The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must put all incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.248/ 2013, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as projected and accepted by the trial Court, is that, in the intervening night of 10.07.2013 to 11.07.2013 at 4:30 A.M., at Deemarpara, Kota, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, the appellant herein strangulated his wife Tara Devi (now deceased) to death with the help of acquitted co-accused Suresh Nirmalkar and in order to screen himself from the legal punishment hide the neck towel, which was used for strangulation and thereby the offence has been committed. The incident was reported to Police Station by Prakash Kumar Kurre (PW-1), pursuant to which, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-1, panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-5, nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-6, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-13, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body of deceased Tara Devi was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. S.K.Bagh (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-14, in which cause of death was stated to be asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, neck towel was seized vide Ex.P-8 and broken bangles were seized vide Ex.P-7 along-with other articles. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has examined one witness DW-1 and has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the circumstantial evidence, which has been made the basis for conviction of the appellant is not made out. He further submits that in the evidence, the fact that has come on record is that the appellant was engaged in the night duty, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the appellant was in his house at the time of death of his wife. His next submission is that the defence witness has also stated that he met the appellant in the night at the place of duty at about 01:00–01:30 A.M., which rules out the possibility of the appellant being in his house. His further submission is that the evidence of all other prosecution witnesses is not reliable as there are contradictions and omissions with regard to the conduct of the appellant after the incident and the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Hariram Dewangan (P.W.6) and Smt. Sumitra Dewangan (P.W.7) have stated that the appellant had informed them regarding death of Tara Devi on account of abdominal pain. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record and, as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. On the