IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to establish the accused's guilt based on their failure to explain specific facts within their knowledge was a key legal point in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.20/2016 by which she has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 12.07.2016 at about 3:00 am, at village Manpur, Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhaattisgarh, in furtherance of their common intention appellant herein along with Sanjay Paikara (now acquitted) assaulted her husband Rambhagat (now deceased) by sharp edged weapon by which he (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died, pursuant to which Sukhlal (PW-1), father of the deceased, reported the matter to the police. It is further case of the prosecution that the marriage of the appellant and Rambhagat was solemnized in the month of April, 2016 and on the date of offence i.e. 12.07.2016, at about 9:30 pm, after having dinner, they (appellant and the deceased) were sleeping in separate room by closing the door from inside and in the late night, Dhankunwar (PW- 13), mother of the deceased, had informed Sukhlal (PW-1) that appellant had informed her that Rambhagat was lying unconscious, then he (PW-1), Dhankunwar (PW-13), Shyam Bhagat (PW-2), brother of the deceased, and the appellant herein went inside the room and found that light was not illuminating and Rambhagat was found dead in naked condition and blood had spread on the bed sheet. Merg and FIR were registered vide Exs. P/1 & P/2, respectively. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/13. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/5) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/19), proved by Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW-14) cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of Sanjay Paikara (acquitted) (Ex.P/6), axe has been seized vide Ex.P/7. Clothes of the appellant herein were seized vide Ex.P/11. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and in FSL report (Ex.P/27) on articles A (axe), D1, D2, E1, E2 & E3 (clothes of the appellant herein) stains of blood was found.

3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured her guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. Mr. Sunil Tripathi and Ms. Varsha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submit that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and she has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. They also submit that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of that she was staying alone along with her husband (deceased) in the ho