In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 23-12-2010 passed by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Khandwa in S.T. No.117/2009, by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 21-9-2008, at about 7:30 A.M., appellant Surajbai gave an information that She was sleeping in her house. At about 3:30 A.M., her mother-in-law namely Sukmabai came to her house and raised an alarm, as a result She woke up. On enquiry She was informed by Sukma bai that deceased Hari @ Bhaggu is hanging on a Neem tree. She accordingly rushed to the spot and cut the rope with the help of Darati. Chhaya claimed that Hari is still alive. Accordingly She took her younger brother-in-law Hari to hospital where compounder Rajle Babu was called, who informed that the deceased has expired. Accordingly, the dead body was brought back to the house. On this report, the police registered Merg No.51/2008. After Merg enquiry, the police registered crime no.185/2009 against the appellant Surajbai and others for offence under Sections 302, 201, 203 of IPC, on the allegations, that in fact the appellants had administered poison to the deceased and with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence, tried to give the shape of suicide by hanging the deceased on Neem Tree and the appellant Surajbai also gave a false information to the police. Accordingly, offence against the appellants and Rekha bai was registered. The appellants were arrested and after completing the investigation, police filed the charge sheet.

3. It appears that Rekhabai was a juvenile, therefore, She must have been produced before JJB. However there is nothing on record to suggest as to what happened to the trial of Rekha bai.

4. The Trial Court by order dated 30-7-2009 framed charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC against the appellant Bhuribai and under Sections 302/34, 201 and 203 of IPC against the appellant Surajbai. The Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. Prosecution examined Dinesh (P.W.1), Phoolabai (P.W.2), Kadwa (P.W.3), Dr. Anil Kumar (P.W.4), Sewantibai (P.W.5), Sukmabai (P.W.6), Suresh (P.W.7), Mohanlal (P.W.8), N.K. Suryavanshi (P.W.9), H.S. Rawat (P.W.10), B.S. Chouhan (P.W.11) and Chetnath Singh (P.W.12).

6. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

7. Trial Court by impugned Judgment and sentence convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and acquitted them for offence under Sections 201, 203 of IPC.

8. On 5-9-2024, none had appeared for the appellants, therefore, amicus curiae was appointed however, on 19-9-2024, even the amicus curiae did not appear therefore, in the light of Judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Suryabaksh Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 14 SCC 222 this Court itself went through the record of the Trial Court and heard the learned Counsel for the State.

9. Considered the record of the Trial Court and heard the learned Counsel for the State.

10. This case is based on circumstantial evidences, which can be summarized as under:

(a) Appellant Bhuribai had come to the house of appellant Surajbai and on the date of incident, appellant Bhuribai was in the house of appellant Surajbai;

(b) Appellant Surajbai, after the death of her husband Pannalal, started living along with deceased Hari @ Bhaggu and also ousted the wife of Hari @ Bhaggu;

(c) About 15 days prior to the date of incident, some quarrel took place between appellant Surajbai and Hari @ Bhaggu and Hari ran away from the house of Surajbai after causing injury to her by Darati;

(d) On the fateful day, Hari @ Bhaggu came back to the house of appellant Surajbai;

(e) In the night, Suresh (P