Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogently established chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.

R.S. Chauhan J.-Camouflaging of the brutal murder of his wife by the appellant sets the tone for this case. The appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 17.04.2001, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar has convicted the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,500/-and to further undergo a sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof .

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 210.1999 while Ramesh Chand (PW. 9) and Tundaram (PW. 10) were grazing their goats in the jungles of village Tunda, they noticed few vegetables lying there. When they went close to the vegetables, they noticed a dead body of a woman lying there. They informed the local Sarpanch, Bansidhar (PW. 8). Thereupon, Bansidhar submitted a written report (Ex.

P. 2) before the Head Constable, Om Prakash (PW. 15). On 210.1999, Om Prakash, in turn, reached the Police Station Tehla and submitted a written report (Ex. P. 13) wherein he claimed that on 210.1999 the Sarpanch, Banshidhar had submitted a written report to him. According to the said repot a dead body of a woman had been discovered in the plantation area (to be referred to as the jungle) near the bend in the road situated in the lower part of the valley of village Kundla. On the basis of the said report an Inquest Report under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as the “Code”, for short) was prepared. The Head Constable and some villagers had gone to the spot and seen a body of a dead woman. But for a blouse on the body, the rest of the body was naked. The examination of the dead body had revealed that the woman had been killed by a sharp weapon, and her face was hit with stones. Since murder was suspected, the Head Constable had

submitted the said report. On the basis of the Report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 149/99 was chalked out for offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation was carried out. The dead body was identified by Ramchandra Saini (PW. 3) as the body of his daughter, Smt. Mathuri W/o Bhag Chand, the appellant. After fifty-five days of the alleged murder, the police arrested the appellant. The charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses and submitted thirty-one documents. Although the defense did not examine any witness, it did submit five documents. After examining the oral and documentary evidence, vide Judgment dated 17.04.2001, the learned trial Court was pleaded to convict and sentence the appellant as aforementioned.

4. Mr. R.R.L. Gupta has vehemently argued that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. According to him, the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete. Therefore, the conviction is unsustainable. He has further argued that according to the evidence of PW. 17 Dr. Ghansi Ram Meena, the Medical Board had discovered that the deceased had sexual intercourse prior to her death. According to him, it is inconceivable that a husband would have sexual intercourse with his wife, murder her, and leave her naked body in the jungle. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the alleged murder. Mr. Gupta suggested that it is a case of rape and murder by some unknown persons and that the police have falsely implicated the appellant in the case. Further, although the prosecution has relied on the recovery of the knife and of the jewelry of the deceased to connect the appellant to the alleged murder, both the recoveries are suspect. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. On the other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.P. Kuldeep has argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. Hence, the impugned Judgment is legal and valid.

6. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties, have perused the impugn