The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence and a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK VERMA, J.

This criminal appeal arises from judgment of conviction dated 3-9-2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli, District Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 83/12, whereby, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- with rigorous imprisonment of 5 years in case there is a default in payment of fine.

2. It is undisputed that the appellant is wife of deceased Bhatu Bhil. It is also undisputed that Hindu Singh (PW/2) and Munnalal Bhil (PW/7) are sons of the appellant and the deceased. Ranjeet Singh (PW/11) is son-in-law of the appellant and the deceased.

3. According to the prosecution story, the report was lodged by Ray Singh (PW/10) that he came to know one day prior to lodging of the report in the morning that Saree of present appellant, which was pink in colour, was tied in his well, located on his field. He went to the field to verify the fact and he also informed other villagers regarding the Saree that he found in the well. They tried to locate the present appellant and on this, Gopal Singh (PW/4), who is son of sister of the present appellant, inquired about present appellant from Inder Singh Bhil (PW/12), who is son of brother of present appellant and living in village Thalghevatiya, District Dewas. He informed that Bharudbai was there in their home, and thereafter, Chhatar Singh (PW/6) came to village Gopipur and brought out the Saree of Bharudbai. When Ray Singh (PW/10) asked him why Saree was tied in the well, he informed that the appellant wanted to scare her husband putting him under an impression that she jumped into the well, and therefore, she tied the Saree in the well. Thereafter, they inquired from Hindu Singh (PW/2) about present appellant and the deceased, on which, he told them that on 15-12-2011, during night, some dispute occurred between the appellant and the deceased Bhatu Bhil, as the appellant wanted to go to some marriage and for that she wanted some money. Infuriated by refusal of the deceased, she gave blows by wrong side of an axe on left cheek, on back etc. and caused various injuries. His father was unconscious. Next day villagers came to take him to nearby hospital and found that he had already expired.

4. On his report, the crime was registered at Crime No. 122/11 dated 17-12-2011 under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The spot map was prepared on 17-12-2011 at about 10.55 a.m. At 10.45 a.m. a stone was recovered, which was blood stained. Present appellant was arrested on 11.35 a.m. on the same day. Her disclosure memo was prepared at 11.45 a.m. and an axe and Saree was seized at 12.00 p.m. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under section 302, Indian Penal Code, recorded evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and examined the appellant under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. No defence evidence was given, and therefore, passed the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of no evidence and should have been disposed of by learned Judge under section 232, Criminal Procedure Code. Instead, the judge convicted the present appellant, and therefore, the impugned judgment is not based on established principles of law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposed the contention raised by counsel for the appellant and submits that the appeal should be dismissed, however, he fairly admits that all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and there is no oral evidence available against the appellant.

7. The question is whether the evidence available against the present appellant on record the conviction recorded by learned Sessions Judge sustains. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Hindu Singh (PW/2) is son and eye witness of the incident. When he was examined, he was 15 years of age. He did not support the prosecution story and turne