The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and conclusive evidence, including forensic expert evidence, to establish guilt in criminal cases, especially those relying on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Tiwari, learned Advocate for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. At the outset, it is submitted that the accused-appellant is in jail. This appeal challenges the judgment and conviction dated 11.2.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 546 of 2009 convicting appellant under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.Code') for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months imprisonment.

3. Information came to be lodged on 14.7.2009 which was converted into investigative F.I.R. which was propelled by the father of the deceased. The accused is the husband of the deceased.

4. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to it after the charge-sheet was laid before it and accused was summoned. On the accused appearing before the Court of Sessions, he pleaded not guilty and, therefore, on 2.1.2010 charge was framed against him for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P. Code alleging that on 14.7.2009 at about 8.00 am at the residence of Raja Ram, namely the father of the deceased, the accused, Kanti Lal, by inflicting several stab wounds by the Scissors, which was found near the dead body, has caused the death of deceased.

5. The prosecution examined, in all, eight witnesses of facts which are as under:

6. Out of the said eight witnesses, except police and doctor, none supported the prosecution case. Raja Ram, father of deceased, started building a new story. Though he was not treated to be a hostile witness, his evidence has several facets of being hostile to prosecution.

7. The prosecution tried to prove the facts by producing several documentary evidence also which are as under:

8. At the end, the accused was put to questions under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which were, in fact, mostly of negativity. According to the accused there was no dispute between him and his wife and that he was not perpetrator of his wife's death. In his statement, he has stated that the Gram Pradhan had roped him as they had inimical relation. He was staying at Surat and he was not having any relation with his brother's wife.

9. P.W.2, 3, 4 & 5, who were relatives of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this is a case of no evidence. According to him there are many missing chains as it can be said to be a case which hinges on circumstantial evidence.

10. He has further submitted that reliance by the Trial Court on the recovery of bloodstained clothes is bad in the eye of law. He has relied on judgments and has submitted that recovery memo of bloodstained clothes was though stated to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the same has not been proved before the Court below as the report has not been exhibited nor any witness has been examined. This shows the fallacy in the investigation also. According to the co