The burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of an individual under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court NO.11, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No.553 of 2015 (State vs. Anurag Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, Meerut by which the accused appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- with one year additional imprisonment in case of default of fine.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that a Written-report (Ex.ka1) was submitted by the complainant, namely, Shail Kumari Sharma (mother of the accused and wife of the deceased) to the Police Station-Kotwali, Meerut on 12.3.2015 with the averments that on that date at about 12:30 p.m., she had gone to the house of her brother at Devpuri and from there she went to Nagar Palika with her nephew, namely, Shivanshu Sharma S/o. Promod Kumar Sharma to deposit the house-tax. She had left her husband Prem Kishan Sharma aged about 70 years and her son Anurag Sharma at home. After depositing the house-tax in Nagar Palika at about 2:30 p.m., she returned to her house with her nephew and saw there that her husband was lying in dead condition in the corridor of first-floor of the house and there was pool of blood in corridor and inside the room and her son Anurag, who was drug addict and used to demand the money for it from his father, was absent from the house. It is also averred that her husband was retired from the post of clerk in Electricity department in the year 2005. His dead-body is lying. He has murdered by inflicting injuries on the head.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a first information report (Ex.ka3) was registered at Police Station-Kotwali under Section 302 IPC and investigation was taken up by S.I. Mukesh Kumar. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer visited the spot and collected the plain and blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared the recovery memo with bed-sheet and towel.

4. The accused-appellant was arrested on the same day of the occurrence and I.O. Recovered the hammer on the pointing out of the accused from inside the box, which was in the room, adjacent to the kitchen of the house. The hammer was having blood on it, which was used for the commission of the crime. Investigating Officer also took the clothes of the accused in his possession, which were having blood-stains and inquest report was prepared. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted and post-mortem report was prepared. Recovered articles from the place of occurrence, clothes of deceased including the recovered hammer were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra for Chemical examination. On all above articles, blood-stains were found and on pant and shirt of the accused and on bed-sheet and towel, human blood was found. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused-appellant Anurag Sharma.

5. The case being triable exclusively by the court of session, it was committed to the Sessions Judge for trial. Trial court framed charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges, examined 8 witnesses, namely:-

6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting evidence against him. Accused denied the evidence against him and stated that his father was murdered in order to rob his house or committing dacoity and police had falsely implicated him to suppress the said heinous offence. It