D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the convict -accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st January, 2003 and 23rd January, 2003 respectively, passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2002, whereby, the present appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and in such a case, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Further, though the appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence has been awarded.
(2.) IF the prosecution case is unfolded, the facts of the case are as under: - It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident i.e. on 15th November, 2001, one Smt. Somariya Devi, who is the wife of the appellant -accused, was murdered and was thrown in a well, nearby the house of the appellant -apcused. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant -accused had gone at the parental house of the deceased, in search of his wife, and the prosecution witnesses, who are father and brothers of the deceased, conveyed the appellant -accused that the deceased had not come at their house. Thereafter, it appears from the case of the prosecution that the informant (P.W. 6), who is brother of the deceased, had gone in search of his sister at the house of the appellant -accused and there he came to know from the villagers that the dead body of his sister is in a well. Thereafter, the dead body of his sister was brought out of the well and an inquest report (Panchanama) was drawn up and the informant lodged a F.I.R. on 19th November, 2001 at 8.00 p.m. at Manika Police Station, within the district of Latehar. Thereafter, investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer and statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and finally charge -sheet was submitted against the present appellant -accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2002 and after concluding the trial, upon circumstantial evidence, the present appellant -accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as stated hereinabove, for committing murder of his wife Smt. Somariya Devi. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - accused. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant -accused, who has mainly submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove charge of murder, beyond reaseoable doubts against the present appellant -accused. In fact, the appellant -accused, who is husband of the deceased, is quite innocent and there is no involvement of the appellant -accused, on the contrary the appellant - accused was in search of his wife and, therefore, had voluntarily gone at the parental house of the deceased. This conduct of the appellant -accused leads to his innocence and not to his guilt.
(3.) IT is also contended vehemently by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that no chain of circumstances has been proved, so that it can be said to be a complete chain of circumstances, which leads to one and only one conclusion that the appellant -acused has committed murder of his wife (deceased). On the contrary, no cogent and convincing circumstances have ever been proved by the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that there is no eye witnees of the whole incident and the prosecution witneses, who have been examined, are the relatives of the deceased and, therefore, they being the highly interested witnesses, their evidences or depositions must be viewed with all circumspection by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant -accused that highest case of the prosecution against the present appellant -accused is the blood stains in the house of the appellant - accused, relying upon which the appellant -accused has been punished by the trial court, but, looking to the evidences, this circumstance has not been proved at all by the prosecution, much less beyond reasonable doubts. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserve to be quashed and set aside.;