SHARIEF-UL-HASSAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. J.A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondents -State.

(2.) THIS criminal appeal is by the husband of deceased, who has been convicted for committing her murder and sentenced imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/ - for offence under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) by Sessions Judge, Jammu vide his judgment dated: 19 -10 -1994. The prosecution case as standing out of the record depicted in narration is that accused, Sharief -ul -Hassan, who happens to come from Utter Pradesh, was residing with his wife at Gujjar Nagar, Jammu. The appellant, though was married to the deceased forever 16 year ago, but they had no issue. The deceased, though a house -wife, also used to stitch cloths for others. The appellant has been borrowing a table fan from Shamim Hyder during night, who happened to live in the same locality with his wife. Fatima Parveen, and returned in the morning. On the fateful day, when the fan was not returned in the morning, Shamim Hyder himself went to the house of the accused to collect the fan, but returned as the doors of the room were still closed After sometime, he went again alongwith his wife Fatima Parveen and saw the deceased was lying on the cot and the accused was not seen there According to the prosecution, both the accused and the deceased were together in the room during night. On a verbal report lodged by Shamim Hyder at 9.30 A.M. on 16 -05 -1991 with Police Post Pirmitha, a case under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) was registered with Police Station, City, Jammu against the accused -appellant. The autopsy report discloses that the deceased, Nasim Fatima, died of strangulation. The accused was apprehended by the police while making an attempt to escape from Jammu. On the conclusion of investigation, it was found that at least accused had caused the murder of his wife by throttling. He was finally sent up to stand his trial for alleged offence under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and the leaned Trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 Ranbir Penal Code, Svt. 1989 (1932 A.D.) and the appellant was sentenced for this offence accordingly.

(3.) MR . J.A. Qazmi, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there being no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Trial Court does not warrant conviction His further submission is that in cases depending largely on circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger of the conjecture of suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion, however, so strong cannot be allowed to be watchful and ensure that conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. But before relying upon circumstantial evidence, it must be established that it forms a complete chain so as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Lastly, it was submitted that when the main clank in the circumstantial evidence gave away, no conviction could be sustainable.