Failure to specifically put incriminating circumstances to accused under Section 313 CrPC causes prejudice, requiring appellate remand for fresh examination and trial despite delays.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2014, State of Uttarakhand v. Sunil Singh Panwar, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows. The deceased Sunita Devi was married to one Balbir Singh Chauhan in the year 2005. They were blessed with a baby boy. But, after two and a half years of marriage, Balbir Singh Chauhan died. The deceased was working in an Ashram after the death of her husband. In the year 2010, she was transferred to Bhatwari Branch of the Ashram, where she was staying in a rented accommodation, The family members of the deceased Sunita had persuaded her to remarry after the death of her first husband, but, she was reluctant to it. Finally, on 03.06.2013, the deceased Sunita married to the appellant without informing her family members. At that time, her son was 7-8 years of age. For about two months, the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was cordial, but thereafter, the appellant started beating her and pressurizing her to leave her son. The appellant had also taken the ATM card of the deceased. According to the prosecution, in the late evening of 30.11.2013, the appellant killed his wife, the deceased Sunita in his house by strangulation. A report of the incident, Ex. A1, was lodged by the father of the deceased PW 1 Chait Singh, based on which chik FIR was recorded at Police Station Maneri Bhatwari, Uttarkashi on 01.12.2013 at 05:05 p.m. and Case Crime No. 17 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC was lodged against the appellant. Extract of general diary is Ex. A-11. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola on 01.12.2013 at 04:00 p.m. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

“1. Ligature mark, 7 x 0.5 c.m. present on left side neck starting from mid of neck till left angle of mandible.

2. Ligature mark 4 x 0.5 c.m., two c.m. below left ear lobule extending laterally backward.

3. 5 c.m. gap between above ligature.”

3. According to the doctor, the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation.

4. Before postmortem, the inquest of the deceased was conducted on 01.12.2013 in the morning. The inquest report is Ex. A-5. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. He prepared a site plan, Ex. A-14. He also took into custody the Chunni, which according to the appellant, the deceased had used for hanging. Its memo Ex. A-17 was prepared. After investigation, the charge sheet, Ex. A-20 was submitted against the appellant.

5. On 01.03.2014, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Chait Singh, PW 2 Smt. Kung Dei, PW 3 Pravendra Rana, PW 4 Mst. Dhruv Chauhan, PW 5 Smt. Vineeta Rana, PW 6 Smt. Manjeeta alias Manju, PW 7 Ambika Prasad Kuriyal, PW 8 Mohan Singh Dobra, PW 9 Dr. Amit Gairola, PW 10 Jagmohan Singh Rawat, PW 11 SI Ga