Point of law : in absence of other circumstantial evidence, the Court can come to the conclusion that faulty and improper investigation has created doubt about the involvement of a person when the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A. J. DESAI , J.

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.2.2013 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj @ Kutch (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Court') in Sessions Case No.77 of 2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The appeal came to be admitted on 24.6.2013. The records and proceedings along with Paper-book was called for from the learned Trial Court and the same has been placed before this Court accordingly.

3. The short facts of the case put forward by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court is as under :-

4. That the present appellant, namely, Bhartiben wife of Mukeshbhai Jadwani, resident of Room No.24, Ram-Krishna Colony, Behind G. K. General Hospital, Bhuj appeared before Bhuj City Police Station on 29.8.2011 at around 1.40 a.m. along with the knife used by her while committing the murder of her husband i.e. Mukeshbhai Jadwani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the house where she was residing with the deceased. The appellant appeared before PSO Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52). The FIR was lodged by Suresh Shobhrajmal Nathani - son-in-law of appellant and deceased (P.W. 1 - Exh.10). Thereafter, the appellant came to be arrested on 29.8.2011 and Arrest Panchnama Exh.33 was recorded between 14.00 to 15.00 hours. During the course of investigation, statements of several witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant.

5. Since the offences are triable by learned Sessions Judge, learned Magistrate has committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to try the case.

6. The charge was framed at Exh.8 against the appellant - accused which she denied. Hence, the prosecution proceeded with the trial. The prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses, produced several documentary evidence in support of its case. The appellant did not examine any witness to defend her case. Thereafter, further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code was recorded.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence in detail as well as considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence upon the appellant as referred above.

8. Hence the present appeal.

9. Ms. Dipika Bajpai, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant in absence of any direct or indirect evidence produced and proved by the prosecution. She would further submit that none of the witnesses, including the complainant who happens to be the son-inlaw of the appellant, son, daughters and mother of the deceased have supported the case of the prosecution and the theory put forward by it that the appellant had committed the crime. She would further submit that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the learned Sessions Court is supposed to come to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in establishing the entire chain and there was no room to hold that the appellant was the only person who has committed the offence.

9.1 She would further submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant after committing the crime herself came to the Police Station at around 1.40 a.m. on 29.8.2011. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish this asp