Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : R. P. Gupta
For the Respondent : C. P. Singh

JUDGMENT G. S. AHLUWALIA, J. : – This Criminal Appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 15-1-2010 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 57/2009, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and has been awarded Life Sentence and a fine of Rs. 500/-, with default imprisonment of 6 months R.I.

2. The prosecution story in short is that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Papitabai. He got married with her in the year 2002. The deceased was residing with the appellant in Ayodhya Colony, Jail Road, Dabra. In the morning of 16-12-2008, Sudama informed Atar Singh, the father of the deceased, that his daughter has expired, therefore, he should come immediately. Accordingly, Atar Singh, Rajvir Singh, Chandan and Bhupendra came to Dabra and found that the dead body of the deceased Papitabai was lying supine in the house of the appellant. Thereafter, Atar Singh lodged report in Police Station Dabra and accordingly, Merg No. 122/2008 under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The spot map was prepared. The post-mortem of the dead body of Papitabai was got done. The cause of death was found to be strangulation. It was also found that the appellant was demanding a motorcycle and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and was harassing her for the same. It was also found that accordingly in the night of 15-12-2008, the appellant had beaten his wife Papitabai. The cause of death was strangulation, accordingly F.I.R. No. 912/2008 was registered. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet for offence under section 304-B/302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. The trial Court by order dated 24-2-2009 framed charges under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE or in the alternative under section 304-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined S. C. Swarnkar (P.W.1), Satyadev Sharma (P.W.2), Rampyari (P.W.3), Sushil Sharma (P.W.4), Sudama (P.W.5), Parmanand Anuragi (P.W.6), Dr. Vibha Kurele (P.W.7), Atar Singh (P.W.8), Chandan Singh (P.W.9), Ranveer Singh (P.W.10), Bhupendra (P.W.11), Meena (P.W.12), Dr. R. K. Singh (P.W.13), Yashwant Singh (P.W.14), Rakesh Singh Jadon (P.W.15) and D. K. Dixit (P.W.16).

6. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

7. The trial Court by the impugned Judgment and Sentence, convicted the appellant for offence under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

8. Challenging the impugned judgment and sentence, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has been convicted mainly on the ground that he has failed to explain as to how his wife met with homicidal death. In fact the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of the wife of the appellant was homicidal in nature. The children of the appellant were not examined. The possibility that some unknown person might have committed the offence is not ruled out.

9. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court.

10. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

11. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court thinks it apposite to find out as to whether the death of Papitabai was homicidal in nature or not?

12. Dr. R. K. Singh (P.W.13) has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Papitabai, and found the following injuries on her body :

(i) One contusion of 3 cm x 2 ½ cm over right side of neck starting from mastoid process to the angle of mandible. (ii) Two Parallel contusions on left side of neck. (a) 1 cm x 1 cm mandible towards angle. (b) below “a” extending from left pinna downwards 2 cm x2 cm. (iii) One Contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm over middle of mandible. (iv) One Contusion in area of 3 cm x3 ½ cm over chin extending downwards. (v) Multiple Contusions