The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The need for conclusive proof of each circumstance and the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence were emphasized.

JUDGMENT :

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

By preferring this appeal, the appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code for brevity) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Session Trial No. 56 of 2012, as per the judgment dated 31.10.2013. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant happens to be the son-in-law of PW1 Smt. Deepa Devi, the informant. Deepa Devi solemnized the marriage of the appellant with her daughter, namely, Poonam who was about 19 years of age about eight months prior to the occurrence. The appellant was not doing any work and was not earning anything. He was indulged in consumption of intoxicants like liquor, charas etc., and because of such behaviour of the appellant there was always quarrel between the deceased (Poonam) and the appellant. On 01.02.2012, at about 7:00 pm., the appellant came back to their house after six days remaining outside. The deceased asked him why he is not doing any job and loitering here and there. There was altercation between both the appellant and his wife. The complainant pacified them. At about 9 pm., in the night, all of them took their meals and appellant and his wife went inside their room (vanj okys dejs esa) to take rest for the night. The complainant went to sleep in the outer room. Next day, at about 6 am., when the door was not opened, she knocked at the door but nobody opened the door then she gave push on the door. She found that her daughter is lying dead on the bed and a scarf was tied to her neck, therefore, she presumed that Narendra Arya-appellant had committed murder of her daughter and escaped through the window. She informed others and went to Lalkuan Police Station and on 02.02.2012 at 7:30 am., she submitted a written report. On such information FIR No. 14 of 2012 was registered at Lalkuan Police Station and the investigating officer took up the investigation of the case. In course of the investigation, the investigating officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased, examined the complainant and other witnesses, dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination, after post mortem examination the Doctor submitted the report and after completion of investigation the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet, against the appellant, under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, viz., PW1 Smt. Deepa Devi is the complainant, PW2 Jeevan Lal, PW3 Pramod Kumar, PW4 Head Constable Narendra Singh, PW5 Raza Abbas, Tehsildar, PW6 Dr. Sanjeev Prakash and PW7 Vipin Chandra Pant, investigating officer and led into evidence of 12 exhibits.

4. The accused took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he was not present in the house at that time. No evidence was led on behalf of the defence.

5. The learned Additional Session Judge took into consideration the fact that the appellant and the deceased were last seen by the complainant in the night of 01.02.2012 and that on the next day the dead body of the deceased was found inside the room and the appellant was absent. The learned Judge further held that the defence could not explain the death of the deceased hence, inference under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act should be drawn. The learned Addl. Session Judge held that the presence of the appellant and his wife inside the room and during the night death of the deceased due to asphyxia, absence of the appellant in that room in the next morning and failure to explain the cause of death of the deceased would be sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Therefore, basing on the circumstantial evidence, he convicted the appellant as stated above.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the