JUDGMENT :

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 14.04.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1998 (State Vs. Guddu Verma), arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 1998, under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj, whereby accused-appellant Guddu Verma has been convicted of offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment alongwith Rs.20,000/- fine for commissioning of offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.; in default of payment in fine to further undergo one year additional imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3000/-, under Section 201 I.P.C.; in default of payment in fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.04.1998 complainant/P.W.1, namely, Janardan son of Adhare, resident of Village Barvafahim, P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj had filed a written report alleging therein that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Sangita with the accused-appellant Guddu son of Kedar about seven years ago, his daughter committed suicide tonight by hanging herself. It is further alleged that there was no fault of her in-laws in suicide of his daughter. He was informing to take necessary action. He also requested to give him the dead body of his daughter for the last rites. On the aforesaid written complaint of the complainant, a case was registered being Case Crime No. 112 of 1998, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj.

3. When the Investigating Officer collected the evidence during investigation, it came to light from the evidence of the witnesses that the accused Mrs. Partapi and Guddu Verma falsely making allegation of Sangeeta’s character, grabbed her face and got her back side head hit to the wall forcefully due to which she sustained injuries and died on the spot. To hide the crime both the accused tied her neck with rope and hanged the dead body on a bamboo stick near the ceiling so that the onlookers might be considered the said crime of murder as suicide.

4. After lodging of the FIR on the written report of the informant/P.W.- 1, Sub-Inspector Brij Mohan Singh (P.W.-10) reached the place of occurrence and got the inquest of the deceased prepared (Exhibit-ka/3) in the presence of inquest witnesses appointed by him. After getting the dead body sealed and completing all necessary formalities P.W.10 got the dead body sent to the Mortuary. No definite opinion has been given by the inquest witnesses. Each of the inquest witnesses has given different opinion as to the death of the deceased.

5. The post mortem of the body of the deceased Sangeeta was conducted on 14.4.1998 at 5:00 p.m. by Dr. Noor Ahmed (P.W.-7) and in the autopsy report (Ex.Ka-1), P.W.-7 has opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries:

“1. Mark of ligature present on left side neck-it is post murder.

2. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right side face.

3. Contused swelling 6 cm x 4 cm on back part of head. On opening-occipital bone broken- haematoma present.”

6. The investigation was conducted by the Inspector Arun Kumar Singh (P.W.-11). He has recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan. He has also collected the rope and prepared the recovery memo. He has also arrested the accused Partapi and Guddu and recorded their statements in the Case Diary. After conclusions of the statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C.. P.W.-11 has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C.

7. On submission of charge-sheet, the concerned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and committed the case to the Court of Sessions by whom the case was t