The court emphasized the necessity of rigorous scrutiny in capital cases, ruling that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence was insufficient to uphold a death sentence.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Death Reference on behalf of the State and the Criminal Appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant arise out of the judgment and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 162 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302/34 of the IPC. He has also been convicted under Section 315 of the IPC and sentenced to RI of ten years, fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default SI of six months.

2. Prosecution case is about cold-blooded murder of a pregnant lady and her infant child allegedly done by the appellant, who happens to be husband of the deceased lady.

3. Informant is the father of the deceased. As per the FIR, deceased Angira Kumari was married to the appellant-Anand Kumar in 2014. There was normal conjugal relationship for some time and thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand. In the meantime, her husband developed intimacy with some other girl which was opposed to by the deceased. As a result, she was assaulted and she returned to her parental home. After much persuasion, she went back to her matrimonial home. For last two years, father of appellant, Suresh Dangi had developed illicit relationship with one Rangina Devi and when this was opposed by her, she was extended life threat. On the date of incidence on 13.12.2018 at 7 O’ clock in the evening, deceased had telephonically informed that Rangina Devi had abused and threatened her. On 14.12.2018 at 1.15 a.m. on, her brother-in-law (Devar) informed the informant on mobile that deceased was missing. In the morning at 9 a.m. when they reached there, she saw her dead body lying. The dead body of her infant child (15 months old), was found in the nearby well.

4. On the basis of the written report, Chouparan P.S. Case No. 312/18 was registered under Sections 302/34 of the IPC against this appellant, Manoj Dangi, Suresh Dangi and Rangina. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet only against this appellant and he was put on trial for offence under Section 302/34 and 315/34 of the IPC, keeping investigation pending against others.

5. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Relevant documents including written report, seizure list, post-mortem examination report were adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence in the present case and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced only for the reason that he happens to the husband of the deceased. Deceased was not even present in the village at the time of incidence. In the FIR, it is definite case of the prosecution that the deceased had a row with Rangina Devi at 7 p.m. on 13.12.2018. There is no reference in the FIR that on that day appellant was present in the village or there was any incidence of marital discord in the recent past.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has defended the Judgment of conviction and sentence.

8. Homicidal death of Angira Devi and her infant child is proved by the Post Mortem Examination Reports (P1 & P2). External examination revealed that Angira Devi had suffered fracture of skull bone over occipital area, lacerated wound measuring 1” x 1” with deep penetration present. At the time of death deceased was pregnant and carrying 28-30 week male dead foetus. Death was due to Neurogenic shock by hard and blunt substance. Her infant child Anshika Kumari died due to asphyxia by ante mortem drowning. Post Mortem Report speaks volumes about the manner in which homicidal death was caused.

9. On the author of this diabolical crime, there is no direct eye witness and the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution evidence discloses following circumstances:

(I) Deceased was married to the appellant in 2014. There was marital discord of the appellant with the deceased on account of his illicit relationsh