for the Appellant appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme for the Appellant, and Mr. Dhargalkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This Appeal questions the Judgment and Order dated 25th February 2020, made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No.3/2015, convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 364, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to two years and Life Imprisonment, respectively. The sentences are, naturally, ordered to run concurrently.

3. The case of the Prosecution is that the Appellant (accused) physically and mentally tortured his wife Shevanti making demands for gold and dowry, thereby committing an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. It is further the case of the Prosecution that Shevanti, along with her three children being unable to bear the physical and mental torture any further, left the matrimonial home and went to reside with her brother/mother. It is further the case of the Prosecution that on 6/10/2014, the accused made several calls to his wife, requiring her to meet him at Sanquelim. Accordingly, on the next day, i.e. 7/10/2014 at about 9.00 a.m., the said Shevanti proceeded to meet the accused at Sanquelim. It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused, thereafter kidnapped his wife from Sanquelim, took her to an isolated place at Navelim, and murdered her, thereby committing an offence under Sections 363 and 302 of the IPC. It is also the case of the Prosecution that the accused attempted to destroy the evidence by hiding the dead body and thereby committed an offence under Section 201 of the IPC as well.

4. Accordingly, the charge was framed against the accused on 23/2/2015, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.

5. The Prosecution examined 26 witnesses and thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, the Prosecution applied for and was permitted to examine yet another witness PW.27 who was earlier not available on account of her pregnancy, and the statement of the accused was once again recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. Despite the opportunity, the accused neither examined himself nor any defence witnesses.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned Judgment and Order, has convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, the present Appeal.

7. Mr. Pavithran, the learned Counsel for the accused, at the outset, pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate and apply the principles for evaluation of circumstantial evidence in this matter. He pointed out that there is no enumeration of the circumstances or any consideration as to whether the circumstances allegedly proved by the Prosecution were complete and clearly pointed to the guilt of the accused. He submitted that mere suspicion, howsoever strong, can never be a substitute for proof. He submitted that there is a large distance between 'might be' and 'must be' which the Prosecution, in the present case, has failed to cover. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be set aside.

8. Mr. Pavithran submits that in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to bring home the charge under section 498-A of the IPC. He points out that the accused and Shevanti were married for over 15 years and there was no complaint during this period about any demands for dowry or subjection of cruelty. He submits that the testimony of PW.4, PW.5, and PW.9, the children of the accused and Shevanti is completely tutored and no credence ought to have been placed upon the same. He submits that in absence of any independent evidence, a conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC is quite unsustainable.

9. Mr. Pavithran submits that there is also no evidence whatsoever to establish the charge under