The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete and conclusive chain of evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence, the importance of proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court, and the scope of interference in appeals against acquittals.

JUDGMENT :

Koul, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.02.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, acquitting respondents herein, the State of J&K has preferred the instant appeal.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 were facing charge under Sections 302/498-A/34 RPC and respondent no.4 under Section 302/109/498-A RPC in case FIR No.69/2007.

3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, has held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and infirmity or lacuna in prosecution case cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, which must be fully established, which are:

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

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

4. Adverting to the case in hand, it is seen that prosecution had tried to project three types of evidence: one in the shape of the statements of the relatives of the deceased and statements of the persons residing in the neighbourhood of deceased; second statements of Namberdar, Sodagar Mal, and Member Panchayat, Bansi Lal, and Sarpanch, Yash Pal; and third in the shape of evidence of medical expert and seizure of weapon of offence in the shape of PW Sodagar Mal, PW Bansi Lal and PW Yash Pal regarding seizure of weapon of offence i.e. rope.

5. Let the above evidence projected before the Trial court be discussed with the statements of prosecution witnesses.

6. Coming to the statement of relatives, i.e., father Puran Chand, Surishta Devi, sister, PW Ghulam Hussain, PW Pushpa Devi, another sister. PW Puran Chand stated that at the time of marriage he had given the dowry to deceased as per his capacity. The relation remained cordial between deceased and respondent no.4 for 1-1/2 years and thereafter respondent no.4 started demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. A case was filed before Women's Cell by deceased that respondent/accused did not pay her maintenance. Thereafter the matter got compromised and deceased along with children went to her in-law's house. During the time deceased was staying with Puran Chand, she wrote a letter to Commanding Officer that respondent, Kishori Lal, is not paying her maintenance. Kishori Lal came on leave and on the intervention of Namberdar, Sodagar Mal, member panchayat, Bansi Lal, and Sarpanch, Yash Pal, deceased along with children went along with Kishori Lal and after 3-4 days, he came to know that deceased had died.

7. Coming to the statement of PW Surishta Devi; she stated that accused demanded Motorcycle, Cooler, Fridge, Almirah and gold in the marriage. She had also narrated the fact that the deceased had sent a letter to Commanding Officer regarding the accused No.4 and the Commanding Officer on receiving the letter sent the accused, Kishori Lal on leave. Accused, Kishori Lal, came along with Namberdar and Sarpanch of the village who guaranteed regarding the behaviour of the accused, as such they sent the deceased with him.

8. PW Ghulam Hussain had stated that accused used to demand dowry from the deceased and he came to know about b