IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved in this case.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2012. The appellant was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (rigorous imprisonment) and fine of Rs 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) and in default, to simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Sections 302 of the IPC.

The appellant is referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX

2.1 From the evidence on record it appears that the deceased Rachna was married to Rakeshsinh Nahneram Prajapati and they were residing in Surat along with Veerusinh Nahneram Prajapati - the brother of Rakeshsinh, Santosh - the brother of the deceased and their friend Dinesh @ Guddu (the accused). The incident occurred on 27.03.2012 and at that time, Rakeshsinh - the husband of the deceased and her brother Santosh had gone for night duty as they were working in an Embroidery Factory at Surat. Veerusinh and the accused were working on day duty and early in the morning at 5.00 am, Veerusinh and the accused came to the workplace of Rakeshsinh and Santosh, and told them that Rachana has expired. They went home and found her lying on the floor and they called the police and Accident Death No. 37 of 2012 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered which was investigated by R.S. Gamit - Police Sub Inspector and during investigation it was found that on 26.03.2012 at around 12.00 midnight, the accused came home drunk and the deceased Rachna told him not to come home drunk and gave him a slap and the accused slapped her three - four times and strangulated her with the clothesline used for drying clothes and as the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was made out, the complaint of the complainant - Dilipsinh Nahneram Prajapati was recorded which was registered at Varachha Police Station being I - C.R. No. 96 of 2012 under Section 302 of the IPC.

2.2 The Investigating Officer collected the necessary evidence, drew the panchnamas including the Inquest Panchnama and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. The statements of the connected witnesses were recorded and as the involvement of the accused was found in the offence, the accused was arrested and after the FSL reports were received, a charge sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat and as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, Surat, a committal order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 249 of 2012.

2.3 The accused was produced before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed and a charge was framed against the accused at Exh.4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5. The accused denied all the contents of the charge and the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidences in support of their case. After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh.41, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidences of the prosecution and refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses and stated that he was innocent and he has not committed any offence. The learned Trial Court heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused and by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to find the accused guilty and sentenced the accused