The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT

Sujoy Paul, J. - This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.173/2010 by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Panna whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under -

Convicted under Sections

Sentence

302 of the IPC

To undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for six months.

304B of the IPC

Nil

498A of the IPC

Nil

2. The prosecution story, in short, is that Sunderlal, the Wardboy of District Hospital Panna informed Police Station Kotwali, Panna that appellant brought his wife Savita in dead condition and accordingly a Merg Intimation No.52/10 was recorded under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. During the merg investigation, it was found that marriage of appellant with Savita was solemnized on 23.4.2008. On 17.7.2010, the dead body of Savita was found in her matrimonial house. The allegation of prosecution is that the husband, in-laws, jeth and jethani used to demand dowry and because of that dowry demand, murder of Savita had taken place.

3. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. In due course, the matter came up before the learned Sessions Judge. Appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for full-fledged trial.

4. The Court below framed five points for its determination. The prosecution introduced 12 witnesses whereas on behalf of defence, 04 witnesses entered the witness box.

5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

Contention of appellant :

6. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statement of Dr. N.K. Jain (P.W.10) is clear that although as per his opinion the cause of death is 'asphyxia', the 'opinion' portion shows that he has given tentative finding and there is no element of certainty in the finding. Dr. Maya Pandey PW2s statement is also relied upon wherein she deposed that she was a member of the post mortem team who had conducted the autopsy of Savita Gupta. On the one hand she deposed that reason of death is suffocation but in the second breath, she deposed that it is not possible to state that death was homicidal in nature or not.

7. The Autopsy Report (Ex.P/3) is referred to show that although cause of death is shown to be 'throttling' but in view of deposition of Dr. Maya Pandey (P.W.2), this report does not inspire confidence.

8. Naksha Panchnama (Ex.P/6) was referred to show that as per this report, there was no sign of bleeding from nostrils of Savita Gupta. Babita (P.W.4) is Executive Magistrate, who deposed that there was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. However, she clearly stated that on the person of deceased, no abrasion/bruises of other kinds were present. Thus, there is no sign of struggle on the person of deceased. Shri Mishra placed reliance on 'A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' of Modi (24th Edition) to submit that in cases of strangulation, ordinarily, sign of struggle are always there. In absence of any sign of struggle, a serious doubt is being created on the story of prosecution. He placed reliance on a chart mentioned in the book which differentiates the case of 'strangulation' from 'hanging'. It is further argued that no fracture had taken place in the internal bones of the neck of the deceased. Thus, with certainty, it can not be said that cause of death is throttling.

9. The testimony of PW7 Yogita Gupta, sister-in-law of deceased is referred and it was contended that she had not taken the name of present appellant while taking the names of relatives who demanded dowry and harassed/victimized the deceased. The alleged demand of dowry was at Sihora. The demand is relating to Rs.20,000/- from the family of Savita. Laxmi Prasad Gupta (P.W.8) is the father of deceased who deposed that Rs.20,000/- was given at Panna. Thus,