Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; inconclusive forensic evidence, such as blood grouping, cannot be used to establish a link between the accused and the crime.

Order

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated 15.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.3/2014 whereby, the accused appellant (for brevity, ‘appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-.

The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant-Bhanwar Lal (PW 15) lodged a written report (Ex. P15) at the Police Station Sri Madhopur on 17.10.2013 stating therein that his daughter- Kiran @ Gothi was married to the appellant in the year 2004. It was alleged that after the marriage, the appellant, along with his other family members, used to harass and torture the deceased with regard to demand of dowry and on that very day, at about 7:00 am, he received a telephonic message that the appellant, along with his other family members, has hacked her daughter to death. Based thereupon, an FIR No.466 dated 17.10.2013 (Ex. P16) came to be registered for the offence under Sections 498A and 302/34 IPC. The police after investigation, charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 302 IPC whereunder, charge was framed by the learned trial Court. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and there is no legally admissible evidence on record to connect him with the offence. He submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence but, the prosecution has not been able to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible conclusion of his guilt. Inviting attention of this Court towards the testimony of the prosecution witnesses including that of Smt. Lichhma Devi (PW 4)- sister of the deceased and married to the brother of the appellant, learned counsel-Shri Anshuman Saxena submits that the learned trial Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued their testimony while recording his conviction. He submits that even the recovery of incriminating material from his possession was not established. Shri Saxena submits that in absence of blood grouping, the FSL Report was of no consequence. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgement dated 15.05.2015 be quashed and set aside and he may be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard. Considered.

It is not disputed before us that it is a case of culpable homicide of Kiran @ Gothi. However, the moot question is as to whether the prosecution has been able to connect the appellant with the offence. Indisputably, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. A perusal of the judgement impugned reflects that while recording a finding that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased, the learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of Smt. Lichhma Devi and other witnesses. So far as deposition of Smt. Lichhma Devi (PW 4) is concerned, she has stated that the appellant and the deceased were on good terms after their marriage. On being declared hostile, upon her cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she has categorically stated that on the fateful night, the appellant had gone to ‘well’ at about 7-8 pm situated at a distance of about 15 minutes walk from the place of incident and had returned only on the next day at about 7:00 am. Although, the learned trial Court has not specified the other witnesses who have testified to have seen the appellant in the company of the deceased last but, after going through the testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses, we do not find that any of them has deposed to have seen the appellant last in the company of the dec