Circumstantial evidence must be fully established and form a complete chain, with no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt for a conviction to be upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been sent from jail by the accused-appellant (Sripal) against a judgment and order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Chhapar, district Muzaffar Nagar whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under :

(a) Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(b) Seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 7,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, four months’ additional imprisonment.

(c) Three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, two months’ additional imprisonment.

(d) Five years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in case of default in payment of fine, six months’additional imprisonment.

(e) Two years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, five months’ additional imprisonment.

However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Brief facts

2. In short compass, the facts giving rise to the present criminal appeal are that a written report was given by the informant, Prem Chandra, son of Umrao Singh Prajapat, resident of village Pusar, police station Dohghat, district Baghpat to the Station House Officer, Chhapar, district Muzaffarnagar, that his daughter Smt. Suman (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was married to Sripal Prajapat (hereinafter referred to as “the accused-appellant”) about seven years ago. After some years of marriage, dispute arose between the deceased and the accused-appellant, due to which from time to time deceased used to come her maternal home, but she went to her matrimonial home after her husband and her father-in-law came to take her. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that a year before the occurrence, the accused-appellant made a demand of dowry and kicked her out of her matrimonial home. However, after the intervention of some venerable persons of the society, the matter was settled and accused-appellant took the deceased to his home. The First information further recounts that on 29.08.2011, another daughter of the informant who was married in the same family, informed the informant that accused- appellant has told her that the deceased along with both the children are missing from home. On receiving the said information, the informant rushed to the house of the deceased and found the door locked and nobody was present at the house. On enquiry from the villagers, he was told that accused-appellant along with his wife, the deceased and her children had gone to fetch wood. The informant made a hectic search for his daughter, the deceased, but in vain. Thereafter, he gave a written report at the police station making a suspicion that his daughter along with her children had been done to death by the accus