CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.

1. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”), laying challenge to judgment dated 18.02.2017, passed by learned Additional Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 1-D/VII/2015, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

2. The facts giving rise to the present case can succinctly be encapsulated as under:

On 24.07.2014 Smt. Renuka Devi (deceased) was found dead on the floor of her room. The door of her room was ajar, almirah and trunk were open and the things were found scattered. This unfortunate scene was first witnessed by Shri Ramesh Chand, father-in-law of the deceased, who in turn, telephonically informed Shri Subhash Chand, father of the deceased. Shri Subhash Chand hotfooted to the scene of occurrence along with his relatives and noticed blood on the front side of the mouth of the deceased. In the interregnum, Shri Jagpal Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Samela, informed the police and the police on reaching the spot recorded the statement of the father of the deceased, which formed basis for registration of FIR under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation ensued. The scene of crime was photographed and spot map was prepared. Forensic team visited the spot and collected the blood lying on the spot, seized a bed-sheet, pillow cover and scarf of the deceased. Inquest papers were filled in and the corpse was sent to Dr. Rajinder Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, for post mortem examination. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and inquires were made from the husband of the deceased (accused), who divulged that on 23.07.2014, at about 05:30 p.m., he started to his home from Pinjaur on motorcycle, having registration No. HP-40-A-5214, and reached at about 10:30 p.m. He has further divulged that in the bed room he had fracas with the deceased and strangulated her. Subsequently he opened the almirah and trunk and scattered the things in the room and around 01:30 a.m. he left the scene of crime. The accused has further divulged to the police that he took the ornaments as also the rope, which was used for strangulating the deceased, and hid the same in his room at Pinjaur. The accused took the ornaments and scattered the things so as to give the incident, shape of robbery. As a sequel to the statement made by the accused, police got recovered gold ornaments, rope, allegedly used for strangulating the deceased, and mobile of the accused from his room at Pinjaur. As per the final opinion of the Medical Officer, which was given after receipt of RFSL report, it was opined that the deceased died due to homicidal fatal pressure over neck consistent with strangulation by ligature. After completing all the formalities, challan was presented in the Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eighteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.2017, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, hence the present appeal maintained by the appellant (accused/convict).

5. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has w