Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain indicating the accused's guilt; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 31.8.2017 and order of sentence dated 12.9.2017 passed in Sessions Trial no. 154 of 2015 by Additional Sessions Judge VI, Garhwa whereby the sole appellant was convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for life and pay fine of Rs.5000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 5 turned hostile. The whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstance is neither complete nor proved. She further argues that no independent witnesses have stated that it is this appellant, who had committed the murder. She further contended that the learned Trial Court had wrongly applied Section 106 of EVIDENCE ACT , when admittedly the prosecution has independently not proved the case. She further submitted that the Trial Court had wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the informant and police, which is not admissible in law.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The appellant has even confessed his guilt before the informant and the medical evidence also supported the prosecution story. She further submits that appellant even failed to explain the circumstance in terms of Section 106 of the EVIDENCE ACT as to how the deceased died. There is strong motive behind the occurrence as there was marital discord between the appellant and the deceased. Thus, on the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

4. Prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of the informant is that in the year 2004, he married his daughter (deceased) with Israr Ansari (appellant). After few days of marriage the appellant, appellant’s father (Serajuddin Ansari) and appellant’s mother (Najma Bibi) started torturing his daughter. On 18.01.2015 at about 01:00 A.M. at night one Alijan on phone informed him that his daughter was murdered at 10:00 P.M. After receiving this information, he along with some fellow villagers reached the matrimonial house of his daughter where he saw the dead body of his daughter lying in the gram field. When he questioned his son-in-law, he confessed that he murdered his wife by strangulating her neck in the gram field.

5. On the basis of the fardbeyan Ramkanda P.S Case No.2 of 2015 was registered under Section 302 /34 of IPC was registered against the appellant, his father and mother.

6. After investigation police submitted chargesheet against the appellant and cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 302 /34 of IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 /34 IPC and the trial proceeded.

7. Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1. Umar Ansari, PW-2. Alijan Ansari, PW-3. Farukh Ansari and PW-4. Badruddin Ansari were declared hostile by the prosecution and nothing important could be extracted from their statement. PW-5. Hamid Ansari, however was not declared hostile, but nothing important could be extracted from his deposition, which can have any impact on the trial. PW-6. Md. Abbas Ansari is a hearsay witness and on information of Alijan Ansari he reached the place of occurrence along with others and saw the dead body. He only stated that after the marriage of the dec