The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the importance of providing a reasonable and consistent explanation to counter incriminating circumstances.

As per Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.-

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 28-11-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial No.370/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Bikau Singh has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 3 months

Under Section 201 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of

Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 month

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:-

Deceased Niru was wife of the appellant, and Azad Singh (PW-4) is son of the deceased and the appellant. On 11-8-2007, the appellant came to his house at about 7:30 p.m. and told the deceased to prepare food. She refused. At that time, she had consumed liquor. The appellant gave her beating, which caused injury on the person of the deceased and she became unconscious. Ultimately, she died. The appellant hanged the body of the deceased on the guarder to show that the death of the deceased was suicidal and made impression that the deceased committed suicide by way of hanging. The body of the deceased, showing all innocence, was taken to the hospital on 11-8-2007, where she was declared dead. A written intimation was sent to Police Station, Ambikapur where Merg Intimation (Ex.P-8) was recorded.

The Investigating Officer reached District Hospital, Ambikapur, gave notice (Ex.P-2) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P-3) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination vide Ex.P-9. Crime No.372 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered vide regular First Information Report (Ex.P-12). Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW-7) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.P-9), in which, he found-

(i) bluish injury mark, 2 x 2 cms, right side of the forehead (ante mortem in nature),

(ii) bluish injury mark on left side of forehead, 2 x 2 cms (ante mortem in nature) and

(iii) transverse dark brown discolouration lying on neck just above the larynx (thyroid cartilage) extending from just below left ear to right ear which was post mortem bruise in nature.

He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was head injury leading to coma and the death was homicidal in nature.

In further investigation, site map (Ex.P-6) was prepared by Revenue Inspector Hanuman Singh (PW-3). Another site map (Ex.P-11) was prepared by Inspector N.L. Shrivastava (PW-6).

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. Smt. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of guilt recorded on the basis of evidence of last seen together is not reasonable. She further argued that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of incident, therefore, he is not responsible for the death of the deceased. She further argued that the circumstantial evidence is not conclusive and it is well settled law that strong suspicion is no substitute for a proof, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. She placed reliance on State of Kerala Vs. Anilachandran alias Madhu & ors. 2009 AIR SCW 3340.

4. Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties