JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present criminal appeal challenges judgment and order dated 24.9.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kannauj in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2013 (State vs. Ahmad Sher) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant, Ahmad Sher for commission of offence under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo four months' additional imprisonment.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the accused-appellant was married to the deceased 15-16 years prior to the incident but soon after the marriage deceased was being harassed and tortured by her in-laws for which a civil suit was filed which continued for about seven years and ended in a compromise between the parties. As per compromise, deceased was given teen beegha land by her in-laws, in between the years of civil suit accused-appellant married Hoorbano of his village Sataura. When deceased reached her matrimonial home after the compromise had taken place between the parties again her in-laws started harassing her for taking back the given piece of land and on 08.10.2012 at about 12:00 p.m deceased was done to death by her husband-accused appellant herein with the help of his brothers and second wife Hoorbano.

4. On the basis of F.I.R., the investigation started and charge-sheet was laid. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offences alleged to have been committed were triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 304 of I.P.C.

5. On being summoned, the accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

6. The Trial started and the prosecution examined 7 witnesses who are as follows:

7. In support of ocular version following documents were filed and proved by prosecution:

8. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as mentioned above.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant in the beginning contended that this is a case of acquittal, however, in alternative he has submitted that injuries were caused by using blunt side of the axe and not the sharp edge. The accused had pleaded that he was mentally ill and had to be kept in chains, the same part is not accepted by the court below. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that conviction is based on presumption and is bad as the appellant had no intention to do away with the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following authoritative judgments of the Apex Court:-

(i) Criminal Appeal No. 4345 of 2014 (Nafa Singh Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 10.02.2023;

(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 5657 of 2011 (Santosh Vs. State of U.P.), decided on 22.02.2021;

(iii) Criminal Appeal No. 1838 to 840 of 2019 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 564 decided on 12.07.2022.

(iv) Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2011 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8847 of 2009 decided on 13.04.2011 to contend that this is case of cle