CHEENIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- as also under Section 201 IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. In the event of failure to pay fine, he was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months each. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Merg Intimation, Exhibit P/3 was lodged by Appellant on 25/06/1999 at about 8:55 am stating that the previous evening he had gone to the market. His mother and other family members were also not at home. Ramesh told him in the market that his wife was not well. He returned about 7:00 pm. His brother Narayan told him that the deceased committed suicide at 5:30 in the evening inside the house by pouring kerosene oil on herself. His son Vinod aged 5 years and daughter Guddi aged 1 year had gone out to play. He was married 15 years ago to the deceased. His wife was mentally unstable and for which she was under treatment. FIR, Exhibit P/9 was registered on 26/06/1999 on the basis of the same. The postmortem report, Exhibit P/7 conducted by Dr. V.P. Jayaswal, PW 6 found abrasions and contusions on left forehead, 3X3 cm. Contusion on right middle side of neck, 2 X 1 cm and on left side 2X1 cm. Contusion was also found on right axillaries and left axillaries measuring 3X2 cm and 2 X 2 cm. The doctor opined that death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the burn injuries on the body were post mortem in nature.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The evidence against the appellant is circumstantial in nature. All links in the chain must be conclusively proved leading to the only hypothesis pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. If there is any break in this chain and a reasonable doubt arises about any other possibility for the manner in which the occurrence might have taken place, the appellant is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.