The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and witness statements to establish guilt in a murder case.

As per I.S. Shrivastava,: -

This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4 °-200l passed by the Court of Shri V.P.S. Chouhan. Additional Sessions Judge. Narsinghgurh, Distt. Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No. 77/2001, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months and under Section 203 of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. According to the prosecution story, on 14-3-2001. at 6.10 a.m.. Nannoolal lodged the report in the Police Station, Kuravar that in the last evening at about 7.00 p.m. he and his wife returned home from factory. He inquired from his wife Tulsibai that in the way to whom she was talking. She replied why he had suspicion without any reason on her then Nannoolal told that he has seen her several times. On this point Tulsibui started altercation, hence Nannoolal gave her two slaps. Thereafter, Tulsibai cooked the food and Nannoolal and his children after having dinner slept. At about 4.30 a.m. Nannoolal awoke and saw that his wife Tulsibai was hanging in the room by strangulation of Saree then he after opening the Saree laid her on the bed and saw that she was dead, hence he had come to report to the Police Station. This report was lodged at Greg No. 8/2001. thereafter police reached the spot. On inspection of the spot it was found that the wooden log on which it was alleged that Tulsibai hanged herself was intact. The dust on the log and webs of the spiders were untouched. On perusal of the Saree it was found that it was not used for hanging. On inquiry from Nannoolal before the witnesses he told that in the evening he had an altercation with his wife in which he throttled her neck and tied her neck with Saree and killed her and thereafter he cooked the food and then fed his children. Vinod aged 6-7 years son of Nannoolal confirmed this fact. In this way it was found that Nannoolal murdered his wife by throttling and suppressing this fact he made a report to the police pretending it to be a case of suicide. Hence, Crime No. 47/2001, was registered at Police Station Kunvar under Section 302/201 of the IPC and the appellant was arrested. After trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. It has been argued by the Counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was a case of suicide by Tulsibai. There was no evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. His child Vinod was not produced in evidence, who is said to be the eye-witness of the incident. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence or eye-witness. The chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete. The appellant was involved on the basis of suspicion only. There were serious contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination did not find any sign of strangulation on the neck of the deceased. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that by the knot of the string there may be fracture in the thyroid and it was the case of suicide. The Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was within his wife at the time of the incident, hence he is responsible for the death of his wife. The Trial Court further erred in not considering the fact that there was no evidence that Tulsibai was a woman of bad character and lived in adultery. There was no mens red on record to come to the conclusion that why appellant will commit the murder of his wife, hence the appeal should be allowed.

4. It has been argued by the Counsel for the respondent that by evidence it was proved that the appellant murdered his wife and pretending it as a case of suicide falsely made a report to the police. This circumstances show that this was not a