JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Through this appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.3/2011, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as below :-

Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded

Section 302 IPC Life term imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/-

Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of eight years and a fine of Rs.3000/-

Section 201 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.2000/-

2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are as under :-

The complainant Birbal (P.W.5) lodged a written report (Ex.P/18) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Padampur at the place of the incident on 26.11.2010 alleging inter alia that his wife Kalawati, aged 40 years, was indulged in the job of making Rotis etc. in marriages. On the previous evening, she informed their daughter Sonu Bai and went to a marriage at 21 B.B. for the purposes of preparing Chapatis. She did not return till 10-11 o’clock of the next morning, upon which, the first informant got worried and tried to locate her whereabouts. He received an information that dead body of a woman had been recovered in the Rohi of Village B.B.-I. He rushed to that location and saw that the dead body was of his wife Smt. Kalawati and had been burnt badly. He suspected that some unknown assailant had subjected his wife to rape and thereafter she had been throttled to death. The dead body was set to fire so that her features could be destroyed beyond the scope of identification. He also alleged that his wife was carrying a mobile bearing No.9694439534 with her. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR No.220/2010 was registered at the Police Station Padampur for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC. The Investigating Officer, prepared a site plan after inspecting the place of incident. Moulds of right and left foot imprints allegedly left behind by the suspect near the dead body were lifted vide recovery memo (Ex.P/6) prepared on 26.11.2010 at 04.00 p.m. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. The vaginal swab and smear collected from the body of the deceased and the underwear of the deceased were forwarded to the FSL, from where, a report Ex.P/59 was received, which indicated that all the three articles tested positive for presence of human semen. The witness Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6) allegedly gave a statement to the Investigating Officer that he had seen the accused appellant proceeding with the deceased, i.e. the wife of the first informant, in the evening at 07.00-7.30 p.m. The accused appellant was apprehended on 01.12.2010 and it is claimed that he gave an information to the Investigating Officer, in furtherance whereof, the place of incident was got identified vide memo Ex.P/42 dated 03.12.2010. The Investigating Officer claims to have recorded voluntary informations of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in furtherance whereof, the recoveries of incriminating articles were purportedly effected from the accused in the following order :-

Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Recovery made vide memo Article Date

Ex.P/43 Ex.P/14 Gold like Om ornament, silver anklet one pair, silver ring with stone, artificial earrings 03.12.2010

Ex.P/44 Ex.P/16 Spice mobile model M-3636 black in colour 04.12.2010

4. The Investigating Officer further claims to have conducted exercise of preparation of specimen foot-moulds of the chappals worn by the accused in presence of one Dr. Rohit Choudhary. The suspect’s foot-moulds which had been lifted from the place of incident and the specimen foot-mould impressions of the footwear worn by the accused were forwarded to the FSL for comparison, from where, a report Ex.P/60 was received concluding that both foot-mould impressions, i.e. those of the suspect and thos