Circumstantial evidence must be fully established beyond reasonable doubt, with the burden shifting to the accused after the prosecution proves its case.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

(1) The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.330 of 2015 (State Vs. Raju Batham) arising out of Case Crime No.419 of 2015, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.), Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, by means of which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months additional imprisonment.

(2) The complainant- Smt. Santosh Kumari Kashyap, wife of Raju Batham i.e. the appellant submitted a written complaint at Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao with following averments:-

(3) On the basis of aforesaid written complaint of the complainant, F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.419 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the appellant on 08.07.2015 at 06:05 hours at Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao. The matter was investigated and after investigation, Charge Sheet No.165 of 2015 dated 28.07.2015 was filed against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. On 13.08.2015, the case, being triable by Sessions, was committed to Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed the following charge against the appellant on 09.09.2015 :-

(4) The charge was denied by the appellant and he prayed for trial. Consequently, the trial was commenced.

(5) In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced Smt. Santosh Kumari Kashyap (complainant) as P.W.-1, H.M./S.I. R.P. Singh as P.W.-2 (scriber of G.D. Kaimi), Rohit Singh as P.W.-3 (scriber of tehrir), Shivam Kashyap as P.W.-4 (witness of fact and son of complainant and appellant), Sikha Kashyap as P.W.-5 (witness of fact and daughter-in-law of complainant and appellant), S.I. Mohd. Ashraf as P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer), Dr. Sharad Kumar Pandey as P.W.-7 (who conducted post mortem of the deceased), S.I. Mohd. Javed Khan as P.W.-8 (scriber of Panchayatnama), Constable Sharif Ahmed as P.W.- 9 (police companion) and Constable Amit Kumar as P.W.-10 (scriber of F.I.R.).

(6) The prosecution also placed on record and proved Nakal Rapat as Ex. Ka-1, tehrir as Ex. Ka-2 (written report), site plan of place of incident as Ex. Ka-3, site plan of recovery of weapon of assault as Ex. Ka-4, Arrest Memo as Ex. Ka-5, post mortem report as Ex. Ka-6, Panchayatnama as Ex. Ka-7, Police Form No.13 as Ex. Ka-8, Police Form No.379 as Ex. Ka-9, Namuna Mohar as Ex. Ka-10, Letter to Inspector as Ex. Ka-11, Letter to C.M.O. as Ex. Ka-12, F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-13, Recovery Memo as Ex. ka-13 and Charge Sheet as Ex. Ka-14 in documentary evidence.

(7) Thereafter, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.06.2016, wherein he denied the incident and stated that witnesses have given their evidence under the seduction. He also showed his ignorance for the incident but he admitted that on the date of incident he was sleeping at home, however, he does not know as to how her daughter had died. He further stated that his wife has wrongly stated that he has killed his daughter, whereas he has not killed. He further stated that when the police came and wake him up, only then he came to know that his daughter has died and he remained at home and not ran away. He also stated that the police arrested him from the house. He further stated that he had not got the cloth string (nada) recovered nor he had a