The prosecution must establish crucial circumstances conclusively in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J.

This is a case of uxoricide.

2. The appellant-convict assails his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to ‘Penal Code’ for brevity) recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in S.T. No.37 of 2008, State v. Pitamber Thawal, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.7.2008 at 6:15 AM, one Prakash Joshi, Block Pramukh, Jajardeval, informed about the death of deceased. On receiving this information, S.I. J.C. Tiwari reached the spot and conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the inquest report. On the same day, he recovered the slippers, pair of shoes and also took up the clothes of accused. After four days, on 5.7.2008, he arrested the accused. Upon completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the convict-appellant. The defence took the plea of simple denial and false accusation on account of previous enmity.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses and led several documents and material objects into evidence.

5. PW1 Basant Ballabh is the informant of the case who happens to be the brother of deceased; PW3 Geeta Thawal is a witness who states about recording the routine adopted by the appellant and the deceased, and also she happens to be the sister in law of deceased; PW6 Girish Chandra Oli and PW2 Suresh Chandra Chausali are the persons who have been examined to prove the extra judicial confession component of the evidence of prosecution; PW5 Kirti Ballabh, the father of deceased, has stated about the relations between his daughter and the accused; PW4 Dr. Lalit Mohan Joshi has conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased; PW8 Dr. B.S. Yadav has examined the accused on police requisition. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature i.e., PW7 S.I. Prakash Chandra Punetha, and PW9 S.I. Jagdisch Chandra Tiwari who are the I.Os. of the case while PW10 Inspector Vipin Chandra is the SHO of the Police Station.

6. The defence on the other hand has examined one witness i.e. DW1 namely Mamta Thawal, the daughter of deceased to state about the defence case that there was no strained relations between the accused and the deceased.

7. Admittedly, the case is based entirely on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge holding that they have been established cogently and firmly are as follows:-

a. On the fateful night, the deceased and the accused were the only occupants of the house where the dead body was recovered in the morning of 2.7.2008;

b. The fact that the relations between the deceased and the accused were estranged and accused suspected the deceased;

c. There were burn injuries on the body of deceased;

d. The confession of the accused to PW6 Girish Chandra Oli about commission of crime and;

e. Failure of accused to explain the circumstances, which led to the killing of deceased in the night in a house where he and deceased were staying alone.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra” reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116 has laid down five golden principles of appreciation of evidence in a case based only on circumstantial evidence. They are as follows: -

a. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;

b. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

c. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

d. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

e. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as