- (1.)1. The Appellant charged with commission of offences under Sections 302/201 IPC has preferred this appeal against the order of his conviction under both the provisions and against the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 302 IPC and of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 201 ipc.
(2.)THE deceased/victim was Ms Vidya @ Vidyawati aged about 27 years at the time of her demise on 9th January, 1991. The Appellant at that time was about 29-30 years of age. There is an admission in the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that the deceased was the wife of the appellant. The Appellant, however, claims to have two wives. The other wife of the Appellant, besides the deceased, was one Ms Shakuntala. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the record as to whom the Appellant was married first i. e. , to the deceased or to the said Ms Shakuntala. It is not in dispute that the deceased was murdered. The admission of the counsel for the Appellant to the said effect is recorded in para 31 of the impugned judgment and is even otherwise clearly borne out from the evidence. Neither in the Memorandum of Appeal nor at the time of hearing, it was disputed that the admission of the counsel for the Appellant before the trial court that the deceased was murdered was wrongly recorded.
(3.)THERE is no witness to the murder. The trial court has found the appellant guilty through circumstantial evidence. The entire arguments of the senior counsel for the Appellant was that the circumstances proved did not unequivocally and undoubtedly point towards the Appellant and as such the conviction of the Appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence is erroneous. We as such, proceed to appraise the evidence in the light of the law with respect to circumstantial evidence as summarised and laid down in Bodh Raj v. State of J and K [air 2002 SC 3164].