Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct witness support is insufficient; reliance on inadmissible evidence violates due legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – original accused under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.1.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.227 of 2015 (old No.220 of 2014) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deodar.

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details as they reveal from the documents are as follows :

2.1 Nagaram Pirathi Meghval – complainant lodged the FIR with Tharad Police Station which was registered as CR No.I-155 of 2014 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE inter alia alleging that for the last approximately eight months before filing of the FIR, the accused suspected character of deceased Keliben (daughter of the complainant) at the instigation of his family members and used to physically abused and mentally harassed the deceased. It is further alleged that on 28.6.2014 at about 10.30 O’clock when the deceased was in her hut which is in his field known as “Vadiya” situated in the sim of village Bevta, the accused – present appellant gave kick blow on the abdomen of the deceased and strangulated her and thereby committed the offence of culpable homicidal death. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of her death, the deceased was pregnant and therefore child in the womb also expired. It is further alleged that the present appellant – original accused tried to label the said incident as suicidal death by hanging his wife and thereby destroyed the evidence.

2.2 After thorough investigation, chargesheet came to be submitted before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, Tharad and since the case was exclusively sessions triable, learned Magistrate, Tharad committed the said case to the learned Sessions Court as per the provisions of section 209 of the CrPC and the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No.220 of 2014. However, the same came to be renumbered as Sessions Case No.227 of 2015.

2.3 Vide Exh.4 charges were framed for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 316 and 201 of IPC and vide Exh.5, plea of the accused was recorded where he denied the charges and prayed for trial.

2.4 To bring home the charges against the appellant accused, the prosecution relied upon the following oral as well as documentary evidences.

ORAL EVIDENCES :

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :

2.5 Vide Exh.41, the prosecution pre