PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has been filed under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 11/3/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 01/2013 (152/2013) whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence under Sec. 302 of IPC to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default thereof, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months and under Sec. 498A of IPC to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200.00 and in default thereof, to suffer additional simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(3.) In this background, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant is against the facts and circumstances of the case, the material and evidence available on record and also the law applicable, hence the same is bad in law. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has categorically failed to connect the chain of circumstances, so as to warrant the conviction of the appellant. He has submitted that initially the FIR was registered for offence under Sec. (s) 498A and 304B of IPC. However, upon conclusion of the investigation, the said charge under Sec. 304B of IPC was altered to Sec. 302. Moreover, the aforementioned FIR was filed at a belated stage as well. It was further argued that in the 'Written Report' (Ex. P-1) submitted by the father of the deceased, no specific allegation of dowry demand was levelled against the appellant. Learned counsel also submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to corroborate the allegation that the appellant had strangulated the neck of the deceased. Furthermore, learned counsel apprised the court of the fact that nothing incriminating the appellant of the alleged offence has been recovered from his possession by the investigation agencies. Moreover, there are several material contradictions in the statements tendered by the prosecution witnesses. At the same time, the prosecution has also failed to produce any independent witnesses before the Court, who are not relatives of the deceased-Poonam. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not present in the house when the alleged incident had occurred. Rather, he only returned to the house upon being informed of the demise of his wife on 3/8/2012. In this background, it was submitted that the deceased-wife had committed suicide on account of the fact that her extra-marital relationship had been discovered by her aunt, Chandra Prabha, who saw her with another man inside her room.