J U D G M E N T

Appellant has filed appeal challenging the judgment/

order dated 17.08.2019/04.11.2019 passed by the trial Court, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the complaint filed by Kamal Krishan Janartha. It was stated by the complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) that he was an agriculturist. His Nepali labour had gone to Nepal. His apple orchard was situated at Ghor-ka-Kyar. He had constructed a single storey house for the labour. About 15 days ago, one Nepali Mewa Lal and his wife had come to do labour work. Nepali Mewa Lal had worked in his orchard for about 7-8 days.

Mewa Lal used to often quarrel with his wife under the influence of liquor. One day, he had seen Mewa Lal giving beatings to his wife and due to this reason on 12.01.2016, he had shunted out Mewa Lal from the orchard. On 16.01.2016, he had received information in the morning that the dead body of the wife of Nepali Mewa Lal was lying at the banks of river in a half naked condition. There were injuries and bruises on her body. Consequently, he had informed the police in this regard. He had a suspicion that Nepali Mewa Lal had committed murder of his wife after inflicting injuries to her.

3. On the basis of the statement of complainant, formal FIR No.6, dated 16.01.2016, was registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. After completion of the investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

5. Charges were framed by the trial Court against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, vide order dated 09.05.2017. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. Appellant, when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., after close of the prosecution case, prayed that he was innocent and had been wrongly framed in the case by the police.

Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

7. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment/order, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.

8. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that star witness of the prosecution PW-1 Bimla Devi, had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Hence, the appellant was liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

9. Mr. P.K. Bhatti, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the appellant had fled away from the spot. PW-1 Bimla Devi has deposed that appellant had told her that his wife had died due to a fall while cutting grass. Thus, the appellant had given a false story to PW-1 Bimla Devi. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant as ordered by the trial Court, were liable to be upheld.

10. Present case relates to murder of Tilla Devi, wife of the appellant. Case rests on circumstantial evidence.

11. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Krishnan v. State represented by inspector of Police, 2008 (15)

SCC 430, as under:-

“15. Before adverting to the above-stated arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offences and the prosecution case entirel