In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as suspicion alone cannot justify conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

The appellant by way of this appeal call in question the judgment dated 07.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, Balrampur at Ramanujganj (CG) in Special Case No. 03/2020 by which he has been convicted under Sections 302 , 201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the “Special Act”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act each, and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 201 IPC, plus default stipulation.

2. Deceased in this case is Kirti Sonwani. The incident in this case is stated to have taken place in the intervening night of 13.10.2019 and 14.10.2019. The factual backdrop of the instant case is that initially a case for rape was registered against the accused/appellant at the instance of father of the deceased herein. However, during trial the deceased/prosecutrix turned hostile and the accused/appellant got acquitted in that case, and there- after they both got married and started living separately in a rental house. It is relevant to note here that apart from the deceased and accused, brother of the deceased also stayed with them. On the date of incident it is said that the accused/appellant taking the deceased with him left for her maternal home at village Karcha, however after sometime he returned and told his brother-in-law namely Akshay Sonwani (PW-1) that having met with an accident, his sister (the deceased) died. On coming to know about the incident, father of the deceased namely Chhaihat Sonwani (PW-2) gave a merg intimation (Ex.P-14) to the concerned Police Station on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered for the offences under Sections 302 , 201 IPC. After drawing the spot map the dead body was sent for Postmortem examination and the Postmortem report is Ex.P-10. On the memorandum of the accused/appellant, various articles such as Motorcycle and clothes were seized under Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 and they were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. After investigation charge-sheet was filed under the same Sections plus for the Section under the Special Act as mentioned above.

3. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in order to prove its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the allegations made against him, and claimed trial.

4. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described above. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been roped in a false case and there are several contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that the witnesses to memorandum and seizure examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He also disputes the seizure of the T-shirt. It is submitted that (PW1) and (PW2) were examined before the Court whereas their statement under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.P/1) was recorded after 62 days i.e. on 16/12/2019. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is doubtful. It is also submitted that though PW1 has admitted cordial relationship between the appellant and the deceased but in paragraph 7 of his statement, he admitted that mother of the deceased had filed a complaint against 5 persons regardin