Important point
Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—State of Madhya Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent by upsetting judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court found the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in addition to sentence of three years RI imposed for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation for fines.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Anita Bai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was married to the accused on 14.12.1990 at Allahabad (U.P.) whereafter she came to Dhanpuri along with the accused on 15.12.1990. Anita Bai died on 25.12.1990 at Dhanpuri in her room in their house. Written report about the incident (Ex. P-14) was lodged by the accused at P.3. Amlai, District Shahdol on 25.12.1990 at about 11.40 p.m. It was reported in Ex. P-14 by accused Sanjay Rai that he had gone to the house of one Rajendra Sharma and had returned from there at about 9.00 p.m. and went to his room. The room was bolted from inside. On being pushed, the latch fell down and the door opened. He found that his wife, deceased, was hanging from the bolt of the almirah, upon which he caught hold of her by the waist and called his father, who cut the piece of cloth by which she was hanging. Thereafter, Dr. Gautam (PW-1) and Dr. Pathak (PW-2) were called, who advised them to take Anita to the hospital where she was declared dead. On the basis of the above report, FIR (Ex. P-15) was recorded. Inquest report was made and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by two doctors (PW-6 and PW-12). Four injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased.

3. The investigating officer made a query from the doctor as to whether in case of hanging, ligature marks may be absent. The doctor gave opinion that even in case of hanging ligature marks may be absent and the presence of ligature marks would depend upon the nature of ligature and the time for hanging. It was also found that asphyxia could have resulted even if the body was hanging by a piece of cloth which was cut immediately after the hanging. During investigation, it came to light that the respondent-accused and his parents who also faced trial with the accused were treating the deceased with cruelty on account of unfulfilled demand of dowry. Initially, the investigation started on the background of offence relat­able to Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and the respondent-accused and his parents faced trial. They pleaded innocence.

4. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 201 IPC. All the three accused persons including respondent were found not guilty of offences relatable to Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The parents of the respondent were also found to be not guilty of offence relatable to Section 302 IPC. So far as respondent is concerned, the conviction was made, as afore-noted and sentences imposed.

5. An appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court which by the impugned judgment held the respondent-accused to be not guilty. It was found that the case was based merely on circumstantial evidence and there was no clinching material to substantiate all or any of the continuous link of incriminating circumstances and show that the respondent was guilty of the alleged offences. Several factors were taken note of. Firstly, the respondent-accused and his father immediately after the occurrence called the doctors PW-1 and PW-2. There was no motive for killing as the alleged demand of dowry was not established and for that reason the Trial Court itself had directed acquittal of