The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence. The appellant's conduct after the incident is deemed unnatural. The post-mortem report and DNA analysis support the prosecution's case. The appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the murder of his wife.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 28th April, 2018 whereby the appellant was convicted for murder of his wife Ravinder Pal Kaur (deceased) and for assaulting his daughter Ms.Khushi (victim/complainant). The appellant also challenges the order on sentence dated 28th April, 2018 directing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"); and further directing rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof, rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

2. In nutshell case of the prosecution is that on 28th August, 2012 the appellant, deceased and the victim celebrated the marriage anniversary of the appellant and deceased after which, all of them went to sleep. After some time, the victim heard the appellant and the deceased fighting and thereafter, saw her father/appellant stabbing her mother/deceased with a knife. The deceased asked the victim to run away and thereafter, the victim ran downstairs where she met one neighbourer and the chowkidar. The appellant came after the victim and while beating, took her away. Information was received by the police vide DD No.6A (Ex.PW-24/DA), pursuant to which SI Surender Ahlawat (PW-27) reached the spot at H.No.9, 1st Floor, Asha Park, Delhi and found blood and currency notes scattered in the room. The deceased was shifted to DDU Hospital where she was declared "brought dead". Thereafter, IO Jagjit Singh (PW-33) reached and inspected the spot, after which, he went to the DDU Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased, the victim and the appellant. Thereafter, statement of the victim (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded, upon which FIR No.298/2012 dated 29th August, 2012 under Sections 302/307 IPC was registered at PS Hari Nagar (West). After interrogation, the appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (EX-PW-25/D) and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-25/F. Thereafter, the dead body was identified by Sukhdeep Singh and Jasvinder Singh (Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-8/A respectively). The body was then sent for post-mortem examination and was handed over to Jasvinder Singh.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for murder of his wife and for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for assaulting his daughter with knife. And for establishing its case, prosecution examined 33 witnesses including the victim eye-witness Khushi (PW-3).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution relies on weak and unreliable witness and has thus, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that the statement of the victim Khushi (PW-3) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for the purpose of either contradicting or corroborating the said witness. Reliance was placed on the decision in (2020) 7 SCC 722, Somasundra @ Somu vs. State. Before the Court, victim had not deposed in consonance with her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., rather had corroborated the version of the defence. Even though she was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, however, nothing came on record to support the case of prosecution. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that although as per the FSL report (Ex.PW-30/C) blood was present on the surgical blade, however, it is evident from the testimony of Dr.B.N. Mishra (PW-13) that the surgical blade was not used in the commission of the offence. It was further the case of the prosecution that the appellant had grasped the knife but the same was slipping