SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 28. 5. 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case, unfolded during trial, was that one Pramila, since deceased was posted as Constable in Police Dines, Sikar during the relevant time. On 14. 7. 1993, PW-19 Narendra Singh, SHO having received information, Ex. P. 10 from S. K. Hospital, Sikar furnished by a lady Constable No. 753, initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P. C. PW-19 Narendra Singh rushed to the Hospital and prepared inquest report Ex. P. 6 of the dead body of Pramila. Complainant Dharmpal Singh, PW-1, brother of the deceased and Jagmal Singh, PW-10, father of the deceased submitted a written report Ex. P. 5 to the SHO, Kotwali, Sikar at S. K. Hospital, Sikar, to the effect that having seen the dead body of his sister Pramila Devi it was felt that her husband Shish Ram has administered poison, as a result of which she has passed away. On this report, Police registered a case vide FIR No. 245/93, Ex. P. 13 and proceeded with the investigation. The Police then rushed to the place of incident and prepared site plan, Ex. P. 1, seized two glasses vide seizure memo Ex. P. 2, seized one steel `katori' with tea leaf etc. vide seizure memo Ex. P. 3. The Police also seized plain soil and soil stained with vomitting vide memo Ex. P. 4 and prepared panchayatnama, Ex. P. 6 of the dead body. The police got conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased and collected post mortem report Ex. P. 11. Three Medical Jurists, namely Dr. H. S. Bunkar. Dr. S. S. Sharma and Dr. G. R. Tanwar who conducted post mortem, opined that cause of death will be given after receipt of chemical examination report. The doctors opined that duration of death was 24 to 36 hours. The police arrested the accused appellant on 17. 7. 93 vide Ex. P. 15 and also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The police also collected the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. P. 12. The result of chemical examination was as follows : "on chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-6) and washings of exhibits (7) and (12) from packets marked A, B, A & F respectively gave positive tests for the presence of Monocrotophos insecticide (an organophorous insecticide ). Washings of exhibits (8), (9), (10) and 11 gave negative tests for Monocrotophos insecticide. " On completion of investigation, Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, who in turn committed the case of the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. The learned trial Judge, having heard the arguments on charge, framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC, to which the accused denied and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter the trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The accused in his defence examined DW-1 Mst. Sumitra.
(3.) ON conclusion of trial, after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the accused and the learned public prosecutor and on the basis of evidence and material on record, held the accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully examined the evidence and material on record. The entire edifice of the prosecution is rested only on circumstantial pieces of evidence. What the prosecution is obliged to prove in a case which is based purely on circumstantial evidence has been a matter of consideration in a series of cases by the Apex Court and various High Courts thereby prescribing certain conditions to be satisfied in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra (1), dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must or should' and not `may be' established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence to complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have done by the accused. " ;