SHARMA, J. - (1.) GRIEF and the pain suffered by married woman Guddi did not rise to the lips and find a cry, lies festering in the heart, like a drop of water that did not find its way to the sea but became mixed with a handful of dust and so got burried in the earth. Guddi, within five years of marriage died in the house of her husband Ram Khiladi @ Khiladi (appellant herein ). The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering. The appellant was put to trial before learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur, who vide judgment dated December 20, 2002 while acquitting the appellant of the charge under section 498a convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
(2.) A written report was handed over at 6. 30 PM on July 31, 2001 by Kanhaiya Lal (Pw. 1) at Police Station Bahrounda Kala with the averments that his daughter Guddi, who was married to Ram Khiladi, died in her Sasural. Her Jeth came to village Khandar and informed Kanhaiya Lal about the death of Guddi. In the report Kanhaiya Lal prayed to make and enquiry about the death of Guddi. On that report proceedings under Section 176 Crpc were initiated and matter was inquired by SDM Sawai Madhopur. SDM submitted his report and case under section 302 and 498a IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur. Charges under sections 498a and 302 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. He further stated that Guddi was ill and her treatment was going on and on the day of incident since Guddi was suffering from fever, he had gone to well for washing clothes. On return to home he found that fog was coming from nose and mouth of Guddi. She was taken to hospital where she died during treatment. Three witnesses were examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. There is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of Supreme Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. The court would proceed on the well-known principles in regard to appreciation of the circumstantial evidence in the following terms: 1) There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 2) Circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. 3) There should be no missing links but it is not that everyone of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links may only be inferred from the proven facts. 4) On the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. 5) It cannot be said that prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forwarded by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise. As per prosecution following circumstances are found established against the appellant and they form a complete chain so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant:- (i) Death of Guddi was homicidal in nature and she died under abnormal circumstances. (ii) Guddi died within five years of her marriage with the appellant. (iii) After the marriage Guddi was harassed in connection with the demand of dowry by the appellant and she was ousted from her Sasural. (iv) On the assurance of her mother-in-law that appellant will behave properly with her, Guddi came back to her Sasural some eight days prior to the incident. (v) When incident occurred Guddi and the appellant were alone in the house.
(3.) COMING to first circumstance we find that the death of Guddi was homicidal in nature. As per postmortem report (Ex. P-21) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:-      " 1. Bruise present on upper & lower eyelid & extending upto the upper part of nose on medial side below upto the Rt. maxillary prominence. 2. Bruise present inner & Rt. part of lower lip 1cm x 1cm. " Dr. Bajrang Lal Meena (Pw. 21), who performed autopsy on the dead body, opined that cause of death was Asphyxia due to suffocation probably due to smothering. In order to establish that death of Guddi occurred under abnormal circumstances the prosecution examined Dr. Bajrang Lal Meena (Pw. 21), Dr. Hemlata Tatwal (Pw. 22) and Dr. Mohan Singh Rathore (Pw. 23), who conducted autopsy on the dead body. As per their testimony the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering. To prove circumstances (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), the prosecution examined Kanhaiya Lal (Pw. 1), Ramswaroop (Pw. 2), Kailash (Pw. 3), Mohan (Pw. 4) and Panchi (Pw. 5 ). All these witnesses categorically deposed that marriage of Guddi took place with the appellant some five years prior to the incident. Three years after the marriage Gona ceremony was performed and Guddi went to her Sasural. For a period of 12 months, she used to be treated well but thereafter the appellant started harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and three months prior to the incident, father-inlaw of Guddi took her to her parental house and left her there. Eight days before the incident mother of appellant came to Guddi's Peehar (parental house) and assured that appellant will not ill treat her in future. In view of this assurance the parents of Guddi allowed her to go with the appellant. Guddi and the appellant resided together in an independent house where Guddi died after eight days. Despite searching cross examination testimony of Kanhaiya Lal, Ram Swaroop, Kailash, Mohan and Panchi could not be shattered. ;