Judgment

Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 28.04.2026

Date on which judgement is reserved : 28.04.2026

Whether the full judgment or only the

operative part is pronounced : Full Judgement

Date of pronouncement : 11.05.2026

Per Hon’ble MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

By way of this criminal appeal, the appellant-accused (for brevity, ‘appellant’) has assailed the legality and validity of the judgement dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.37/2014 whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of

Rs.20,000/-; in default whereof, six months’ additional

simple imprisonment.

The relevant facts in nutshell are that the complainant Kalulal (PW5) lodged a written report at about 10:00 am on 30.03.2014 with Police Station Bhawani Mandi wherein, it was averred that his daughter-Dhapu Bai was married about ten years ago to the appellant who used to beat her. It was stated that on that day, at about 7:00 am, her father-in-law-Gopal informed him telephonically that his daughter has died and when he went to Haripura, he found the mark of injuries on her head and neck. It was alleged that his daughter was either beaten to death by the appellant or by throttling. Based thereupon, an FIR No.128 dated 30.03.2014 was registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar for the offence under Section 302/304B IPC. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC whereunder, charge was also framed against him. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and there was no legally admissible evidence available on record against him. He contended that although, the case is based on circumstantial evidence but, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to only conclusion of his guilt. Referring to and relying upon the testimony of Kalulal (PW5), Badrilal (PW7), Balram (PW8), Sita (PW9), Balchand (PW12) and Prem Bai (PW15)-father, mother and other relatives of the deceased, he would contend that the allegation against the appellant of beating the deceased could not be established therefrom. Inviting attention of this Court towards the postmortem report (Ex.P9) of the body of the deceased as also the testimony of Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta (PW13) and Dr. Rohitashv (PW14), learned counsel submitted that even it was not proved that it was a case of homicidal death and a possibility of it being a suicidal death, could not be ruled out. He submitted that even otherwise, there was no evidence that the strangulation was either on account of throttling or by any other means. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgement impugned dated 31.05.2016 be quashed and set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against him. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Another Vs. State of MP: MANU/SC/0065/2010.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions, contended that findings of the learned trial Court are based on appreciation of cogent evidence available on record in its right perspective which warrant no interference. He further submitted that the prosecution was able to establish guilt of the appellant by establishing the complete chain of circumstances leading to irresistible conclusion only of his guilt. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard. Considered.

As per the prosecution case, the appellant and the deceased were married for about ten years, he used to beat her almost on daily basis and ultimately, murdered her in the night of 29.03.2014 either by beating or by strangulatio