AHLUWALIA, J.

Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appellant, namely Hari Ram s/o. Ram Kishan has instituted the present appeal to assail the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2005, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Ajmer, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. In the instant case, the appellant, Hariram was married with Smt. Guman thirteen-years ago before the occurrence. On 14.02.2004 the dead-body of Smt. Guman was found from a well. There were incised, stab and blunt injuries present on the dead-body recovered from the well. The cause of death of Smt. Guman was due to excessive bleeding, haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries caused to her. Thus, the present appellant being husband of Smt. Guman was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No.1, Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C.

3. The trial Court had acquitted the present appellant for offence punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and under Section 4/6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The trial Court had also acquitted the co-accused of the appellants, namely Ramkishan, the father-in-law, Smt. Sohni, the mother-in-law and Basram alias Vishram, the brother-in-law.

5. Having convicted the present appellant for the above said offences, the trial Court, by a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under :

' For offence under Section 302, I.P.C. the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months- simple imprisonment.

For offence under Section 201, I.P.C. the appellant was sentenced to undergo three years- rigorous imprisonment.

6. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

7. In the present case, since the marriage was more than thirteen-years old, therefore, Section 304-B, I.P.C. was not invoked against the appellant, even though, Poosa Lal (PW-10), the father of deceased had stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.

8. The trial Court, while recording the conviction of appellant, noted the following circumstances to complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the murder has been committed only by the present appellant :

A. The appellant, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made, got recovered ' dantali- (sickle) the weapon of offence; and the same was stained with human blood, having its origin as Blood Group A.

B. The blood stained soil lifted from the spot, the ' odhani- , ' ghaghra- and blouse of the deceased; and the pant and shirt recovered at the instance of appellant were also stained with human blood, having its origin as Blood Group-A.

C. The appellant was last seen with his wife.

D. The conduct of the appellant that he had not attended his wife in the hospital, as well as, the cremation of his wife. Furthermore, he had not made any attempt to rescue his wife from the well.

9. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, duly assisted by Ms. Chandrakala, Advocate, has very vehemently contended that the circumstances, relied upon by the Court below are not sufficient to sustain conviction of the appellant.

10. Before we deal with the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, and the rival submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan, it will be necessary for us to briefly note the facts of the case.

11. Poosa Ram (PW-10) had submitted a written-report (Exhibit-P/13) before Station House Officer, Police Station, Srinagar, District Ajmer. The written-report (Exhibit-P/13) submitted by Poosa Lal (PW-10), when translated into English, reads as under :

To,

The Station House Officer,

Police Station, Srinagar,

District Ajmer (Rajasthan)

Applicant : Poo