ARUNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 716 of 2016 has been filed by Aruna Devi @ Bishni Devi and Savita Devi @ Sabita Devi and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 753 of 2016 has been filed by Binod Kumar Yadav. The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2016 under section 302/34 and section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the order of sentence dated 27.5.2016 inflicted upon them for the aforesaid offences in S.T. Case No. 17 of 2006.

(2.) The informant of this case is father of Manju Devi, the victim lady. On the basis of his fardbeyan which was recorded on 19.5.2005 at about 10:00 a.m. in village Sakhiya (Oriya), Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 211 of 2005 was registered against: (i) Gaja Nand Gope, who is father-in-law of the victim lady, (ii) Vinod Kumar Yadav, who is husband of the victim lady, (iii) Aruna Devi, who is the mother-in-law, (iv) Jaipal Kumar Yadav, who is the brother-in-law, and (v) Sabita Devi and Sarita Devi, both sister-in-law of the victim lady.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that the only inference which can be drawn from the proved circumstances is that it was the accused and nobody else who was involved in the crime. The prosecution is required to prove the incriminating circumstances and also to prove that the proved circumstances are so complete that these point out an accusing finger only towards the accused excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In "Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra", 1982 2 SCC 351, the Supreme Court has explained the law on circumstantial evidence, thus;