Honble GUPTA, J.–The appellant has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.33 of 1997, vide judgment dt. 27.2.99, for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment on the first count, and to rigorous imprisonment for three years, and a fine of Rs.500, in default to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment, on the second count. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2). Brief facts of the case are that on 27.1.97 one Shanti Lal submitted a written report to S.H.O. Nathdwara alleging inter alia that Manju was married to the appellant four years back in accordance with community customs. On the day of information, he received information, whereupon he came, and found that Manju has been burnt to death by pouring kerosene by the husband, the appellant. On this report a case under Sec.304-B I.P.C. was registered. However, before this report Marg case No.4/97 had already been registered. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 304-B, 498-A, and 201 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge.

(3). Learned trial court framed charge against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The accused denied the charge, and claimed trial. In trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses including Dr. S.S. Purohit, P.W. 12, and the Investigating Officer Shyam Sunder, P.W. 13. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a stand of denial, and stated that he along with Chhagan Lal were sleeping on the shop of his father, and on hearing hue and cry on fire having broke out in the house they reached. He tried to enter the room, engulfed in fire but the crowd prevented him. In this process he also got burn, and fainted down. The people of the crowd carried him to hospital, and that the shutters of the house were also taken away by somebody in that night. With this it has been claimed that he has been falsely implicated.

In defence the accused examined three witnesses viz. Ratangiri, Keshulal, and Chhagan Lal. The prosecution tendered various documents in evidence including some photograph of the site. Many of the documents had been admitted by the defence. After completing trial, the learned trial court found that the story developed by the prosecution witnesses during trial about the demand of dowry cannot be believed, as it has not been mentioned whether in the first report, or even in the police statements, and is an improvement made during trial. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B, and 498-A I.P.C. but then the learned trial court found that the victim was murdered, and was thereafter set ablaze after pouring kerosene, and thus found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C.

(4). At once we may observe that in this case there is no eye witness to witness the incident, and the case rests solely oil circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court, as appears from para 51 of the judgment, found eight circumstances duly proved, being as under:-

1. The deceased and the accused used to live in the room where the incident occurred.

2. On the date of incident, presence of nobody else other than these two persons is established in the room in question.

3. The incident occurred at about 2.30 A.M. in the night.

4. The victim deceased Manju died on account of asphyxia.

5. The victim was burnt thereafter, so that the evidence of murder be made to disappear.

6. No explanation whatever has been offered on the side of the accused about the incident.

7. The accused offered a false account of the sequence of events.

8. The accused took a stand of alibi which has been found to be false.

(5). Thus, according to the learned trial court these circumstances

Click Here to Read the rest of this document