Point of Law : It is evident that there were skin abrasions on neck - In all likelihood, some kind of skin remnant or blood stain would have been found on safi like towel, if it was used for strangulating the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhandari, J

1. Accused/appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment dated 05.06.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, Distric Alwar, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in non-payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 498-A IPC, he has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of this case are that on 07.10.2012, complainant-Ram Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Neemrana, District Alwar, whereupon police registered an FIR No.251/2012 for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 120-B of IPC. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 498-A & 302 of IPC. Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences. Appellant denied the charges, on which prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case. On behalf of the defence, DW-1 (Devdutt Sharma) & DW-2 (Udai Singh) were examined and 16 documents were exhibited. Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dated 05.06.2014. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant went to show his wife at the hospital and while returning, they met with an accident, on which the seat belt got stuck in the neck of appellant’s wife which resulted in her demise. It is contended that the learned trial Court called for the towel-safi (Ex.P-26) at the time of dictating the judgment and considering that the strangulation could be done by Ex.P-26 (safi) and convicted the appellant. It is contended that the deceased had sustained injury on the left side of the neck. There was no ligature mark on the right side, on the front of the neck and on the back of the neck.

4. It is argued that the case of the prosecution is that after the car met with an accident, appellant strangulated the deceased from the back of the front side. It is argued that none of the witnesses or the investigating officer who has conducted the investigation has stated before the Court that strangulation was done in this manner. It is also argued that it was not even put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has strangulated his wife with the help of safi (Ex.P-26). Thus, no opportunity was given to the accused to submit explanation and without there being any evidence in this regard, learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused-appellant.

5. It is also contended that if the safi had been used for strangulation of the deceased, there would either be skin residue or blood stain on the safi, but the same was not even sent to the FSL. It is contended that from the entire evidence adduced before the Court, not a single witness has stated the manner in which the strangulation was done. Our attention was also drawn towards the photographs of the deceased, wherein ligature mark is evident on left side of the neck of the deceased.

6. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Nandu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.285/2022), wherein it was held by the Apex Court that absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused. Reliance is also placed on Deoman Upadhyaya Vs. State AIR (1960 All 1, 1960 CriLJ 1), wherein it was held by the Allahabad High Court that so much of the confession as relates strictly to the fact discovered by it may be giv