The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimonies, corroborating evidence, and the dismissal of investigative irregularities to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Ram Krishna Gautam, J.

1. This appeal under Section 383 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), has been filed by convict-appellant Raja Ram against judgment and order dated 15.12.2004 passed by Shri A.K. Sinha, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 559 of 2002, State vs. Raja Ram arising out of Case Crime No. 452 of 2002 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC), Police Station-Ghatampur, District-Kanpur Dehat, wherein convict-appellant has been held guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year, with this contention that learned Additional District and Sessions Judge failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it; there was no independent eye-witness account of the occurrence, rather witnesses were related witnesses, who were inimical to convict-appellant; there was no motive whereas motive as written in First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) was not proved; alleged weapon of offence sickle (i.e. hasiya, a sharp edged weapon) was not sent for chemical examination, since, it could not be established as to whether it was the weapon of offence or not? sentence imposed was too severe, hence this appeal, with a prayer for setting aside impugned judgment and order as well as acquitting the convict-appellant.

2. Prosecution case surfaced on record was that Kripa Shanker, (PW-1), presented a written First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) (Exhibit ka 1), scribed by Vijay Kumar and having thumb impression of Informant over it, at Police Outpost-Sarh of Police Station-Ghatampur, District-Kanpur Dehat, on 17.10.2002 at 17.00 P.M. with contention that Informant's wife, Munni Devi, aged about 35 years, used to go to place of one Ram Khilawan for doing labour work. Informant's uncle Raja Ram (accused-appellant) was suspicious of her character, hence, he forbidden her from doing job of labour at house of Ram Khilawan. This was apprised by Raja Ram to Informant that if he does not prohibit his wife to do job of labour at Ram Khilwan's house, he will repent one day. Raja Ram also apprised this fact to Ram Khilawan. On 17.10.2002 at 10.00 A.M. when Informant's wife, along with other women of her village, had gone to fetch fodder for cattle and reached pigeon pea (arahar) field of one Ram Swarup Gupta, Raja Ram while chasing her also reached there. He extended threat that she had not left going to Ram Khilawan and he will give a lesson to her. Then, he gave a blow by sickle (hasiya) over her neck and abdomen, which resulted into cut and silting of stomach and protruding of intestine. On rescue call, Rajjan, Ram Baran and Mikhu, who were present nearby, rushed on the spot. These witnesses of occurrence tried to apprehend accused Raja Ram, but he fled away towards western side. When Informant returned home, he was apprised about this incident and he submitted report at Police Outpost-Sarh in which lying of dead body of his deceased wife at above field, was written. This report was entered into Register and sent to Police Station-Ghatampur, where it was registered as Case Crime No. 452 of 2002 under Section 302 IPC by making Chik Report (Exhibit ka 4) and G.D. Entry at 5.00 PM vide report No. 20, carbon extract whereof is on record proved as Exhibit ka 5. Thereafter, criminal machinery was put in motion and accused Raja Ram was apprehended. Weapon of offence, sickle (hasiya i.e. sharp edged weapon), was recovered upon his pointing. Recovery Memo of sickle (Exhibit ka 3) was got prepared in presence of witnesses. Inquest proceedings was got conducted. Inquest Report (Exhibit ka 8) was got prepared in handwriting and signature of Sub Inspector, Dularey Lal, PW-8, first Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as I.O.). Opinion of witnesses of inquest w