The main legal point established is that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when there is no legally admissible evidence to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubts.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

1. This Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Sessions Trial No.48/2019 whereby, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100/-with usual default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.05.2019 at 1.00 in the noon, when Head Constable Sanjay Ujir (PW-7) and Constable Shyam Bhushan Rathore (PW-8) were standing in front of police station Shivrinarayan, the accused/Appellant came there and informed them that he killed his wife by throttling her neck at about 8.00 am as he got fed up on account of frequent quarrels that took place between them and after committing the said crime, he locked the door of the house and also disclosed that he was having the key. The said fact was recorded in the daily diary vide Entry No.1299 on 24.05.2019 at police station Shivrinarayan (Ex.P-1c). Inspector NP Tandon (PW-3) along with Praveen Sahu (PW-9) and PS Sen (PW-10) proceeded to the spot to verify the fact mentioned by the Appellant and the said fact was recorded vide Entry No.1300 in the daily diary (Ex.P2c). After reaching the spot, they found that the house of the Appellant was locked and after obtaining the key, got the door opened by Head Constable-Saroj Kumar Patle (PW-1) and found that the dead body of the wife of the Appellant namely Usha was lying on the floor inside the house. On the spot, 0-merg and 0-FIR (Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10) were registered at about 16.00 hrs. Spot map (Ex.P-7), crime details form (Ex.P-11) were also prepared. After giving the notice (Ex.P-4), inquest report (panchnama) (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Numbered FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered on the same day at about 17.40 hours and thereafter, the Appellant was arrested on the same day at 7.45 pm vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and vide report Ex.P-12, Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-5) opined that the cause of death was throttling and it is homicidal in nature.

3. During the course of trial, the Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein, he has taken a defence of alibi as at the crucial time of the incident, he had gone for performing labour work at the house of one Dilip Kumar (DW-1) and that he was present at his house and he was informed about the incident that some unknown person killed his wife. He further states that he performed love marriage with the deceased against the will and wishes of her family members and her caste society and therefore, they were having animosity with them for the said reason and wanted to expel them from the village. He also stated that he had gone along with the members of the village to his house and found that the body of his wife was lying in an unconscious condition, his father was also not present and his mother had gone to neibhour’s house. He further stated that with the help of the village people, he checked his wife and found that she was dead. On the advice of the village people that information has to be given to the police, he along with village Up-Sarpanch Premlal Kenwat (PW-4), Munna Singh (not examined), Dilip Kumar (DW-1) and others, reported the matter to the police that an unknown person has killed his wife and he is suspecting the family members and the members of the caste community of his deceased wife and he has also examined Dilip Kumar (DW-1) in his defence.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and facts, convicted the accused/Appellant as aforesaid. Hence this Appeal.

5. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that material witnesses namely Dujbai Barman (PW-2) and Premlal Kenwat (PW-4) have not supported the case of the prosecution and from