IMPORTANT POINT
The benefit of doubt must be given when the identification of crucial evidence is doubtful and key witnesses are not examined, as it affects the burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

Heard Ms. Roona for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.01.2019 and 10.01.2019 respectively, passed by the learned Fast Track Court No. 1, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial Nos. 35 of 2001/285 of 2017, arising out of Rampur Chauram (Arwal) P.S. Case No. 64 of 1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The appellant is the husband of the deceased.

4. According to the prosecution case lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Kedar Singh, who has been examined as P.W. 4 at the trial, the deceased was married to the appellant seven years ago. During the subsistence of this marriage, the appellant is alleged to have married another person. He has alleged that the deceased was ill-treated in her matrimonial home.

5. In this context, a reference has been made about a bond executed by the appellant and his family members on 28.03.1999.

6. On 18.05.1999, one Baikunth Singh (P.W. 2) informed the father of the deceased (P.W. 4) that his daughter (deceased) is missing since 09.05.1999. On such information, P.W. 4 visited the matrimonial home of the deceased, but did not find his daughter. His son-in-law, i.e., the appellant and his father did not give any information regarding the whereabouts of his daughter. He, therefore, suspected that his daughter has been taken to some unknown destination.

7. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, referred to above, a case videRampur Chauram (Arwal) P.S. Case No. 64 of 1999, dated 27.05.1999, was registered for investigation for the offences under Sections 498(A), 364, 494 and 34 of the I.P.C.

8. In the aforesaid case, only three persons were made accused, namely, the appellant, his father and the sister of the appellant.

9. The police submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

10. During the pendency of the trial, the father of the appellant died and, therefore, the case against him was dropped.

11. A supplementary case record was initiated and the person with whom the appellant is said to have contracted marriage during the subsistence of the marriage with the deceased, was also put on trial, who has since been acquitted.

12. It may be noted that during the course of investigation, a dead-body was recovered from near the banks of river Punpun, which was identified to be that of the deceased and, hence, Section 302 I.P.C. was added.

13. The sole appellant before this Court was charged for the offence of murder and of screening the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. respectively.

14. The Trial Court, after having examined five witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the mother of the appellant, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

15. Ms. Roona, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that in this case, neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer have been examined and, therefore, the appellant has been severely prejudiced as he could not bring to the fore the falsity of the prosecution evidence. Apart from this, it has been urged that the identification of a dead-body to be that of the deceased of this case is highly doubtful. A skeleton was identified by the prosecution witnesses. The post-mortem report also does not inspire confidence. The skeleton had no muscles attached to it. The face was to