The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as well as the need to exclude every hypothesis but the guilt of the accused.

A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24. 11. 1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 170/86 convicting appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that mithlesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased") is the wife of appellant Suresh Chandra. It is said that appellant was having illicit relations with one Durgesh nandani as a result of which deceased was an eyesore to the accused persons. In order to kill the deceased, in the night of 29. 5. 1986 at 9 poison was administered to her as a result of which her physical condition became deteriorated and ultimately she became unconscious as a result of which she was transmitted to Nursing Home of Dr. Bhagwanswaroop Gaurh where the doctor found her condition to be serious as such she was referred to the J. A. Group of hospital, Gwalior where the deceased was treated by Dr. Ripudaman, but she could not survive and ultimately, she died on 30. 5. 1986 at 11. 45 in the morning.

( 3 ) ON account of the death of the deceased, an information was sent to the concerning police station where merge intimation was registered. The investigating agency arrived in the hospital; prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body but did not find any injury on her person. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and the viscera of the deceased was sent to the chemical examiner.

( 4 ) IN furtherance to its investigation the investigating agency arrived at the house of the appellant and seized different food stuff like Paratha, Besan Ka Laddu, Barfi, bundi, Rasgulla and the curd. It is said that curd was kept in a bowl in the kitchen. The police also seized black powder kept in two packets. All these articles were sent to the chemical examiner and according to the report of the chemical examiner presence of Aluminum Phosphide (Celphos) was found in the curd.

( 5 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session where accused persons were tried.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against them in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under Section 302, IPC. Needless to emphasize both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.

( 7 ) IN order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed Ex. P1 to P8 the documents on record. Though the defence of accused persons is of maladroit implication, however, they did not choose to examine any witness in support of their defence.

( 8 ) THE learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that co-accused Durgesh Nandani did not commit any offence as a result of which she was acquitted, however, according to the trial Court there is evidence against present appellant as such he has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. In this manner the present appeal has been filed.

( 9 ) IT has been argued by Shri Brijesh sharma, learned counsel for appellant that the learned trial Judge has disbelieved pw8, Narendra Kumar Jain, who is the real brother of the deceased and who has stated that some substance was passed over by co-accused to appellant and the same was mixed in mango shake which was ultimately given to the deceased to drink, by the appellant. The contention of learned counsel is that Narendra Kumar Jain has not been found to be reliable by the learned trial judge as it is clear on bare perusal of para 21 of the impugned judgment. Thus, there is no direct evidence against the appellant and the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. It has also been contended by learned counsel that there is no material on rec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document