JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The accused/appellant herein, has through, the impugned judgement, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., upon, Session Case No.3-N/VII/2015, become convicted, for a charge drawn, against him, under Section 302 of the IPC, and, in consequence thereof sentence, of life imprisonment has been imposed upon him, and, he has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year.

2. The convict/accused/appellant herein, becomes aggrieved therefrom, hence, through, casting the extant appeal before this Court, he has strived to beget reversal(s) of the afore made conviction, and, the afore consequent therewith sentence(s) hence imposed, upon him, under the afore verdict.

3. The genesis of the prosecution story, is, embodied in a statement made by the brother of the deceased Santosh Kumari, the legally married spouse of the convict/accused, statement whereof is embodied in Ex.PW1/A. In the afore exhibit, in pursuance whereof, formal FIR, embodied in Ex.PW13/B, became registered with the police station concerned, narrations are borne qua the deceased Santosh Kumari, being married, to accused Surjeet Singh, in the year 2004, and, though for a spell, of, time their inter se relations remained cordial. However, the convict in connivance with his sister, and, brother-inlaw, after elapse of some time, commencing to raise demand of dowry, upon, the family of the deceased, in pursuance whereof, a tractor was given to him. However, thereafter the convict/accused is narrated therein to also demand a sum of Rs.3 lacs, and, thereafter Rs. 2 lacs, through his deceased spouse Santosh Kumari. Even the afore demands were fulfilled, yet 4 to 5 months prior to the occurrence, the accused/convict again demanded Rs. Five lacs, and, as, the afore demand could not be fulfilled, for want of funds with the parents of the deceased, the convict/accused in league with his brother-in-law (jija) assaulted, the elder brother of the deceased with a knife, hence inside his house. However, in respect thereof, no complaint was lodged. Nonetheless about one month prior to the occurrence, the accused again demanded Rs. One lakh, from the father, of the deceased, for begetting repairs of his bus, and, it is narrated therein to be paid to the accused. On 6.10.2014, the deceased, is, narrated to visit her parental house, and, hers disclosing, that her sister-in-law, and, her husband again demanded Rs. Five lacs, for purchasing land, and, that the accused is threatening to do away with her life, if the afore demand is not fulfilled. Since, the father of the deceased meted an assurance to her that he would arrange the afore amount within 10 to 15 days, thereupon, it is narrated in Ex.PW1/A that hence she had proceeded to her matrimonial home. On 7.10.2014, there was a Jagran at the matrimonial home of the deceased, but the family members of the deceased remained un-invited, as they, had not fulfilled the afore demands. Furtheronwards, on 8.10.2014, the family members of the deceased, were apprised, by the Pradhan, that the accused, and, his sister along with his brother-inlaw, who reside at Thamkaur, murdered the deceased, and, the afore led the brother of the deceased to make the afore exhibit(s), before the police station concerned.

4. The entire prosecution case, is, squarely harboured, upon, circumstantial evidence, and, each of the links in the chain of circumstances, are to be unflinchingly proven, as, thereupon, alone the charge drawn against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, would become efficaciously proven.

5. A perusal of the LINK evidence on record, as, became collected by the Investigating Officer, during the course of his conducting investigations, (i) unfolds that at the relevant time, from the site of occurrence, as, depicted in the site plan borne i