The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused in a murder case.

R.K. GAUBA, J.

1. By judgment dated 04.01.2011, the appellant was held guilty, as charged, for the offence of murder of his wife Saroj in the early morning hours on 09.09.2008 in the premises described as E-133, Indra Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi.

2. By order dated 18.01.2011, the trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, also directing that in the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr. P.C”) was accorded.

3. The case of the prosecution, briefly put, was that the appellant was married to Saroj (hereinafter referred to as “the victim” or “the deceased”) about three years prior to the incident in question. She had given birth to a girl child, named Ruchi, who was about two years old when Saroj died. The appellant and the deceased with the infant daughter were living as tenants in the aforementioned property which was owned by Ram Chander (PW1). It is the case of the prosecution that Munni Devi @ Geeta (PW11), mother of the deceased, had also taken up residence in a nearby house, in the same locality, in the property owned by Rajesh (PW2). It has come in the evidence of Munni Devi @ Geeta (PW11) that Saroj and two of her siblings were born out of her wedlock with one Laxman. Munni Devi @ Geeta (PW11) had fallen apart from Laxman and later started living with one Mahesh @ Munna. Mahesh @ Munna would also reside with her in the tenanted premises, owned by Rajesh (PW2).

4. The prosecution alleged that on the early morning of 09.09.2008, the landlord (PW1) saw the appellant leaving the premises, carrying the child in his arms. On being questioned, the appellant is stated to have told him that he was going to the house of his in-laws, which would mean the house of Munni Devi @ Geeta (PW11). Sometime around 01:00 PM, the landlord (PW1) had seen blood coming out of the tenanted room. He is stated to have peeped inside the room after moving the curtain on the door aside to see Saroj lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood with a large stone kept on her head. This information was conveyed through police control room (“PCR”) to the police station, where it came to be logged as DD no.35-A (Ex.PW15/A) at 02:25 PM. We may add that the PCR form (Ex.PW14/A) was also proved which confirms that intimation about the woman having been found lying dead in the aforementioned premises and circumstances was received through telephonic call made at 14:16:49 hours. The matter arising out of DD no.35-A (Ex.PW15/A) was made over by the police station to ASI Hari Singh (PW18). The first information report (“FIR”) (Ex.PW12/A), which came to be registered at 1720 hours on 09.09.2008, was founded on the rukka (Ex.PW18/A) sent by ASI Hari Singh at 1700 hours from the scene of crime. The FIR, thus registered, would indicate that on arrival at the place, PW18 met PW1, owner/landlord of the premises, who pointed towards the dead body of Saroj lying inside. The description of the scene indicated in the rukka (Ex.PW18/A) is confirmed by the photographs (Ex.PW8/A-1 to Ex.PW8/A-10) which were developed by Ct. Arun Kumar (PW8) who was called in, as part of the crime team, during the initial investigative steps. The deceased was lying on a sheet on the floor. Her head bore crush injuries which had resulted in loss of blood. There was a wooden plank (broken) also found lying nearby. The blood had spilled out from under the door of the room.

5. The landlord (PW1) had informed ASI Hari Singh (PW18), even at the time of the registration of the FIR that the premises had been taken on rent by the appellant who was living there with his wife (the deceased) and the infant child. After preliminary steps, the case was taken over for further investigation by Inspector Raghu Raj Khatana (PW19), the Inspector (Investigation) posted in the police station. It has come in his evidence that despite his efforts,