Honble SHARMA, J.– Grief and the pain suffered by married woman Guddi did not rise to the lips and find a cry, lies festering in the heart, like a drop of water that did not find its way to the sea but became mixed with a handful of dust and so got burried in the earth. Guddi, within five years of marriage died in the house of her husband Ram Khiladi @ Khiladi (appellant herein). The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering. The appellant was put to trial before learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur, who vide judgment dated December 20, 2002 while acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 498A convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2). A written report was handed over at 6.30 PM on July 31, 2001 by Kanhaiya Lal (Pw.1) at Police Station Bahrounda Kala with the averments that his daughter Guddi, who was married to Ram Khiladi, died in her Sasural. Her Jeth came to village Khandar and informed Kanhaiya Lal about the death of Guddi. In the report Kanhaiya Lal prayed to make and enquiry about the death of Guddi. On that report proceedings under Section 176 CrPC were initiated and matter was inquired by SDM Sawai Madhopur. SDM submitted his report and case under section 302 and 498A IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur. Charges under sections 498A and 302 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec.313 CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence. He further stated that Guddi was ill and her treatment was going on and on the day of incident since Guddi was suffering from fever, he had gone to well for washing clothes. On return to home he found that fog was coming from nose and mouth of Guddi. She was taken to hospital where she died during treatment. Three witnesses were examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3). We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record.

(4). There is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of Supreme Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.

(5). The court would proceed on the well-known principles in regard to appreciation of the circumstantial evidence in the following terms:

1) There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

2) Circumstantial ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document