Failure to properly confront an accused with evidence supporting a murder charge violates the principles of natural justice, affecting the trial's validity.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Yadav along with Sri Shantanu, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.

2. The present criminal appeal has been arisen from judgment and order dated 07.03.2019 passed by Sri Gyan Prakash-III, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.184 of 2018 (State Vs. Boby and others), under Section 302 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.434 of 2017, P.S. Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, convicting the accused appellant and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further additional simple imprisonment of one year. By that order, other than the appellant Boby, three accused persons namely Rajnish, Kuldeep and Kanwarpal were acquitted. However, the appellant Boby has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court, as above.

3. The prosecution story emerged on the FIR dated 13.10.2017 lodged in Case Crime No.434 of 2017 at Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur reporting an occurrence took place on 11.10.2017 at about 4:00 A.M. inside the dwelling house of the appellant, wherein he is described to have killed his wife Ruchi, by throttling. The FIR narrates that the occurrence was caused within 14 months of the marriage of the parties, for reason of additional dowry, not paid. The FIR is Ex. Ka-4 at the trial. It arose on the Written Report dated 13.10.2017 lodged by Shobharam, the first informant (P.W.-1 at the trial). That Written Report is Ex. Ka-1. Before the FIR lodged by the first informant, the inquest/’Panchayatnama’ was drawn on 11.10.2017, wherein both-the appellant and Shobharam (P.W.-1), are ‘Panch’ witnesses. That ‘Panchayatnama’ is Ex.Ka-11 at the trial. Thereafter, the autopsy was conducted and the report thereof was prepared by Dr. Bhojraj Singh, (P.W.-8 at the trial). That autopsy report dated 11.10.2017 is Ex. Ka-10 at the trial. It records the ante mortem injuries as below:

“1. Red contusion 5.0 X 1.0 cm on right side neck, mid part.

2. Multiple red abrasion are of 8.0 X 5.0 cms on left side neck, mid and lower part.

Both injuries are separated by a gap of 5.0 cms in front of neck and 14.0 cms behind neck.”

4. As to the cause of death, it records asphyxia caused by ante-mortem throttling.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, Bhavendra Singh Nagar (P.W.-11 at the trial).

6. Upon the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against the appellant on 13.04.2018. In that, the main charge framed was offence under Section 498-A, 304-B and also section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. By way of an alternative charge, the appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. (along with other accused persons). For ready reference, the charges framed read as below:

7. At the trial, besides the above documentary evidence, oral evidence of Shobharam, the father of the deceased and the first informant was recorded. He was examined as P.W.-1. During his examination-in-chief, he supported the prosecution story of demand of dowry at the time of marriage and also of additional demand of dowry. He deposed, that for reason of non-fulfilment of demand for additional dowry, the dec