JAT, J. - (1.) IN the instant appeals challenge is made to the judgment dated November 28th, 2001 of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: U/s. 302 I. P. C. To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. U/s. 201 I. P. C. To undergo imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that Radha Mohan Sharma (PW-2), father of the deceased Anuradha had lodged a report (Ex. 4) in the Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur on 12. 11. 1997 with the allegations that on the said day around 4. 30 AM Darshan who happened to be a friend of the complainant informed him about receiving a telephonic call giving information that his daughter was not well and that he was asked to come up. He then told his son Himanshu to proceed, but immediately thereafter Nimawat came to his house and took him alongwith his son, wife to the house of his son-in-law Vishnu Dutta (appellant herein ). On reaching the house of the appellant, the complainant saw the dead body of his daughter lying on the floor and his son-in-law (the accused) standing nearby the dead body. On being enquired about the death of Anuradha, the appellant expressed ignorance and told that he himself had to look into it as to what had happened. The complainant further stated that seeing the marks on the neck of his daughter, he believed that she had been murdered by the appellant to get rid of her, with whom, he married on 24. 6. 1988. On the basis of the report a case was registered and investigation had been carried of. The police on completion of investigation submitted challan against the appellant and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who framed charges U/s. 302 and 201 I. P. C. against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. It was stated by him that it had been a pre-plan of his wife's step-mother. He exhibited the statement of 6 witnesses. The learned trial Judge, on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here-in-above. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently assailed the findings of learned trial Judge and made following submissions: (i) Trial Judge failed to consider that since appellant had no motive to kill the deceased, the circumstantial evidence could not be acted upon. (ii) Cause of death was not certain. As per the medical report the death could be caused either by administering poison or by Asphyxia or by burning. (iii) Evidence of extra-judicial confession was unreliable. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned findings and urged that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. We have pondered over the submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel scanned the record thoroughly.
(3.) "man may lie, but circumstances never", it is a famous saying. There has been no eye-witness of the incident and appellant has been convicted by the trial court on the sole basis of circumstantial evidence. It is now settled by series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for proving the guilt of the accused by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must lead evidence to connect all links in the chain, so as to clearly point the guilt of the accused alone and nobody else. In Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350) it was observed that circumstantial evidence should be looked into with utmost care and caution. Where the case against the accused depends on circumstantial evidence, any circumstance which destroys the presumption of innocence, can be taken into account to find out if the circumstances lead to no other inference but that of guilt. The Court has to take the totality of circumstances into consideration, and find if the case is established, that is, the facts established are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of guilt. The chain of evidence must be so far complete: (i) as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused; and (ii) as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. In the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the law may be taken to be that - (a) the circumstances alleged must be established by satisfactory evidence, as in the case of other evidence; (b) the circumstances proved must be of a conclusive nature and tendency so as to be totally inconsistent with his innocence and are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. (c) although there should be no missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced; some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts; (d) in drawing those inferences or presumptions, the Court must have regard to the common course of natural events, to human conduct and their relation to the facts of the particular case; (e) Where circumstances are susceptible of two equally possible inferences, the Courts should accept that inference which favours the accused rather than an inference which goes in favour of the prosecution. As per Shahbuddin vs. State of Rajasthan (1973 Cr. L. J. 723), the circumstantial evidence is sometimes more credible than direct evidence but the proved circumstances must be such which bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. ;