The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Songara, J. - Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi son of Shri Bhagwan Singh assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Tijara District Alwar, in Sessions Case No.06/2017, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :- Complainant - Kushal Singh (PW-3) had submitted a written-report (Exhibit-P/5) to the S.H.O. Police Station Tapukada District Alwar alleging therein that Seema daughter of Makhan Singh, was married to Jitendra. After marriage, Jitendra used to beat Seema, as a result of which she came to the residence of her Mausi (maternal- aunt). Jitendra also came there and started living with her. He used to beat her after consuming liquor. Few days ago, Jitendra took Seema at his house after enticing her and tried to kill her by beating. Upon this, Gurmukh Singh had beaten Jitendra. Yesterday, on 21.10.2016 at about 03:00 P.M. the landlord informed that the room is locked for four days and there is foul smell coming from the room. Police was called and the lock was broken. Dead-body of Seema was found there but Jitendra had already absconded from the place of occurrence.

3. On the aforesaid information, an F.I.R. bearing registration No.325/2016 (Exhibit-P/6) came to be lodged at Police Station, Tapukada District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the Police presented the charge-sheet against the accused-person.

4. Charges were framed by the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen-witnesses, during trial. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after closing of the prosecution evidence, pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He chose to lead evidence in his defence but did not produce any defence evidence.

6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State & learned defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentenced the accused-appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi, as stated herein-above. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the appellant was not present at the residence at the time of incident or even 15-20 days prior to the alleged incident. Counsel has further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the chain of the circumstances is not complete. Counsel has also submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, no case is said to be made out against the accused-appellant. Counsel has contended that the complainant - Kushal Singh, who was examined as PW-3, stated that he was informed at 03:00 P.M. by the owner of the house, but as per his statement, he reached at 08:00 P.M. at the place of alleged incident. Shri Bhagwan, owner of the house, who was examined as PW-5 also did not support the case of prosecution. Mahendra Singh (PW-1) and Gurmukh Singh (PW-2) witnesses of recovery of the broken lock did not corroborate the version of the Investigating Officer. Dr. Sagar Arora