IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the application of the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

1. Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused entire record.

2. Under challenge in this criminal appeal is the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 269 of 2015 titled as State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra arising out of Crime No. 104 of 2015, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”] Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki whereby the appellant, Ram Chandra has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment. However, he has been acquitted of charge under Section 201 I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that a written report was submitted by the first informant, Poonam Kumari at Police Station Haiderganj, District Barabanki stating therein that on 14.05.2015, the first informant along with her husband, Premchandra was returning to their village from her brother-in law’s house by a D.C.M. When they alighted from D.C.M. at about 09:00 PM near their Village, Narauli, a person, whom they could not recognize, started staring at the first informant and thereafter, he pounced upon the first informant and her husband. When the husband of the first informant tried to defend his wife/first informant, the unknown person grabbed her husband with an intention to kill him and dragged him into a nearby pond and tried to strangulate the first informant’s husband. When the first informant raised alarm, many villagers reached the place of occurrence. The villagers saved her husband and also apprehended that person. The first informant’s husband, being in a serious condition, was taken to the Government Hospital, Haidergarh, where her husband was declared dead. The first informant later came to know the name of the accused/murderer of her husband, who is the present accused/appellant herein.

4. The inquest proceeding started on 15.05.2015 at 06:30 AM and got concluded on 15.05.2015 at 07:30 AM. The inquest report has been duly proved by PW-4, Batjor Singh as Ex.Ka-2.

5. According to postmortem report of the deceased, Ex.Ka-10, which has been proved by PW-6, Dr. Saroj Kumar, the cause of death of the deceased is reported to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning.

6. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Ex.Ka-1 submitted by the first informant, Poonam Kumari, the first information report, Ex.Ka-8 came to be lodged against the appellant on 14.05.2015 at 10:30 PM for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

7. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”] He visited the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan, Ex.Ka-11 thereof.

8. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet, Ex.Ka-12 against the accused/appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.

9. Charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. were framed against the present accused/appellant, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

10. In order to bring home guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined Poonam Kumari, who is the first informant, as PW-1, Smt. Tapeshwari Mishra as PW-2, Ms. Khushbu as PW-3, S.I. Batjor Singh as PW-4, Head Constable Ramrudra Tiwari, who is the chik writer, as PW-5, Dr. Saroj Kumar as PW-6 and the Investigating Officer, Inspector Chandrashekhar Singh as PW-7.

11. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated the prosecution story to be false. He has also stated to have been falsely implicated in this case and he claimed t