MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.09.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (No. 3), Sikar (for short 'the trial court') whereby the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
(2.) Brief and relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 03.09.2010, the complainant Mahesh Kumar (P.W.5) lodged a written report (Exhibit P-1) against the accused appellant at Police Station, Laxmangarh, District Sikar alleging therein that the accused-appellant has committed murder of his wife namely Suman Devi. On the basis of the above mentioned report, the police registered FIR No. 221/2010 (Exhibit P-2) for offence under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, District Sikar. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar and ultimately the case came to be transferred to the court of learned Additional District Sessions Judge No. 3, Sikar for trial. The trial court after hearing the arguments on charge, framed the charge against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents in support of its case. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein he denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police without any connecting or corroborating evidence, he is innocent and has not committed any such alleged offence. The learned trial vide impugned Judgment dated 30.09.2014 convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him in the manner indicated above.
(3.) Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial court is legally not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also the facts of the present case. The learned trial court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302 IPC. It is submitted that no such alleged offence is made out and proved against the accused-appellant from the evidence on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the conviction of the accused-appellant is bad in law and he deserves to be acquitted. The learned trial court has further failed to consider that while appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the court should keep in view the two cardinal principles that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. There are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of such witnesses. The conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.;