Point of law : It is clearly discernable that for a conviction to stand on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and must exclude other possible hypothesis.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. This appeal is by the accused Umesh Yadav challenging his conviction in Sessions Trial No.198 of 2012 under Section 302 read with section 201 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2011 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC & ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC, together with fine of Rs.20,000/- and for failure to pay fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a term of one year. He has also been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and failure to pay fine would result in simple imprisonment of six months. The punishments are to run concurrently. Appellant, however, has been acquitted of the charges under section 498-A, 304-B IPC & ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Facts giving rise to the appellant’s implication in the aforesaid is the lodgement of First Information Report in Case Crime No.605 of 2011 as per which the informant Malkhan Singh married his daughter Reena to the appellant nearly three years back after payment of adequate dowry. It is alleged that the appellant used to harass informant’s daughter for demand of dowry of a plot and assaulted her too. Appellant is also alleged to be having an illicit relationship with the wife of his brother Munesh. On 12.11.2011 the informant’s daughter was thrown out of the house for having not brought enough dowry and asked to get a plot at Sikandrarau. Upon receiving such information the informant and his cousin Rameshwar brought her back and she was staying at Nagla Babool since 13.11.2011. As per FIR allegation the appellant Umesh alongwith his brother Munesh came to Nagla Babool on a motorcycle at 04.00 PM on 28.11.2011 and took informant’s daughter with them on a motorcycle on the pretext that she will not have any grievance in future. The informant, however, received information that his daughter Reena has been done to death by Umesh and Munesh and their family members and the dead body has been thrown in Nirdai Canal in Police Station Dholna, District Kanshi Ram Nagar. Upon receiving such information the informant alongwith his brother Jai Narayan, Yograj, Shyoraj etc. reached Nagla Gulabi i.e. in-laws place of the daughter. Upon inquiry it came to their knowledge that his daughter has been done to death and is not traceable since 28.11.2011. No satisfactory reply was received about the whereabouts of deceased. It is then alleged that the informant visited the middleman Ramdas who had arranged the marriage itself and stayed at his house in the night and upon return found that accused persons have left their home alongwith cattle etc. in the night of 2/3.12.2011. The informant with his relatives made efforts to trace out his daughter and her dead body was ultimately found floating in the canal and prompt information in that regard was given to Police Station Dholna. As per the inquest report the deceased appeared to have died due to strangulation. The body otherwise had no apparent injury marks etc. In the opinion of inquest witnesses the deceased was strangulated by tying saree around her neck by the appellant.

3. On the basis of information given, Chik of FIR in Case Crime No.605 of 2011 was lodged, which is mentioned in General Diary as paper no.38. Postmortem was performed by Dr. N.S. Tomar, who described the cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling. Inquest, site plan and postmortem etc. was duly prepared whereafter charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under sections 498-A, 304B, 201 IPC & ¾ of D.P. Act and the matter was committed to the court of sessions. The accused appellant was summoned in court and charge was read out to him. Appellant denied the charges and consequently trial proceeded in the matter. As many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

4. The first witness produced on behalf of the prosecution is Malkhan Singh (the info