The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive and consistent circumstances to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the importance of following legal procedures and establishing clear motives for the alleged crime.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhandari, J.

1. Accused-appellant has preferred this Criminal (Jail) Appeal aggrieved by Judgment and sentence dated 27.07.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, Camp, Chirawa vide which appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.02.2009, Rajendra who was undergoing treatment at CMC Hospital, Hisar gave parchabayan (Ex.P-5), wherein it was mentioned that on 26.02.2009 at 04:00 pm, Monika, D/o Purshottam came at his residence to call him at their house. He went to her house, where he was offered liquor by one Pashan Nayak and after consuming liquor, he returned home. Thereafter, he felt uneasy and became unconscious. He has also mentioned in the parchabayan that sum of Rs.28,000/- was due towards sisterin-law of the appellant and Rs.8,000/- towards appellant. On the basis of above parchabayan, Police registered FIR No.56/2009 (Ex.P-6) under Section 328 IPC. During investigation, Rajendra expired on 28.02.2009, where upon Section 302 IPC was added. Police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 328, 302 IPC against appellant as well as his wifeSapna. Thereafter, Trial Court framed charge against the accusedappellant and his wife under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC. Accusedappellant and his wife denied charges and sought trial. On behalf of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited. Explanation of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one document was exhibited. Learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and has acquitted the appellant’s wife- Sapna giving her benefit of doubt.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that Officer who had recorded the parchabayan has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution. It is also contended that there is no certificate of the doctor that the deceased was in a fit condition to give his dying declaration. It is also contended that Rule 6.22 of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 was not followed for recording the parchabayan. It is also contended that there is no recovery of aluminum phosphide or any utensils by which the same was administered. It is also contended that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and circumstance do not point towards guilt of the accused. Accused is entitled to acquittal since chain of circumstances is not complete. It is also contended that the witnesses who have stated that deceased informed them about the incident are all related witnesses. PW-1 (Ramesh Nayak) is brother of the deceased, PW-2 (Suresh) is brother-in-law of the deceased, PW-3 (Prem) is cousin of the deceased and PW-6 (Asha) is niece of the deceased.

4. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Sharad Biridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 169; Swinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1992 Supp2 SCC; Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) Supp AIR (SC) 240 and Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2014) 12 SCC 279.

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the appeal. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has dealt with entire evidence and has come to a justifiable conclusion and the Judgment passed by learned Trial Court do not call for any interference.

6. We have considered the contentions and have perused the record.

7. Before dealing with merits of the case, we would like to discuss the law relating to circumstantial evidence, more particularly, cases pertaining to death due to poisoning. In Sharad Biridhichand Sarda (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:-

“A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an ac