The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence and the failure to establish a complete chain of 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 Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Shri Mahaveer Singh, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.3, Bharatpur, (for short 'the trial Court'), in Sessions Case No.124-A/2012, whereby the appellant-accused, vide a separate order of even date, was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :-

Complainant - Ravindra (PW-3) had submitted a written- report (Exhibit-P/2) to the S.H.O. Police Station, Kumher, District Bharatpur alleging therein that on 19.02.2012 his father Kishan Singh had gone to the house of Mahaveer Singh to recover the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- but did not return and on 20.02.2012 in the morning he was informed through mobile cell by Pushpa wife of Mahaveer Singh that she and her son tried to wake up his father to give him a cup of tea but he was found unconscious, so he should come immediately. Upon this information, he alongwith Ashok reached to the house of Mahaveer and found his father dead on the first floor of the house. Gajendra and Pushpa were standing near the bed where the dead-body of Kishan Singh was lying. He informed the Police about the alleged incident. He further stated that Pushpa, Gajendra and others hatched a conspiracy and murdered his father.

3. On the aforesaid information, an F.I.R. bearing registration No.65/2012 (Exhibit P-14) was lodged at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, Police presented the charge- sheet against the accused persons.

4. Charge was framed by the learned trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. She pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nineteen-witnesses, during trial. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after closing of the prosecution evidence, pleaded that she had been falsely implicated in the present case and Kishan Singh was on the upper floor of her house, which is open place and there is a possibility of murder being committed by some unknown persons. She chose to lead evidence in her defence but did not produce any defence evidence.

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

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has submitted that nothing was specifically stated by the complainant in his examination and denied the entire story of the prosecution and as such, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. Counsel has further submitted that there is no applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in this matter because deceased was found on upper floor of the house, which is open place and easy access was available to everyone through the stairs as other persons were also present there at the time of alleged incident and the accused-appellant was not alone, so in these circumstances, the learned trial Court has committed a grave illegality in invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act against the accused-appellant and without considering the facts & circumstances of this case, the material and legal aspec