SUKHNANDAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted for hearing on 24.11.1999. The appellant was granted bail on 26.09.2006 considering that he was in custody since 14.12.1998. Bail was cancelled on 06.8.2014 upon submission of his Counsel that he could not be contacted and warrants may be issued against him. The appellant was taken into custody on 26.9.2014. Another Counsel moved an application for grant of bail, which was allowed as the Court was of the opinion that the bail had not been cancelled on the grounds of any allegation for misuse of privilege of bail. No Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant when the appeal was called for hearing today. In these circumstances, rather than to again adjourn the appeal or issue fresh warrants against the appellant when he does not appear to be at fault in placement of the appeal. We requested Shri U.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, who was present in the Court room to assist us in disposal of the matter. Shri Ahluwalia has meticulously taken us through the exhibits, evidence and the impugned judgment. Learned State Counsel has also fully assisted us in deciding this appeal. The appellant who is husband of the deceased stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In the event of failure to pay fine he was required to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine he was required to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment as ordered on 17.6.1999 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1999.

(2.) Merg, Exhibit P/1 was lodged by the appellant on 5.12.1998 at about 18:45 hours that his wife hid committed suicide by burning herself inside the house, the same day at about 15:00 hours. He had gone to the fields and his mother had also gone out. His mother came back at about 3:00 p.m. The tin door of the room was closed and his mother saw the deceased dead through the gap in the door. FIR, Exhibit P/3, was registered on basis of the same on 13.12.1998. The post-mortem of the deceased was done on 6.12.1998 at about 1 p.m., by Dr. M.S. Pal, P.W. 10 who found the following injuries on the deceased:

(3.) Shri Ahluwalia assisting us on behalf of appellant submitted that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence is circumstantial in nature. All links in the chain of circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as compatible only with the guilt of the appellant. If there is a doubt or break in the chain of circumstantial links and another hypothesis not compatible with the guilt of the appellant is also possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant and he be acquitted. The Trial Court has disbelieved any motive on the part of the appellant. P.W. 4 Shakuni Bai has deposed that when she came the deceased was burning. The evidence that has come is that she was already dead. Moreover, P.W. 4 has not mentioned anything about the time when she saw the appellant at home on her way back from the pond to establish that it was in proximity to the time when the appellant came and told that the deceased had died of burn injuries. This becomes important because the appellant had taken a plea of alibi in the Merg itself and the prosecution has led no evidence to prove that it was a false defence.