KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. J.R. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned Addl. Advocate General, for the State.

(2.) THE sheet anchor of the prosecution case portraited in narration is that, the dead body of Mst. Rani Devi, wife of the accused, was spotted hanging from a tree in village Batal Leher on 5th December, 1992 in the morning. The Chowkidar of the village, PW Panjabu Ram, rushed to Police Station, Jhajjar Kotli and reported the matter. On his report, SHO, Police Station, Jhajjar Kotli arrived in the village, took possession of the dead body and sent it for postmortem examination. The autopsy report disclosed the cause of the death due to Asphyxia, as a result of smothering. As the deceased had died under suspicious circumstances, the police proceeded under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 A.D.). The police, after collecting the evidence during inquiry, found that the deceased had not died of hanging, but her dead body was hanged to make it appear that she had committed suicide. The police registered a case under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and investigation ensued. It was found during the investigation that the deceased was killed by the accused, her husband, and later on hanged her dead body from a tree so as to make the villagers believe that the deceased had committed suicide. On the conclusion of investigation, the accused was finally sent up to stand his trial for the alleged offence under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.). The Trial Court found him guilty of having murdered his wife, under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.), and sentenced him accordingly.

(3.) MR . J.R. Arora, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that there being no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Trial Court does not warrant conviction of the accused. His further contention is that, when the evidence against the accused, particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder, consists of only the circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis, the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, not fantastic possibilities nor weak inference but rational deductions, which is lacking in this case. Mr. Ashok Parihar, AAG, on the other hand, argued that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is consistent only with the hypothesis that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime and has killed his wife and thereafter hanged his dead body from a tree to make it to be a case of suicide.