Mohan Lal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as “the accusedâ€), laying challenge to judgment

dated 18.02.2017, passed by learned Additional Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 1-D/VII/2015, whereby the accused

was convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

“IPCâ€​).

The facts giving rise to the present case can succinctly be encapsulated as under:

On 24.07.2014 Smt. Renuka Devi (deceased) was found dead on the floor of her room. The door of her room was ajar, almirah and trunk were open

and the things were found scattered. This unfortunate scene was first witnessed by Shri Ramesh Chand, father-in-law of the deceased, who in turn,

telephonically informed Shri Subhash Chand, father of the deceased. Shri Subhash Chand hotfooted to the scene of occurrence alongwith his relatives

and noticed blood on the front side of the mouth of the deceased. In the interregnum, Shri Jagpal Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Samela, informed

the police and the police on reaching the spot recorded the statement of the father of the deceased, which formed basis for registration of FIR under

Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation ensued. The scene of crime was photographed and spot map was prepared. Forensic team visited the

spot and collected the blood lying on the spot, seized a bed-sheet, pillow cover and scarf of the deceased. Inquest papers were filled in and the corpse

was sent to Dr. Rajinder Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, for post mortem examination. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses

and inquires were made from the husband of the deceased (accused), who divulged that on 23.07.2014, at about 05:30 p.m., he started to his home

from Pinjaur on motorcycle, having registration No. HP-40-A-5214, and reached at about 10:30 p.m. He has further divulged that in the bed room he

had fracas with the deceased and strangulated her. Subsequently he opened the almirah and trunk and scattered the things in the room and around

01:30 a.m. he left the scene of crime. The accused has further divulged to the police that he took the ornaments as also the rope, which was used for

strangulating the deceased, and hid the same in his room at Pinjaur. The accused took the ornaments and scattered the things so as to give the

incident, shape of robbery. As a sequel to the statement made by the accused, police got recovered gold ornaments, rope, allegedly used for

strangulating the deceased, and mobile of the accused from his room at Pinjaur. As per the final opinion of the Medical Officer, which was given after

receipt of RFSL report, it was opined that the deceased died due to homicidal fatal pressure over neck consistent with strangulation by ligature. After

completing all the formalities, challan was presented in the Court.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eighteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.2017, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was further ordered

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six months, hence the present appeal maintained by the appellant (accused/convict).

The learned counsel for the accused/appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the facts and law and the conviction

has been based only on surmises and conjectures. He has further argued that there is nothing against the accused and he has been falsely implicated.

The learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that there are major lacunae in the material available on record and the accused cannot be

deprived the benefit of doubt, so the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted by setting aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court.

Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the material, which has come on

record and the judgment, as rendered by the learned Trail Court, is after appreciating the facts and law to their right and true perspective. He has

further argued that there is reliable evidence against the accused and he has been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court, so the judgment of

acquittal needs no interference and the appeal be dismissed.

In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused be acquitted by setting aside the

judgment of the learned Trial Court, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

The edifice of the prosecution story rests upon circumstantial evidence and the Hon’ble Apex Courts as also this High Court in catena of

judgments settled the law qua the same. In nitty-gritty, the law with respect to circumstantial evidence is that each and every circumstance is required

to be proved by the prosecution and the circumstances, as a whole, have to make out a chain in a manner that the only conclusion is that the accused

has committed the offence, as alleged by the prosecution. The law on the point of circumstantial evidence is considered and settled by the Hon’ble

Courts in the following judgments:

State of H.P. vs. Sunil Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2011, decided on 15.06.2017;

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622;

Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79;

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Balak & another, (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 551, &

Rajdev aliasRaju & another vs. Stae of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2015.

In State of H.P. vs. Sunil Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2011, decided on 15.06.2017, this Court has held as under:

“13. It is more than settled that in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which interference as to the guilt of the accused is

drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and there be a complete chain of evidence consistent only that the hypothesis of guilt of the

accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence and in such a case if the evidence relied upon is capable of two inferences then one which is in

favour of the accused must be accepted. It is clearly settled that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy three tests:

i) The circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must cogently and firmly established.

ii) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency un-erringly pointing out towards the guilt of the accused.

iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a complete chain so that to come to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the

accused.

Equally well settled is the proposition that where the entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence the Court should adopt cautious

approach for basing the conviction on circumstantial evidence and unless the prosecution evidence point irresistible to the guilt of the accused, it would

not be sound and safe to base the conviction of accused person.

In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence and the circumstances

so proved, must form a complete chain without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be consistent that only the guilt of the accused (See:

Lakhbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 173).â€​

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622, has held as under:

“48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral

statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last

time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would

naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that is done consciously but even

unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the court has

to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they

would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been

stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is punished. This is human psychology

and no one can help it.

It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This

is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held is only this: where various links in a chain are in themselves

complete than a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link

it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where is any infirmity or lacuna

in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court. … … … … … …

It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an

additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can

be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied:

(1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved.

(2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and

(3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.

If these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the

Court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was

examined in Shankarlal’s case (AIR 1981 SC 765) (supra) where this Court observed thus:

Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best

be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused.

This Court, therefore, has in no way departed from the five conditions laid down in Hanumant's case (supra). Unfortunately, however, the High

Court also seems to have misconstrued this decision and used the so-called false defence put up by the appellant as one of the additional

circumstances connected with the chain. There is a vital difference between an incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance which, after

the chain is complete, is added to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the court. Where the prosecution is unable to prove any of the essential

principles laid down in Hanumant's case, the High Court cannot supply the weakness or the lacuna by taking aid of or recourse to a false defence or a

false plea. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the Additional Solicitor-General.â€​

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79, has held as under:

“12. There are certain salient and material features in the present case which are not controverted; they being that A-1 to A-3 and the deceased

lived under a common roof, that the deceased had instituted a civil suit against her father, PW-8 and brother PW-9 claiming exclusive possession of

the disputed land, that the deceased was found dead on the morning of 7.9.85 and that there were certain visible injuries such as abrasions, nail marks

and contusions on the part of the nose, upper lip, chin and neck etc. as noted by the Medical Officers (PWs 5 and 6) in the post- mortem report Ex. P.

The appellate Court on the strength of the opinion given by the Medical Officers (PWs 5 and 6) has agreed with the view of the Trial Court that the

death of the deceased was of homicidal one and not suicidal and held ""therefore suicidal is ruled out."" We also very carefully went through the

evidence of the Medical Officers and found that the prosecution has convincingly established that the death of the deceased was due to forcible

administration of poison and smothering. Hence we are in full agreement with the concurrent findings of the Courts below that it is a clear case of

murder.

… … … … … …

While considering the above circumstances, the appellate Court has expressed its view that the explanation given by the accused that they were at

the marriage house of PW-1 throughout the night is nothing but a false explanation and that the culprits who ever they might have been should have

administered the poison to the victim and thereby caused her death and that there is very strong suspicion against the accused persons but the

prosecution cannot be said to have established the guilt of the accused decisively since the suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. The relevant

portion of the final conclusion of the appellate Court reads thus:

“There is no evidence whatsoever either from the neighbours or from others to show that the accused at any time ill-treated the deceased or

treated her ruelly. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has established the guilt on the part of A. 1 to A. 3. Thus, there

is no conclusive evidence that the accused committed the offence of murder. It is an unfortunate case where cold-blooded murder has been

committed and it is difficult to believe that no inmate of the house had any hand in the offence of murder. But that will be only a suspicion which

cannot take the place of proof.â€​

We, in evaluating the circumstantial evidence available on record on different aspects of the case, shall at the foremost watchfully examine

whether the accused 1 to 3 had developed bad-blood against the deceased to the extent of silencing her for ever, that too in a very inhuman and

horrendous manner. The appellant wants us to infer that the deceased should have been subjected to all kinds of pressures and harassments and

compelled to institute the suit against her father and brother claiming exclusive right over the landed property in order to grab the said property, that

this conduct of the accused should have been resented by the deceased and that on that score the accused should have decided to put an end to her

life. In our view, this submission has no merit because there is no acceptable evidence showing that there was any quarrel in the family and that the

deceased was ill-treated either by her husband or in-laws. The appellate Court while dealing with this aspect of the case has observed that there is no

evidence that the accused ill-treated the deceased, which observation we have extracted above. Hence, we hold that there is no sufficient material to

warrant a conclusion that the accused had any motive to snatch away the life threat of the deceased. There is no denying the fact that the deceased

did not accompany her husband and in-laws to attend the marriage celebrated in the house of PW-1 and remained in the scene house and that she has

been done away with on the intervening night of 6th/7th September, 1985.

From this circumstance, the Court will not be justified in drawing any conclusion that the deceased was not leading a happy marital life. As observed

by the appellate Court, the explanation offered by accused 1 to 3 that they remained in the house of PW 1 throughout the night is too big a pill to be

swallowed. But at the same time, in our view, this unacceptable explanation would not lead to any irrestible inference that the accused alone should

have committed this murder and have come forward with this false explanation. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of

murder but not a suicide as we have pointed out supra. The placing of the tin container with the inscription 'Democran, by the side of the dead body is

nothing but a planted one so as to give a misleading impression that the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide. But there is no

evidence as to who had placed the tin container by the side of the dead body. Even if we hold that the perpetrators of the crime whoever might have

been had placed the tin, that in the absence of any satisfactory evidence against the accused would not lead to any inference that these accused or

any of them should have done it. It is the admitted case that the first accused handed over three letters Ex. P. 6 to P. 8 alleged to have been written

by the deceased to the Investigating Officer.

The sum and substance of these letters are to the effect that the deceased had somegrouse against her parents and that the accused were not

responsible for her death. The explanation given by accused No. 1 in this written statement is that by about the time of the arrival of the police, one

Sathi Prasad Reddy handed over these letters to him saying that he (Reddy) found them near the place where the dead body was laid and that he (A-

1) in turn handed over them to the police. PWs 8 and 9 have deposed that these letters are not under the hand writing of the deceased. But the

prosecution has not taken any effort to send the letters to any hand-writing export for comparison with the admitted writings of the deceased with the

writings found in Ex. P. 6 to P. 8. Under these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against accused No. 1 on his conduct in handing

over these letters.

No doubt, this murder is diabolical in conception and cruel in execution but the real and pivotal issue is whether the totality of the circumstances

unerringly establish that all the accused or any of them are the real culprits. The circumstances indicated by the learned Counsel undoubtedly create a

suspicion against the accused. But would these circumstances be sufficient to hold that the respondents 2 to 4 (accused 1 to 3) had committed this

heinous crime. In our view, they are not.

… … … … … …

We are of the firm view that the circumstances appearing in this case when examined in the light of the above principle enunciated by this Court

do not lead to any decisive conclusion that either all these accused or any of them committed the murder of the deceased, Vijaya punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. or the offence of cruelty within the mischief of Section 498-A I.P.C. Hence, viewed from any angle, the

judgment of the appellate Court does not call for interference.â€​

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Balak & another, (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 551, has held as under:

“12. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of two decisions of this Court. In State of U.P. v. Satish, it was noted

as follows:

“22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive

and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes

impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and

possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased

were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased

and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW-2.â€​

In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., it was noted as follows:

“27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were

last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes

impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration.â€​

(See also Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45)

A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, 2005 12 SCC 438. Factual position in the present case is almost similar, so far as

time gap is concerned.

Out of the circumstances highlighted above really none is of any significance. Learned Counsel for the appellant-State highlighted that the extra

judicial confession itself was sufficient to record the conviction. On a reading of the evidence of CW-1 it is noticed that accused Ram Balak did not a

say a word about his own involvement. On the contrary he said that he did not do anything and made some statements about the alleged act of co-

accused. Additionally, in his examination under Section 313 of Code, no question was put to him regarding his so called extra judicial confession. To

add to the vulnerability, his statement is to the effect that after about 11 days of the incidence the extra judicial confession was made. Strangely he

stated that he told the police after three days of the incidence about the extra judicial confession. It is inconceivable that a person would tell the police

after three days of the incidence about the purported extra judicial confession which according to the witness himself was made after eleven days.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that there may be some confusion. But it is seen that not at one place, but at different places this has been

repeated by the witness.

Learned Counsel for the appellant also refers to a judgment of this Court in Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar v. State of Maharashtra, more

particularly para 11 that the Dog Squad had proved the guilt of the accused persons. In this context it is relevant to take note of what has been stated

in para 11 which reads as follows: (SCC pp. 239-40)

“11. It was lastly urged on behalf of the appellant that the lower courts ought not to have relied upon the evidence of dog tracking and such

evidence was not admissible in order to prove the guilt of the appellant. The evidence of tracker dogs has been much discussed. In Canada and in

Scotland it has been admitted. But in the United States there are conflicting decisions: ‘There have been considerable uncertainty in the minds of the

Courts as to the reliability of dogs in identifying criminals and much conflict of opinion on the question of the admissibility of their actions in evidence.

A survey of the cases however, reveals that most Courts in which the question of the admissibility of evidence of-trailing by blood- hounds has been

presented take the position that upon a proper foundation being laid by proof that the dogs were qualified to trail human beings, and that the

circumstances surrounding the trailer were such as to make it probable that the person trailed was the guilty party, such evidence is admissible and

may be permitted to go to the jury for what it is worth as one of the circumstances which may tend to connect the defendant with the Crime.’

(para 378, Am. Juris. 2nd edn. Vol. 29, p. 429.) There are three objections which are usually advanced against the reception of such evidence.

First, since it is manifest that the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath, and consequently submit himself to cross- examination, the

dog s human companion must go into the box and report the dog s evidence, and this is clearly hearsay. Secondly, there is a feeling that in criminal

cases the life and liberty of a human being should not be dependent on canine inferences. And, thirdly, it is suggested that even if such evidence is

strictly admissible under the rules of evidence it should be excluded because it is likely to have a dramatic impact on the jury out of proportion to its

value. In R. v. Montgomery,1866 NI 160 a police constable observed men stealing wire by the side of a railway line. They ran away when he

approached them. Shortly afterwards the police got them on a nearby road. About an hour and half later the police tracker dog was taken to the base

of the telegraph pole and when he had made a few preliminary sniffs he set off and tracked continuously until he stopped in evident perplexity at the

spot where the accused had been put into the police car. At the trial it appeared that other evidence against the accused that they had been stealing

the wire was inconclusive and that the evidence of the behaviour of the tracker dog was crucial to sustain the conviction. In these circumstances the

Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that the evidence of the constable who handled the dog on its tracking and reported the dog s reactions was properly

admitted. The Court did not regard its evidence as a species of hearsay but instead the dog was described as ""a racking instrument and the handler

was regarded as reporting the movements of the instrument, in the same way that a constable in traffic case might have reported on the behaviour of

his speedometer.

It was argued in that case that the tracker dog s evidence could be likened to the type of evidence accepted from scientific experts describing

chemical reactions, blood tests and the actions of bacilli. The comparison does not, however, appear to be sound because the behaviour of chemicals,

blood corpuscles and bacilli contains no element of conscious volition or deliberate choice. But Dogs are intelligent animals with many thought

processes similar to the thought processes of human beings and wherever you have thought processes there is always the risk of error, deception and

even self-deception. For these reasons we are of the opinion that in the present state of scientific knowledge evidence of dog tracking, even if

admissible, is not ordinarily of much weight. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that in the said case this Court had upheld the

conviction. Though in the said case the conviction was upheld, but that was done after excluding the evidence of Dog Squad. This Court found that the

rest of the prosecution evidence proved the charges for which the appellants therein had been convicted.â€​

This Court in Rajdev alias Raju & another vs. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2015, decided on 30.05.2016, has held as under:

It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial

evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not

safe to record a finding of guilt of the accused Manoj Sahani and the accused Manoj Sahani is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.â€​

After touching the different facets relating to the law laid down by Hon’ble Courts on the subject of circumstantial evidence, the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses need discussion and analysis. So, in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record

carefully.

In the present case, testimony of PW-1 is very vital. PW-1, Shri Subhash Chand (complainant), father of the deceased, deposed that on

24.07.2014, at about 07:30 a.m., Shri Ramesh Chand, father-in-law of the deceased, telephonically informed him that the deceased had died. He has

further deposed that Shri Ramesh Chand also informed him that the deceased was murdered by burglars, so he rushed to the scene of crime. On

reaching the spot of occurrence, he saw lock of almirah was broken, a trunk was also open and the clothes were scattered. The deceased was lying

dead on the floor and there was blood in front of her nose, blackish injury marks by the side of both the eyes near temple region and ligature mark

around her neck. Subsequently, the police came on the scene of crime and he had suspicion qua the burglary, so he got his statement recorded with

the police, which is Ex. PW-1/A. Police collected the blood from the spot and put the same in a plastic container, which was sealed in a cloth parcel.

Police also seized a bed-sheet, pillow cover and dupatta lying on the bed.

The corpse was sent for post mortem examination and inquest forms, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C, were filled in. As per the complainant, the

accused, while in police custody, voluntarily stated that he can get the ornaments recovered, which were stolen from the almirah. The accused has

further stated that he had concealed a rope, which was used for strangulating the deceased, and he can also get the same recovered. Accused also

divulged that he can also get his mobile phone recovered from his room at Pinjaur. Thus, the police recorded disclosure statement of the accused,

which is Ex. PW-1/D. As a sequel to the disclosure statement, so made by the accused, he led the police to the spot of occurrence and got it

identified, whereupon police prepared memo, Ex. PW-1/E. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not narrate to the police that

there was forcible entry in the room of the deceased, so he had a suspicion over the family of in-laws of the deceased. He has admitted that the

relation between the deceased and the accused were affable and there was no family dispute. He has further deposed that after the marriage the

deceased started residing with the accused at Pinjaur. As per the testimony of this witness, on 24.07.2014 the accused was not in the home and he

only came when the corpse was taken for postmortem examination.

The father of the accused disclosed that accused is at Baddi and he had informed him qua the occurrence. PW-1 specifically denied that the accused

was at Baddi on 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014, as he made call to the employer of the accused and it was informed that since 23.07.2014 the accused is

not coming for work. However, he did not divulge this fact to the police. This witness denied that when he entered the room it appeared that theft had

taken place and voluntarily deposed that entire scene seemed fabricated. This witness denied that he pressurized the investigating agency, as it failed

to nab the actual culprit, so the police foisted a false case on the accused. PW-1 was re-examined on the application of the prosecution. He identified

ornaments of the deceased, Ex. P12 to Ex. P18. As per his testimony, gold chain, Ex. P14 and gold ring, Ex. P15, were gifted by him to the deceased

during the time of her marriage. He has further deposed that the deceased used to wear gold tops, gold ear rings, gold nose ring and gold tikka, Ex.

P12, Ex. P13, Ex. P17 and Ex. PW-18, respectively. During the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that police showed him ornaments and

he did not give any receipt qua the ornaments.

PW-2, Shri Vijay Kumar, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, deposed that on 24.07.2014, in his presence, police lifted blood from the spot of occurrence

and the same was preserved in a plastic container and sealed in a cloth parcel. He has further deposed that in his presence police took into possession

bed sheet, Ex. P1, pillow cover, Ex. P2 and dupatta, Ex. P3, from the spot of occurrence and all these articles were sealed in a cloth parcel, Ex. P4,

and taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-2/A.

PW-3, Shri Pankaj Kumar (brother of the deceased), deposed that when he reached the spot, his sister, Smt. Monika Devi, told him that no

burglary took place and the entire scene is fabricated by the in-laws of the deceased and the deceased was murdered in a preplanned manner. He has

further deposed that his sister also told him that she saw blood oozing out of the nose of the deceased, blackish injury mark by the side of both the

eyes near temple region and a ligature mark around her neck. Smt. Monika further told to PW-3 that 10-15 days prior to the incident she visited the

house of the deceased and the deceased divulged to her that the accused subjects her to cruelty. Smt. Monika Devi, raised strong suspicion that the

accused killed the deceased.

In the wake of testimony of PW-3 (brother of the deceased), which mainly revolves around what has been divulged to him by PW-4 (sister of the

deceased), the testimony of PW-4, Smt. Monika Devi, becomes vital. PW-4 deposed that on 24.12.2014 her sister-in-law, Smt. Pabna, made a

telephonic call and told her to immediately come at Kot Kwalla, as her sister is indisposed. So, she hurriedly rushed to Kot Kwalla, wherefrom she

alongwith other relatives went to the matrimonial home of her sister at Samela. When they reached Samela, they found corpse of the deceased lying

on the pyre in the veranda and her father told her that the accused killed the deceased and threw her on the floor, which caused bleeding from her lips

and her tongue had come out. This witness has further deposed that on 28.06.2014, she went to the house of the deceased and the deceased narrated

that the accused gave beatings to her and demanded money. This witness, in her cross-examination, was confronted with her statement given to the

police wherein she did not state that on 28.06.2014 the deceased divulged to her that the accused raised demand of money and gave beatings to her.

She also did not state to the police that her father told her that the accused killed the deceased. She deposed that no previous incident of cruelty was

every reported to anyone. She voluntarily deposed that she asked the deceased to report the matter to the police, but she refused to do so.

PW-5, Constable Parveen Dutt, deposed that vide memo, Ex. PW-5/A, motorcycle, having registration No. HP-40A-5214, was taken into

possession alongwith its documents and it was unearthed that the accused used it for his journey from Kiratpur to Samella and back. This witness, in

his cross- examination, has deposed that he neither conducted any investigation in the case, nor remained associated in the investigation, except for the

recovery of the motorcycle.

PW-6, HHC Vijay Krishan, deposed that on 24.07.2014 SI Narinder brought motorcycle, having registration No. HP-40A-5214, which was parked

in Police Station Haripur and it remained there till 30.07.2014. Vide memo, Ex. PW-5/A, the motorcycle was handed over to SHO, Police Station,

Kangra, alongwith its documents and a General Diary entry, Ex. PW-6/A, was made qua deposit of motorcycle at Police Station, Haripur. This

witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he did not mention anything why the motorcycle was not handed over to SHO, Police Station,

Kangra, for six days. However, he voluntarily deposed that SHO himself communicated that he will himself come to take the motorcycle.

PW-7, HC Shashi Pal, deposed that on 24.07.2014, Inspector/SHO Mohinder Singh deposited with him two parcels. The parcels contained bed

sheet, pillow cover, dupatta and socked blood of the deceased. He has further deposed that vide entry, Ex. PW-7/A, he stored the parcels in the

malkhana. On 26.07.2014 HHC Onkar Chand deposited with him parcels containing viscera, clothes etc. of the deceased and he, made entry, Ex.

PW-7/B, in the malkhana register to this effect. On 28.07.2014, Inspector/SHO Mohinder Singh deposited with him cloth parcels, which contained

ornaments, cell phone and plastic rope and the same were taken in malkhana through memo, Ex. PW7/C. He has deposed that on 31.07.2014, vide

RC Ex. PW-7/D, he sent these parcels, except the parcels containing the gold ornaments and cell phone of the accused, through constable Gulshan

Kumar to RFSL, Dharamshala, for chemical examination. This witness, in his cross-examination, has denied that the case property was tampered

with.

PW-8, Constable Manoj Kumar, deposed that photographs, Ex. PW-8/A-1 to Ex. PW-8/A-22, of the scene of crime, were clicked by him and

videography was also done by him at the place of recovery at Kiratpur. He prepared CDs Ex. PW-8/B1 and Ex. PW-8/B2. He, in his cross-

examination, has admitted that he is not a professional photographer. PW-9, Constable Gulshan Kumar, is a formal witness, as he only took the case

property for forensic examination to RFSL, Dharamshala. PW-10, HC Surjeet Singh, deposed that on 23.07.2014 FIR, Ex. PW-10/A, was registered

on the anvil of the statement of Shri Subhash Chand, complainant (PW-1). As per the testimony of this witness, on 24.07.2014 he received the

statement and by mistake he had mentioned the date in his examination- in -chief as 23.07.2014.

PW-11, Shri Jagpal, the then Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Samella, deposed that on 24.07.2014 Shri Ramesh Chand called and told him that his

daughter-in-law (deceased) has died. As per the version of this witness, Shri Ramesh Chand also told him that someone committed theft in his house

and also killed the deceased. He has deposed that at about 07:45 a.m. he informed the police and the police took the corpse for postmortem

examination. He deposed that he does not know who murdered the deceased. This witness was exhaustively cross-examined and he denied that on

the subsequent day he came to know that the deceased had been killed by the accused and thereafter the accused fled away to Baddi on his

motorcycle. He, in his cross-examination, has admitted that no complaint had been received in Panchayat against the accused. As per this witness,

Harishta, daughter of the deceased, is residing with her grand parents.

PW-12, Dr. Rahul Gupta, the then Registrar Forensic Medicine, Dr. RPGMC, Tanda, deposed that on 24.07.2014 he alongwith Dr. Vijay Arora,

on application, Ex. PW-12/A, moved by SHO, Police Station, Kangra, conducted post mortem of the deceased and issued report, Ex. PW-12/B. He

has further deposed that he handed over viscera, clothes etc. of the deceased to the police for forensic examination and after the receipt of forensic

report, Ex. P-A, they opined that the deceased died due to homicidal fatal pressure over neck consistent with strangulation by ligature. As per this

witness, injury of ligature mark on the person of the deceased is possible with ligature material Ex P5 and it was sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death of a person. This witness, in his cross- examination, has admitted that words “sufficient in ordinary course of nature†did

not mention in the PMR. He has voluntarily deposed that instead of words “sufficient in ordinary course of nature†it was mentioned “fatal

pressure over neckâ€. He has further admitted that hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage were intact, but denied that in all cases where throttling is there,

there is possibility of fracture of hyoid bone. He has voluntarily deposed that in the instant case ligature did not lead to fracture of hyoid bone and

thyroid cartilage, as ligature was below the level of thyroid cartilage.

PW-13, Shri Kaka Singh, Hardware shop owner at Kiratpur, deposed that about one and half years ago, police alongwith 10-15 persons came to

his shop and on that day he did not see the accused. He has further deposed that police inquired from him that whether he sold rope to any person and

he denied that he had sold any rope to anyone. As per this witness, police did not show him any rope on that day. This witness did not support the

prosecution case, so he was exhaustively cross-examined. He, in his cross-examination, deposed that his statement was not recorded on the day of the

visited of the police. He denied that he had divulged to the police that accused had bought a rope from him some days back. He has specifically denied

that rope Ex. P5 was sold by him to the accused.

PW- 14, Shri Karam Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kholmola, deposed that on 27.07.2014 he went to his in-laws’ house at Kiratpur. He

has further deposed that when he reached Kiratpur, police alongwith Pradhan, Jasvinder Singh and accused were there. As per this witness, accused

was tenant of his father-in-law, Shri Telo Singh and when he arrived in the premises, police alongwith Pradhan and accused were already in the room.

As per the testimony of this witness, some gold ornaments were lying on the bed of the accused and the police sealed them in a white cloth parcel. He

feigned ignorance about the description of the ornaments. He has deposed that police also seized a mobile phone, but he does not know whom that

phone belonged. Nothing else was recovered by the police in his presence and the accused did not divulge anything to the police in his presence. As

this witness did not support the prosecution case, he was also exhaustively cross- examined at length. During the course of his cross-examination he

denied all the suggestions connecting the accused with the recovery of the ornaments, mobile and rope. When he was confronted with his earlier

statement given to the police, which was also videographed and a CD was prepared, he deposed that his previous statement that the police, accused

and Pradhan were already present inside the room is not correct, as he made it mistakenly. Thereafter, this witness prayed for pardon that he

previously stated wrong. As per the deposition of this witness, rope Ex. P5, was taken out by the accused from his bag and handed over to the police.

He further deposed that his earlier statement that rope was not recovered at the instance of the accused is false. The accused also gave his mobile

phone to the police. This witness, during his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, deposed that when the accused took out a cloth pack

containing jewelry from the cup of the ceiling fan, he was not inside the room and standing on the door.

PW-15, Dr. S.K. Pal, the then Assistant Director (Biology & Serology Division), RFSL, Dharamshala, deposed that on 24.07.2014 he, alongwith

scientific team, visited and examined the scene of crime in order to obtained clues and to gather evidences. As per this witness, they found a dead

body of 27 years’ old female wearing green full sleeved shirt and pink salwar lying on a mat in prone position on the floor of bedroom near double

bed. He noticed dark red discoloration on both eyes of the deceased. There was light brown ligature mark/impression around the neck. He has further

deposed that an iron almirah was lying on a side of the room near double bed and the door of that almirah was open. As per this witness, no tool

marks were observed on the outer door and chest of the almirah. Lock and unlock mechanism of the lock was checked and it was found in order.

There was a small iron box lying on the big iron box in the room. The small iron box was found in open condition. One Harrison make lock and two

keys were found lying near the box. Lock and unlock mechanism of lock was in order. They did not observe tool marks on the iron box, latch and

metallic loop/kunda. The spot was photographed and he prepared report qua scene of occurrence, which is Ex. PW-15/A. After examining the articles

sent by SHO, he issued report, Ex. PW-15/B. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that when he reached the spot, the police party was

already present there. He has also admitted that relatives of the deceased had already visited the room, where the corpse was lying. He has deposed

that he did not lift finger prints from the door, almirah etc. and also did not lift any skin tissues from the corpse where the ligature marks were present.

When they visited the spot, the spot was not cordoned off or preserved.

PW-16, Shri Jaswinder Singh, deposed that on 27.07.2014, when the police arrived, Shri Telu Singh called him to his house. He has further

deposed that when he reached there, police personnel and accused were sitting in the first room of Telu Singh and police informed him that search of

the room of the accused has to be conducted. As per the testimony of this witness, accused opened the lock of his room, went inside the room and

took out a cloth piece (gathri) from the upper cap of ceiling fan by climbing on a stool. The said gathri was opened and it was found to have contained

gold ornaments, i.e., a nose ring, a gold necklace, a pair of ear rings (tops), another pair of ear rings (jhumka), a pair of silver anklet, a gent’s ring,

Ex. P12 to P18, respectively, and vide memo, Ex. PW-14/A, police seized the aforesaid articles. He has further deposed that a mobile was also found

lying on the bed of the accused, which was also seized by the police. As per the deposition of this witness, a rope was also found lying by the side of

the bed and the same was seized by the police. The accused did not disclose how he came into possession of the aforesaid articles, i.e., rope and

ornaments. This witness was cross-examined at length by the learned Public Prosecutor and during his cross-examination, he denied that the accused

disclosed that he had purchased the rope from the shop of Kaka Singh (PW-13) at Kiratpur. This witness also denied that accused disclosed that on

23/24.07.2014, he had gone to his house at village Samela and killed his wife by strangulating her with the help of rope and thereafter he had returned

to Kiratpur alongwith ornaments of his wife. This witness, during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused, denied the suggestions

contrary to his version given in his examination-in-chief.

PW-17, Shri Daveshawar Sharma, Human Resource Specialist of Gillete India Ltd., deposed that on application, Ex. PW-17/A, moved by the

police, he supplied attendance charge, Ex. PW-17/B, w.e.f. 22 to 25 July, 2014, pertaining to the accused. As per the record, the accused was absent

from his duty w.e.f. 23.07.2014 to 25.07.2014. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that presence in the attendance register was not

marked in his presence, but the same is marked by Security Guard attending the inflow and outflow on the gate of the company. He has further

deposed that he did not physically verify the presence of the employee of the company on the given date.

The last witness in the instant case is PW-18, Deputy Superintendent of Police Mohinder Manhas, who is Investigating Officer. He deposed that

on 24.07.2014, at 08:35 a.m., Shri Jagpal Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Samella, telephonically informed qua the murder of the deceased and to this

extent GD entry, Ex. PW-18/A, was made. He has further deposed that thereafter he alongwith police officials went to the spot, where he recorded

the statement of the complainant (PW-1, Shri Subhash Chand), who was having suspicion that the deceased, who was his daughter, had been

murdered by some unknown person. Subsequently, he sent the said statement to Police Station, Kangra, for registration of FIR. He conducted inquest

proceedings and filled forms, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. Photographs, Ex. PW-8/A13 to Ex. PW8/A2 were clicked by him, the scene of crime

was videographed and to that extent CD, Ex. PW-18/D, was prepared. He has deposed that articles in the room were found lying scattered and the

corpse of the deceased was lying on floor besides the bed. Almirah and trunks were found open. He prepared spot map, Ex. PW-18/B and the blood,

which was lying near the dead body, was lifted with the help of thread and dried, thereafter it was put in a small plastic container, which was sealed in

a parcel.

This witness has further deposed that a bedsheet, pillow cover, which was lying on the bed, and a duptta, which was lying on the back side of the bed,

Ex. P1 to Ex. P3, respectively, were sealed in another parcel and taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-2/A. Application, Ex. PW-12/A, was

moved for post mortem examination of the corpse and report, Ex. PW-12/B was obtained. As per the version of this witness, on 25.07.2014, the

accused was interrogated and arrested. On 26.07.2014 the accused led a police party to his house at place Samela, where he identified the place

where he had killed his wife by strangulating her with a rope and to this effect he prepared identification memo, Ex. PW- 1/E. Spot map, Ex. PW-18/E

was prepared. This witness has further deposed that on the same day the accused, while in police custody, made disclosure statement, Ex. PW-1/D,

that the rope, which he used for strangulating the deceased, and her ornaments taken out from almirah and cell phone, which was used by him on the

said day, have been kept concealed by him in his quarter at Kiratpur and he is having exclusive knowledge of the same and could get the same

recovered. On 27.07.2014 the accused led him to the house of one Telu Singh at Kiratpur, where he was residing at the time of occurrence. As per

this witness, Shri Karam Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Khola Mola and Shri Jaswinder Singh, Ex Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Kiratpur, were

associated in the investigation and in their presence the accused led the police party to his quarter and went inside after opening its lock.

The accused took out a cloth pack, which was kept concealed in the cup of ceiling fan, and it was handed over to police. On opening, the said pack

contained a pair of gold tops, a pair of gold ear rings, gold chain, gold gent’s ring, a pair of silver anklets, a gold nose ring and a gold tikka, which

are Ex. P12 to Ex. P18, respectively, and the accused divulged that he brought the ornaments from the almirah of the deceased. He sealed and seized

these ornaments and also seized cell phone, i.e., Sony xperia, which was lying on the bed, having SIM No. 080597-29077 and 090177-14055. He has

deposed that the accused took out a rope lying beneath the bed and handed the same to him and all these articles were seized vide seizure memo, Ex.

PW-14/A. As per this witness, he prepared spot map, Ex. PW-18/J, and during the course of investigation the accused disclosed that rope, Ex. P5,

was purchased by him from the shop of one Shri Kaka Singh at Kiratpur and he identified the shop. On 30.09.2014 application, Ex. PW-17/A, was

moved by him to Manager Gillette India Ltd., Baddi, and attendance summary, Ex. PW-17/B, was procured. He, vide memo, Ex. PW-5/A, took into

possession motorcycle, having registration No. HP-40A-5214.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After receipt of forensic report, Ex. PA and Ex. PW-15/B, he procured final

opinion with respect to cause of death of the deceased. This witness has further deposed that he procured opinion, Ex. PW-12/B, qua possibility of

strangulation with rope, Ex. P5. After completion of investigation, he presented the police report in the Court on 25.09.2014. This witness, in his cross-

examination, has deposed that at the time of inquest, the father of the deceased did not raise any suspicion on anyone. He has deposed that when

RFSL team came on the scene of crime, the corpse had already been sent to hospital for post mortem examination. He admitted that no person from

the neighbourhood of the scene of crime was associated as a witness. He deposed that there is only one barrier en-route Kangra and Kiratpur and it

has come in his investigation that two wheelers do not get through the barriers where CCTV cameras are installed, but they pass by the side of the

road, as they do not pay for the toll tax. He feigned ignorance as to the subscriber of the SIM numbers which were recovered from the cell phone of

the accused.

After exhaustively discussing the evidence, it would be apt to meticulously examine the same in order to arrive on a conclusion qua the innocence

or guilt of the accused. As per the prosecution case, on 23.07.2014, at 05:30p.m., the accused on motorcycle, having registration No. HP-40-A-5214,

started to his home at Samela from Pinjaur. The accused reached his house around 10:30 p.m. and in the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014 he entered

in the room of the deceased. The accused had an altercation with the deceased and he strangulated her. Thereafter, he opened the almirah and trunk

lying in the room and took ornaments. He scattered the things in the room so as to make a pretentious appearance of robbery and in that incident the

deceased was killed. In contrast to the allegations of the prosecution, the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., alleged that in

the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014 he did not come to Samela, but to give lateral support to his line of defence he did not lead any evidence to

prove alibi. Though, he has taken special plea that he was not at Samella in the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014. Now, we have to see by examining

the prosecution evidence whether in the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014 the accused came to his house at Samela or not and he killed the deceased,

as he was having hostile relations with her.

After threadbare scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the learned counsel for the accused and also learned

Additional Advocate General, following circumstances need to be proved so as to arrive on a conclusion qua innocence or guilt of the accused:

Whether the deceased died homicidal death within one and half year of her marriage;

Whether the accused was having motive, as he had hostile relation with the deceased;

Whether the deceased was found lying dead inside the room of the matrimonial home and there is no sign of forced entry;

Whether pretentious appearance was given to the spot of occurrence, so as to mislead that the deceased was killed during burglary;

Whether recovery of ornaments of the deceased and rope used for strangulation was effected at the instance and from the possession of the

accused;

Whether the accused offered no explanation as to how he was in possession of the ornaments of the deceased; &

Whether the accused was found absent from his place of work at the relevant time and his plea of alibi stands disproved.

Avowedly, the marriage between the deceased and the accused was solemnized on 30.01.2013 and the deceased died on the intervening night of

23/24.07.2014.

In homicidal death cases medical and forensic evidence always prove valuable assistance to the Courts in reaching a most probably conclusion.

The learned counsel for the accused tried to create a doubt in the mind of this Court that the deceased did not die due to strangulation. He has

highlighted that Dr. Rahul Gupta (PW-12) specifically admitted that the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage of the deceased were intact. So, in every

probability the deceased did not die due to strangulation. As per textbook, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 24th Edition, the

appearance of neck can vary depending upon the means adopted and used. PW-12, Dr. Rahul Gupta, observed as under:

“Injuries on body surface:

Mark of ligature Pressure abrasion 0.5cm in width, shallow with red and soft base, running transversally over the neck below the thyroid cartilage

(vocal box) extending from mid line towards side of neck, nape and reaching on the right side of neck to a point 6 cm away from mid line. Base of the

ligature mark was showing very fine pattern. On neck dissection, floor of the mouth in sub-mental area (2x1cm), short head of right sub-mandibular

gland, deep cervical lymph nodes above ligatutre marks were haemorrhagic. Sub capsular and interstitial haemorrhage in thyroid gland was present.

Mucosal surface of spiglottis and larynx was ecchymosed.â€​

In post mortem report, Ex. PW-12/B, is affirmative as to the cause of death and the fact that autopsy did not find fracture of the hyoid bone and

thyroid cartilage does not prove that the death was not due to strangulation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ponnusamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu

(2008) 5 SCC 587, quoted the following portion from Taylor’s Principles and Practice of medical Jurisprudence, 13th Edition, at pages 307 and

308, which is germane in the facts and circumstances of the case:

“23. In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Thirteenth Edition, pages 307-308, it is stated:-

The hyoid bone is 'U' shaped and composed of five parts : the body, two greater and two lesser horns. It is relatively protected, lying at the root of the

tongue where thebody is difficult to feel. The greater horn, which can be felt more easily, lies behind the front part of the strip-muscles

(sternomastoid), 3 cm below the angle of the lower jaw and 1.5 cm from the midline. The bone ossifies from six centres, a pair for the body and one

for each horn. The greater horns are, in early life, connected to the body by cartilage but after middle life they are usually united by bone. The lesser

horns are situated close to the junction of the greater horns in the body. They are connected to the body of the bone by fibrous tissue and occasionally

to the greater horns by synovial joints which usually persist throughout life but occasionally become ankylosed.

Our own findings suggest that although the hardening of the bone is related to age there can be considerable variation and elderly people sometimes

show only slight ossification. From the above consideration of the anatomy it will be appreciated that while injuries to the body are unlikely, a grip high

up on the neck may readily produce fractures of the greater horns. Sometimes it would appear that the local pressure from the thumb causes a

fracture on one side only. While the amount of force in manual strangulation would often appear to be greatly in excess of that required to cause

death, the application of such force, as evidenced by extensive external and soft tissue injuries, make it unusual to find fractures of the hyoid bone in a

person under the age of 40 years. As stated, even in older people in which ossification is incomplete, considerable violence may leave this bone intact.

This view is confirmed by Green. He gives interesting figures : in 34 cases of manual strangulation the hyoid was fractured in 12 (35%) as compared

with the classic paper of Gonzales who reported four fractures in 24 cases. The figures in strangulation by ligature show that the percentage of hyoid

fractures was 13. Our own figures are similar to those of Green.

After combined reading of medical evidence and aforesaid quoted text, it is clear that the deceased died due to strangulation, which is possible with

rope, Ex. P5. Moreover, PW-12, Dr. Rahul Gupta, in his testimony categorically made it lucid that the ligature in the instant case had not led to

fracture of hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage, as ligature was below the level of thyroid cartilage. He has also mentioned this in his report, Ex. PW-

12/B. So, it stands established that the deceased died only due to homicidal fatal pressure over the neck consistent with strangulation by ligature.

Next circumstance which the prosecution needs is to prove is that the accused was having strained relations with the deceased. In order to fortify

this circumstance the depositions of PW-3, Shri Pankaj Kumar, brother of the deceased, and PW-4, Miss Monika, sister of the deceased are vital.

Both these witnesses have deposed that the relation between the accused and the deceased were strained. PW-4 in categorical terms deposed that on

28.06.2014, during her visit to the matrimonial home of the accused, the deceased started crying and told her that the accused gave beatings to her and

raised demand of money. Nothing is emanating from the record, which could even subtly, provide any reason for this witness to falsely implicate the

accused, especially in the wake of the fact that the family of the deceased had no grudge against the accused, as PW-1, Shri Subhash Chand (father

of the deceased) deposed that the relation inter se the accused and the deceased were affable. Undoubtedly, the only incident of cruelty was

confidentially reported by the deceased to PW-4 and it cannot be said that the deceased could have highlighted it to many other persons. Even a

solitary incident of cruelty is sufficient to infer that the accused was having strained relations with the deceased, as there is nothing which could

establish it otherwise.

The learned counsel for the accused has tried to convince this Court that on the solitary deposition of PW-5, Smt. Monika, motive of the accused

for killing the deceased could be established. It is well settled that in cases of circumstantial evidence motive could be considered as a circumstance,

which is relevant for the purpose of examining the evidence, as held in R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266. However, motive cannot be

adequate for commission of crime and in the absence of clear cut evidence qua motive behind the crime, the Courts can, after meticulously examining

the material, convict the accused. Motive can give persuasive value to the evidence, but non-existent of evidence qua the motive behind the crime,

cannot provide any help to the accused. In the instant case, the testimony of PW-4, Smt. Monika, is credible and it is not marred with contradictions

and discrepancies. Her deposition lucidly proves that accused gave beatings to the deceased and demanded money from her. Thus, the only

conclusion is that the accused was having hostile relations with the deceased, which propelled him to kill the deceased.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishan Pal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73, observed as under:

.......the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually

promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the

evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the

motive is not a very strong one……….

Another leg of circumstances relates to scene of crime. As per the prosecution, there is no forced entry in the room, where the deceased was

killed and later found dead. In this context, the testimony of PW-15, Dr. S.K. Paul, the then Assistant Director (Biology & Serology Division), RFSL,

Dharamshala, is relevant. This witness, being forensic expert, visited and inspected the spot. This witness in his report, Ex. PW-15/A, stated that no

tool marks were observed on the latch, metallic loop/kunda and bold, which clearly suggests that no forced entry was made in the room of the

accused. The room was opened by the deceased for a known person, otherwise the deceased could have raised alarm on seeing a burglar. The entry

was made during night hours, so there is likelihood that the deceased opened the room for known person. All the above circumstances, in juxtaposition,

compels this Court to hold that there was no forced entry in the room of the deceased and the deceased opened the door of the room for a person well

known to her. Thus, the stand of the accused that the deceased was killed by a burglar in an incident of burglary is highly imaginative and pretentious.

The case of the prosecution is further based on a circumstance that the ornaments of the deceased and rope used for strangulation were

recovered at the instance and from the possession of the accused. No doubt, the recovery of ornaments and rope, allegedly used by the accused in

strangulating the deceased, is very strong circumstance. However, it is to be seen whether recovery of these articles is established and the same is not

marred with discrepancies. PW-1, Shri Shubhash Chand, deposed that the accused, while in police custody, made a disclosure statement, Ex. PW-1/D,

that he knows about the ornaments of the deceased and the rope, which was used by him in the commission of the crime. The learned counsel for the

accused argued that disclosure statement, Ex. PW-1/D, is doubtful, as it was scribed in presence of PW-1 (complainant), who, being father of the

deceased, is interested witness, so the same cannot be relied. He has further argued that another witness to Ex. PW-1/D, Shri Ashwani Kumar, was

not examined by the prosecution and no plausible explanation for his non-examination has come. After threadbare examination of the testimony of

PW-1 it is clear that he is not interested in getting the accused convicted, instead he deposed that the accused and the deceased had cordial relations.

In a nut shell the testimony of PW-1 nowhere reflects that he is interested witness. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded on the

subsequent day of his police remand, so there is nothing suggestive of the fact that his statement was got recorded by the police through unlawful

means.

The genuineness and veracity of disclosure statement, Ex. PW-1/D, is fortified by the fact that it led to subsequent recovery of ornaments of the

deceased (Ex. P12 to Ex. P18) and also rope, i.e., Ex. P5, which was used by the accused in strangulating the accused. The depositions of PW-18,

Investigating Officer, PW-14, Shri Karam Singh and PW-16, Jaswinder Singh, witnesses to recovery of ornaments and rope from the rented room of

the accused, are in consonance with each other and there is nothing to doubt the recovery of these articles from the possession of the accused.

Noticeably, the ornaments were concealed by the accused in the cup of ceiling fan. This fact cannot at all be overlooked; it raises suspicion and

clearly rules out any possibility of false implication of the accused. Accused had exclusive knowledge of the ornaments and in fact he had hidden them

with a clear objective of depriving anyone else to be aware about the same. Acceptably, initial testimony of PW-14, Shri Karam Singh, is slippery, as

he deposed that when he reached the rented premises of the accused, police alongwith Pradhan and the accused was there and some gold ornaments

were lying on the bed. However, this witness, in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, deposed that accused opened the door of the

room in his presence and took out a cloth pack, which contained gold ornaments and the cloth pack was taken out from the cup of ceiling fan. This

witness tendered apology with folded hands for his wrong statement. Thus, the learned Trial Court issued show cause notice to this witness calling his

explanation as to why he is not to be proceeded in terms of Section 340 or 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for giving false evidence. So,

the relevant excerpts of this witness can be safely accepted.

Another ancillary, but strong circumstance which establishes that the accused perpetrated the crime is that ornaments, Ex. P12 to Ex. P18, were

identified by the complainant (PW-1) to be that of the deceased. PW-1 has categorically deposed that he gifted gold chain, Ex. P14 and gold ring, Ex.

P15, to the deceased, at the time of her marriage. He has further deposed that the deceased used to wear gold tops, Ex. P12 and gold ear ring, Ex.

P13, and gold nose ring, Ex. P17, and gold tikka, Ex. P18, and he had seen her wearing them. Thus, in ratiocination, all the above material cumulatively

proves that ornaments, Ex. P12 to Ex. P18, belonged to the deceased and the accused took them after committing her murder. The accused

concealed the same inside the upper cup of the ceiling fan of which he had exclusive knowledge. The accused also got recovered rope, Ex P5, which

was used by him for strangulating the deceased. Therefore, disclosure statement, Ex. PW-1/D, made by the accused in police custody, and the

recovery of ornaments and rope have been fully established by the prosecution.

The prosecution has further tried to connect the accused with another circumstance that the accused failed to offer any acceptable explanation as

to how he came in possession of ornaments of the deceased. As discussed hereinabove, it stands fully established that ornaments of the deceased

were recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the accused to come with plausible and

acceptable explanation that how he came in possession of ornaments of the deceased, but the accused did not offer any explanation, what to say

plausible and acceptable explanation. The accused instead maintained silence that how he came in possession of ornaments and rope and he, while

answering question No. 15 in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and simply said “it is incorrect that these ornaments were

recovered from his possessionâ€​.

Now, keeping in view the fact that recovery of ornaments and ropes stands fully proved, so the accused’s offering no explanation to the fact that

how he came in possession of the ornaments of the deceased further aggravates the circumstances against him.

The penultimate circumstance which the prosecution has tried to build is that that the accused tried to give the scene of crime the shape of

burglary and the deceased was pretentiously shown to be killed by some burglar. In this context, the statement of PW-15, Dr. S.K. Pal, is very

important. PW-15, after conducting spot inspection submitted report, Ex. PW-15/A, which clearly shows that almirah was open and no took marks

were observed on its outer door and chest, locking and unlocking mechanism of its locks were found to be in order. The report further demonstrates

that small iron box was lying open inside the room, having a lock of Harison, whose keys were lying beside, on checking it was found its locking and

unlocking mechanism was in order. This witness did not observe took marks on the iron box, latch and metallic loop/kunda.

So, it is crystal clear that the almirah and box were not broke open and instead they were unlocked with keys. Another strong contributing

circumstance is that gold ear rings, ear tops, nose pin and silver anklets were found on the persons of the deceased. Now this clearly shows that the

accused just tried to portray the incident as robbery and in his attempt virtually he failed, as if it is assumed for a moment that some burglar committed

burglary and also killed the deceased, then he would have definitely taken the ornaments of the deceased, which she was wearing at that time.

The above all circumstances only go to show that chief object of the accused was to eliminate the deceased and not the robbery. However, a

pretentious appearance had been given to the scene of occurrence just to mislead and circumvent the investigation.

The final circumstance which emerges from the prosecution evidence is that when the occurrence alleged to have taken place the accused was

found absent from his work place, so the same disproves the plea of alibi, as taken by the accused. In this context, the testimony of PW-17, Shri

Deveshar Sharma, HR Specialist, Gillete India Limited, deposed that on application of police, Ex. PW-17/A, he supplied record of monthly attendance

chart qua the accused. As per this witness, copy of record is Ex. PW-17/B and name of accused is written at Sr. No. 6. The accused, as per this

record, was absent from his duty w.e.f. 23.07.2014 to 25.07.2014. Avowedly, the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

answered questions No. 20 and 21 as under:

“Q.20 It has further come in the prosecution evidence led against you that on 23.07.2014and 24.07.2014 you were found absent from your job at

Gillette India Ltd. Baddi. What you have to say about it?

Ans. It is incorrect.

Q.21 It has further come in the prosecution evidence led against you that the motor cycle No. HP40A-5214 used by you for traveling from Kiratpur to

Samela and back on the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014 was taken into possession by the police from HHC Vijay Kirshan of P.S. Haripur vide

seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A, in presence of witnesses. The I.O. also recorded statements of witnesses Parveen Kumar, Vijay Krishan and Pawan

Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. What you have to say about it?

Ans. It had not come to Samela on the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014. Rest I do not know.â€​

The above answers of the accused clearly show that the accused took the plea of alibi. Therefore, the accused is saddled with onus to prove his plea,

but he did not even attempt to prove it. On the contrary, it stands established that on 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014 the accused was absent from his duty.

Moreover, even if it is assumed for a moment that during the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014 the accused was not at Samela, then it is astonishing

that what prevented the accused to lead evidence to prove that on that night where he was. Certainly, the accused could have offered plausible and

acceptable explanation by leading evidence, but he simply took a bald plea of alibi without placing any material to prove the same. Thus, the

prosecution has successfully proved the final circumstance against the accused.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, in a nut shell it can be said safely that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and

the prosecution has successfully proved all the circumstances, which clearly show that during the intervening night of 23/24.07.2014 the accused killed

his wife and tried to fabricate the scene of crime. There is no missing link in the chain of circumstances, so the only conclusion is that the prosecution

has successfully proved the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the

learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence to its true and correct perspective and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. We find

no reason to reverse the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed,

as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and there is no occasion to interfere

with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.

In view of the above, the appeal, so also pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.