Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and consistent with guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence for a valid conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Sekhri, J.

INTRODUCTION:

1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 24.07.2009 and order dated 27.07.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Samba (for short “trial Court”), in "file No. 131/Challan/8 Sessions Samba‟ in case titled “State of J&K v. Mohammad Munshi”, whereby appellant came to be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code 1989 [“RPC”] and in default of payment of fine to imprisonment of six months, rigorous imprisonment for two years and fined Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 201 RPC and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three months and fined Rs.500/- for offence under Section 30 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for fifteen days, with stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be expedient to have an overview of the backgrounds facts giving rise to the present appeal.

3. On 13.05.2002, Police Station, Vijaypur came to know from reliable sources that one Mst. Mousma Bibi has died early morning, under suspicious circumstances at Raya Phallan. Police Agency swung into action, however deceased had already been buried by the time it reached the spot. An information was flashed to the Senior Police Officers by the Police Station. On 20.05.2002, District Magistrate, Jammu passed an order for exhumation of the dead body and on 23.05.2002, dead body was exhumed from the grave. Autopsy on the dead body came to be conducted by a board of doctors and a bullet was found embedded in the skull of the deceased with multiple fractures. As a result, on 23.05.2002, proceedings, in terms of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”] were commenced and on receipt of the post-mortem report on 25.05.2002, the aforesaid proceedings were converted to Section 302 RPC. Appellant, who was posted as ASI in Police Station, Janipur, came to be arrested and interrogated.

4. The appellant, during investigation projected a story that his wife, the deceased, went to the roof top to collect clothes, fell down and died. However, the story projected by the appellant was found untrue and it surfaced that accused had extramarital affair with his sister-in-law (sister of the deceased).

5. It further came to the light that on 11.05.2002, appellant along with Constable Gulzar went to Bani for investigation of some case. He returned on 12.05.2002 and went to his house at Raya Phallan, leaving behind Constable Gulzar at Kathua. His sister-in-law was also present in his house at Raya Phallan. Since deceased was opposed to the illegitimate relations of her husband with her sister, an altercation took place between the couple and the appellant fired from his service revolver and shot his wife dead. Thereafter, he went to Police Station, Janipur, where he was posted, and deposited his service revolver and nine bullets issued in his name along with one bullet, in place of the bullet, which was fired by him to kill his wife.

6. During sustained interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure that during an encounter in the year 2001 in Bari Brahmna, he had retained a bullet which he deposited in Police Station, Janipur, in place of the bullet, fired by him to kill his wife. Appellant also made a disclosure that after the crime, he buried blood stained clothes of the deceased and could get them recovered, as a consequence whereof, clothes of the deceased came to be recovered at his instance. Therefore, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that deceased was shot by her husband and the bullet fired by him from his service revolver was found embedded in the skull of the deceased, which came to be recovered by the board of Doctors, who conducted autopsy on the dead body. It revealed that appellant, in a bid to suppress the crime and