Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.–The appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Alwar in Sessions Case No. 27/98 for having committed murder of his wife Raj Kumari. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated February 8, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2). The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the informant Mahendra Taneja (PW2) lodged a written report around 2.35 PM on January 21, 1997 at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar with the averments that while he was sitting at his shop some unknown caller informed him on telephone that his sister had a fight with his brother-in-law and the clothes of his brother-in-law were smeared with blood. The caller further informed that the brother-in-law of the informant appeared to have made himself scarce and he might have killed the sister of the informant. On receiving the said information the informant rushed to sisters house and discovered the dead body of his sister, which was lying in a pool of blood inside a room in the house. Outside the house of his sister a crowd of neighbours had gathered. On the basis of said report Narpat Singh, SHO registered a formal FIR and launched investigation in the matter. The Investigating Officer reached house of the deceased and door of the room, in which dead body of deceased was found, was found locked, the same was broken by the Investigating Agency. The inquest proceedings of dead body of the deceased were drawn. The site was inspected and a site plan of the place of incident was prepared. The lock which was broken by the police was also seized. Some blood from the place of incident was also lifted and seized and the dead body of deceased was subjected to post mortem examination, the clothes removed from the dead body of deceased were sealed and seized. The appellant was taken in custody by the Investigating Agency on February 3, 1997. During his police custody, at his instance a handkerchief and a pull over, which were stated to be blood stained, were recovered and seized. A report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was also received. After doing the needful, the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet against the appellant. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar. Charge under Sections 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the appellation claimed innocence. He also pleaded alibi and stated that he had gone to Jwalapura (U.P.) to visit the house of her daughters prospective in-laws. He further stated that on account of business rivalry his brother-in-law the informant Mahendra Taneja had falsely implicated him in the case. In defence three witnesses were examined. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3). The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence connecting the appellant with the crime. It is settled legal preposition that where the evidence against the accused, particularly when he is charged with a grave offence like murder consists of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances.

(4). In convicting and sentencing the appellant learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the following circumstances:-

(i) Death of Rajkumari was homicidal and at the time of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were alone in their residential house.

(ii) When the appellant came out of his house, hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document