(SHORT NOTE)
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
(D. B.)
Mufti Bahaud-Din Farooqi Acting C. J. and I. K. Kotwal, J.
(1) Shri Sher Chand - Appellant
versus
State - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 1981 and
Cr. Reference No. 15 of 1981
(2) Dr. Mohammad Sharif Khan - Petitioner
versus
State - Respondent
Cr. Petition No. 64 of 1981
All decided on 6-12-1982
For the Appellant: Mr. G. N. Goni, Advocate.
For the State: Advocate General.
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. N. Goni, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction can be recorded on circumstantial evidence alone provided the circumstances that tend to incriminate are fully established by cogent and reliable evidence, and provided further that they are such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than that of the gun of the accused.

Headnote:(i) R. P. C. [Indian Penal Code, 1860]-Sections 302 and 201-Appellant convicted for murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Court-Also convicted for perjury-Appeal and Reference to High Court - Conviction under Section 302 based on Circumstantial evidence-Circumstance of wife last seen with appellant-Appellant making false representation in respect of her from time to time-Producing perjured evidence viz. false medical certificates-Relations between appellant and his wife strained one-Appellant pointing out for dead body but the same not recovered-Whether entitled to benefit of doubt? (No)- Result-High Court dismissed appeal and confirmed reference.

        (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 476 and 561 A-R.P.C.=[Indian Penal Code, 1860]-Sections 191, 192 and 193-Adverse remarks against Dr. Mohd. Shafi Khan for issuing a false certificate and show cause for this prosecution Petition against-Sessions Judge making observations against the doctor clearly tantamounting to expression of opinion of his guilt-Whether proper- No-Result Observations expunged but proceeding under Section 476 maintained.

        Held he should have restricted his findings to disbelieving them that they had ever examined the appellants wife, or that she had died of epilepsy at Udhampur, and proceeded, against them in terms of Section 476, after recording his satisfaction that it was expedient in the interests of justice to put them on trial for offences under Sections 191, 192 and 193 R.P.C. These observations were thus clearly uncalled for and are accordingly expunged from the judgment. The petition is, consequently, allowed to this extent.

       Held also there is no justification for quashing the entire proceeding under Section 476.