IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and convincing chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused questioning the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2012 in S.C.No.231 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo four years of imprisonment. The case against the accused is that he was married to the deceased 18 years prior to the incident. On 02.12.2010 at about 1:00 p.m. the accused went to the house and there was an altercation in between the spouses. In the said altercation, the accused according to the prosecution, grew angry and attacked his wife with sickle. On account of 11 injuries received by his wife, death occurred. According to the opinion of post mortem Doctor-P.W.15, the death was on account of severe head injury with intracranial hematoma. Ex.P15 is the final opinion.

4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused. P.Ws.1 to 17 witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution also brought on record M.Os.1 to 5.

5. On the basis of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302-part II of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge found that though there were no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, conviction was recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the circumstances are that (i) the accused was alone present in the house along with the deceased at the time of commission of offence and (ii) the accused also cut his throat with a knife when the deceased fell on the ground with bleeding injuries and the said injury on the neck of the accused is self inflicted. On the basis of the said inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge, conviction was recorded.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there were no eye-witnesses to the said incident. On the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence, the conviction was recorded. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 LawSuit (SC) 46 and argued that the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the said circumstances should unerringly point towards guilt of the accused. In the absence of such circumstances being made out by the prosecution, the question of convicting the accused with the help of circumstantial evidence does not arise.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and argued that it was the accused who was alone present in the house when the incident happened. He was also found at the scene which is stated by P.W.1 and P.W.9 during their examination in Court. In the said circumstances, when the accused had inflicted injuries on himself and it was proved that the there were self inflicted injuries, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be set aside.

8. Having gone through the evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.9 (house owner) evidence is circumstantial in nature. They stated that having received information they went to the house and found the deceased and the accused with bleeding injuries and were lying on the floor in unconscious state, both were shifted to the hospital. However, complaint was given by P.W.1 on 02.12.2010 on the day of incident. The said version of the accused being found on the floor in unconscious state with bleeding injuries was not stated in the complaint. P.W.9 was declared hostile to the prosecution case.

9. The said version of P.W.1 and P.W.9 finding the accused at the scene is contrary to the evidence on record. P.W.17 who is the Investigating Officer stated that he apprehended the accused on 16.12.2010 at 9:00 a.m.