Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 506 (MP)

Anil Sharma alias Anil Namdev v. State of M. P.

2012-05-08

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
JUDGMENT Dube, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2001 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anil Sharma alias Anil Namdev), convicting the appellant under section 302 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 of CrPC. 2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased, Richa Sharma was the wife of the appellant and they stayed together in room No.129 of Regal Hotel, Shinde-ki-Chhawani, Gwalior. While staying there on 10.5.2001 at 2:00 p.m. Richa was found dead in the aforesaid room of Regal Hotel, Gwalior. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be narrated as under : (i) That, on 10.5.2001 at 14:15 p.m. Regal Hotel’s waiter, Ram Singh Thapa reached to the Police Station Inderganj and lodged a report (Ex.P-16) to the effect that at about 2:00 p.m. he heard a loud noise of quarrel from inside room No.129 of Regal Hotel, thereafter, a woman screemed for help, thereupon he, waiter Yuvraj (PW7) along with Hotel-keeper, Kishanchand Pawaiya (PW5) rushed to the room No.129 and found that room was bolted from inside and a lady was shrieking from inside the room for help, therefore, they tried to open the door by knocking repeatedly but not succeeded. Then, Kishanchand Pawaiya (PW5) gave information of the happening on telephone to the Police Station, Inderganj, Gwalior. Then, Devi Singh Tomar, Head Constable (PW1) along with Constable, Devendra reached at the place of occurrence and they break opened the door and found that a lady, Richa Sharma (since deceased) was lying on the floor in front of the door. She had received injuries as well as acid burn injuries and she had died. The accused-appellant was also lying injured in unconscious condition. Devi Singh Tomar, Head Constable (PW1) sent injured, Anil Sharma to the hospital. The report was recorded by Abhaya Singh Kushwah, Station House Officer (PW11) at Crime No.196/01 under section 302 of IPC against the accused, Anil Sharma. The accused-appellant was also lying injured in unconscious condition. Devi Singh Tomar, Head Constable (PW1) sent injured, Anil Sharma to the hospital. The report was recorded by Abhaya Singh Kushwah, Station House Officer (PW11) at Crime No.196/01 under section 302 of IPC against the accused, Anil Sharma. The criminal law was triggered and set in motion; (ii) That, the investigating agency reached to the spot, prepared spot map (Ex.P-3), seized necessary articles including a knife, blood stained carpet, bill receipt and relevant extract of register etc. and prepared inquest (Ex.P-3) on the dead body of the deceased and sent it to for post-mortem examination. Investigating agency also recorded the statements of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the offence. Dr. Indrajit Joshi, Senior Scientist of FSL (PW12) was also called whereupon he reached on the spot and inspected the place of occurrence; (iii) That, on 11.5.2001 at 11:00 a.m. Dr. Yogendra Singh Kushwah (PW9), J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and opined that death was due to shock and haemorrage on account of injury to vital organs; and (iv) That, during investigation, the accused has been arrested vide arrest memorandum (Ex.P-19). On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, who on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, from where it was reached by the trial Court. 4. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under section 302 of IPC against the appellant-accused. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused person is of false implication. He had taken a specific defence to the effect that unknown persons came and started assaulting him inside his room No.129, when his wife came to rescue him, then they also assaulted her and thereafter, fled away and the same defence, he set forth in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Exhibits P-1 to P-22, the documents on record. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence. 6. 5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Exhibits P-1 to P-22, the documents on record. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence. 6. The learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that charge under section 302 of IPC has been proved against the appellant as a result of which convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove. 7. In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged by the appellant on the ground of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Arun Barua, has submitted that the appellant has been falsely roped in the case. The appellant has also received injuries which was not explained by the prosecution. There was no direct evidence against the accused-appellant. The chain of the circumstances which prove the guilt of the accused was not complete. There was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of offence under section 302 of IPC against the appellant. The learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant, hence, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2011(2) JLJ 364=2011(2) Crimes 292 (SC)]. 9. An alternative submission has also been put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention to kill the deceased and the incident had taken place all of a sudden and in heat of passion and, therefore, the case would come within the purview of Exception (IV) to section 300 of the IPC and, therefore, his conviction be altered from section 302 to section 304 Part I of IPC and sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. 10. On the contrary, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited. Learned Public Prosecutor has cited the cases of Manik Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1998(II) MPWN 18 ], State of U.P. v. Dr. 10. On the contrary, Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited. Learned Public Prosecutor has cited the cases of Manik Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1998(II) MPWN 18 ], State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [ AIR 1992 SC 2045 ]. 11. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it would be necessary to advert to the evidence available on record. 12. In the present case, the prosecution has based its case solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The law in respect to circumstantial evidence is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1984 SC 1622], has laid down 5 tests which reads thus : “(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on anyother hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so completed as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Case law discussed.” The same tests have been narrated later on by the Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Chacko alias Kunju v. State of Kerala [ (2001)9 SCC 277 ], and has laid down the following tests : “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly, pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and no one else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must also be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” By applying the abovesaid tests on the touch stone and anvil of the evidence placed on record, we shall now scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence. 13. On bare perusal of the judgment of learned trial Court, we find that broadly the prosecution has based its case on following circumstances, they are : (i) That, the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant in the room No.129 of the Regal Hotel. (ii) That, the deceased had died a homicidal death inside the bolted room and at the time of the alleged death, the appellant-husband was only with her, then the onus was on the appellant to show that in what circumstances and how the death was caused to his wife, but the appellant-accused failed to discharge the same. (iii) That, absence of any plausible explanation for the death of the deceased by the appellant-husband and the falsity of the defence. (iv) That, there was no scope for any outsider to enter into the room No.129 to commit the murder. (v) That, the motive to kill the deceased was the matrimonial relations with the deceased wife were strained. 14. The Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Yogendra Singh Kushwah (PW9) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased on 11.5.2001 at 11 a.m. at J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior and by proving the post-mortem report (Ex.P-22) of the deceased, Smt. Richa Sharma found the following injuries on her person : “(i) Incised wound 3x1 cm th+th right upper chest 3rd level. Tear right lung 2x1x1 cm. (ii) Incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm right mid chest 5th rib. (iii) Incised wound 2x1 cm through 7th rib level down wound tear of liver 2x1x1 cm. (iv) Incised wound 2x1x1/2 cm lt chest 6 cm above umbilicus skin deep. (v) Incised wound 2-1/2x1x1 cm upper 1/4 right thigh. (vi) Incised wound 1x1/2x1/4 medial upper 1/4 right thigh. (vii) Incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 medial upper 1/4 left thigh. (viii) Acid burn face, scalp, neck, chest, upper 1/2 abdomen Both upper limb with hand post-mortem burn no echymosis.” According to Dr. (v) Incised wound 2-1/2x1x1 cm upper 1/4 right thigh. (vi) Incised wound 1x1/2x1/4 medial upper 1/4 right thigh. (vii) Incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 medial upper 1/4 left thigh. (viii) Acid burn face, scalp, neck, chest, upper 1/2 abdomen Both upper limb with hand post-mortem burn no echymosis.” According to Dr. Yogendra Singh Kushwah (PW9), the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage on account of injury to vital organs and the death was homicidal in nature. 15. Surjeet Kaur (PW3) and Balveer Singh (PW4) are the parents of the deceased. On bare perusal of their testimony, we find that the deceased was married to the appellant about seven years prior to the incident which took place at about 2 p.m. on 10.5.2001. The appellant-accused, Anil Sharma was alcohol addict. The deceased, Richa Sharma had all along been ill-treated by her husband and their matrimonial relations were strained. No doubt, it is true that Surjeet Kaur (PW3) and Balveer Singh (PW4) are the parents of the deceased. According to us, merely because Surjeet Kaur (PW3) and Balveer Singh (PW4) are the parents of the deceased, their testimony cannot be thrown like a waste paper in the dustbin, but, in that situation, their testimony will be scrutinized with great care and caution. The learned trial Court as well as we have closely scrutinized the testimony of these witnesses and we find that their testimony has not been shaken from any angle. According to us, their testimony inspires full confidence since it is clear, cogent and trustworthy, therefore, we find that there was strained relations between the deceased and the appellant and, therefore, there was a motive to kill the deceased. 16. According to Surjeet Kaur (PW3) the appellant, Anil Sharma had gone to her house at Aligarh where his (Anil Shjarma’s) wife (the deceased) was living with her (Surjeet Kaur) and on the date of 8th, appellant took the deceased with him from her house at Aligarh to Gwalior and on date of 10th she received information from Gwalior that her daughter (deceased) had been killed. 17. 17. From the evidence of Kishan Chand Pawaiya (PW5), Hotel-keeper of Regal Hotel Register entry (Ex.P-10) which was proved by Kishan Chand Pawaiya (PW5), we find that on 8.5.2001 at about 9 p.m. the appellant along with his wife (Richa) reached to the Regal Hotel, Gwalior for staying and then, room No.129 was allotted to them for staying by Kishan Chand Pawaiya (PW5), and they stayed in the aforesaid room No.129 till the incident was occurred i.e. till 10.5.2001 at 2 p.m. The appellant-accused had also admitted that he was with the deceased in room No.129 of the Regal Hotel when the incident was occurred. In effect, the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant in room No.129 of the Regal Hotel. 18. Kishan Chand Pawaiya (PW5) (Hotelier) deposed that on the date of incident, he came to know that some cries were coming out from room No.129 then, he sent Waiter, Ram Singh to see the matter. Waiter Ram Singh went there and came back and informed that cries for help were coming out from the room No.129, but the same was bolted from inside, thereupon, he gave information of the happening on telephone to the Police Station Inderganj. Thereafter, police personnel (Devisingh Tomar, Head Constable (PW1) and Constable Devendra) came, he along with police personnel went to the room No.129 and found that room No.129 was bolted from inside, but no sound or noise was coming out from the room. Then, police personnel knocked repeatedly at the door of the room, but failed to get response, then, they break opened the door and found that wife, Richa was lying on the carpet in injured condition, acid burn injuries were also found on her person and blood was found oozing from her wounds and she was succumbed to the injuries. Husband, Anil was also lying on the floor in injured condition, but he was breathing. Police personnel immediately sent the injured to the hospital for treatment. 19. Husband, Anil was also lying on the floor in injured condition, but he was breathing. Police personnel immediately sent the injured to the hospital for treatment. 19. The evidence of Kishan Chand Pawaiya (PW5) corroborated by the testimony of Devisingh Tomar (PW1), Head Constable, who reached to the place of occurrence from the Police Station, Inderganj along with Colnstable Devendra and tried to open the door of room No.129 which was bolted from inside by knocking repeatedly but not succeeded then, he break opened the door and found that the wife, Richa was lying on the floor in front of the door. She had received injuries as well as acid burn injuries and she had died. Accused-appellant was also lying on the floor in injured condition, and he was breathing, then he sent the injured to the hospital. Nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination so as to suggest that they were interested in securing the conviction of the appellant on absolutely false ground. Kishan Chand Pawaiya (PW5) and Devisingh Tomar (PW1) are also the independent witnesses, therefore, according to us their testimony inspires full confidence. 20. On bare perusal of the testimony of Kaushal Kumar Pawaiya (PW6) and Abhay Singh Kushwah (PW11) and also seizure memo (Ex.P-12), we find that on 10.5.2001 at 15:10 p.m., the Investigating Officer, Abhay Singh Kushwah (PW11), inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of Kaushal Kumar Pawaiya (PW6) and Ram Singh and prepared the site plan (Ex.P-17) and seized necessary articles including blood stained carpet piece, acid burned curtain piece, blood stained knife, empty liquor and bear bottles, a bottle containing about 10 ml. acid, acid burned articles, glass, a bottle containing about 100 ml. bear etc. which were found inside the room were recovered under property seizure memo (Ex.P-12). Dr. Indrajeet Joshi, Senior Scientist and Incharge Officer FSL (PW12) reached the spot and he has also inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan (Ex.P-20). 21. In regard to the possibility of murder by some intruder, the most eloquent circumstance against its acceptance is that there was no sign of scuffle or mark of sexual assault on the deceased and no proof of theft of any article from the room or any attempt in doing so. 21. In regard to the possibility of murder by some intruder, the most eloquent circumstance against its acceptance is that there was no sign of scuffle or mark of sexual assault on the deceased and no proof of theft of any article from the room or any attempt in doing so. This apart, according to the testimony of Devisingh Tomar (PW1), Abhay Singh Kushwah (PW11) and Panchnama (Ex.P-8) and spot map (Ex.P-17) topography of the room No.129 excluded all possibility of any outsider entering into the room and committed murder of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the explanation furnished by the accused that some unknown person came and started assaulting the appellant inside the room No.129 and when his wife came to rescue, then they have also assaulted her, thereafter, they fled away is patently false. 22. We do not find any force in the alternate submission put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention of the appellant to kill the deceased and the incident had taken place all of a sudden in a heat of passion, as discussed hereinabove that the appellant-husband and the deceased-wife were inside the room at the time of the incident and the door of the room was bolted from inside. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature as a result of injuries caused by sharp weapon and acid. In view of the nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased, the appellant must be held to be aware that such an act was likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Further, the appellant in his statement under section 313 of the CrPC has not stated the fact that there was quarrel took place between him and the deceased and on account of sudden quarrel and in heat of passion, he himself caused injuries to the deceased. 23. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find that the learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the accused and the deceased were last seen together inside the bolted room No.129 of the Regal Hotel. 23. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find that the learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the accused and the deceased were last seen together inside the bolted room No.129 of the Regal Hotel. Therefore, on the fateful time, the accused and the deceased were closeted in the room and hence, it is for the accused alone to explain as to what had happened and how his wife died and that too on account of injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and acid, but the appellant-accused failed to discharge the same. Therefore, the appellant-husband is enough to hold him guilty. In this context, we may place reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Babu s/o Raveendran v. Babu s/o Bahuleyan [ (2003)7 SCC 37 ], Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra [(2007)15 SCC 455], and Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar [ (2007)10 SCC 433 ]. 24. In the case of Manik Ram (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the husband and wife were sleeping in one room. Wife died homicidal death inside the room. It was held that the incriminating circumstances i.e. presence of husband with wife is enough to hold him guilty. In another case, State of U.P. (supra), the husband committed murder of his wife. The medical evidence disclosed that she died of strangulation and her body was set on fire, therefore, circumstances indicated that no other than the accused has access to the room. Thus, the accused husband was held liable for committing murder of his wife. 25. In the case of Babu s/o Raveendran (supra), the apex Court has held that the second important circumstantial evidence against the accused is that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. To put it tersely, both of them slept together by retiring to the room that night. Last seen together in legal parlance ordinarily refers to the last seen together in the street, at a public place, or at any place frequented by the public. But here, the last seen together is much more than that. The last seen together here is sleeping together inside the bolted room. Last seen together in legal parlance ordinarily refers to the last seen together in the street, at a public place, or at any place frequented by the public. But here, the last seen together is much more than that. The last seen together here is sleeping together inside the bolted room. It is in the evidence of PW3 and PW6 that they had dined together and the accused and the deceased were closeted in a room at about 8:30 p.m. Therefore, on the fateful day the accused and the deceased were closeted in a bedroom at about 8:30 p.m. is undisputed and it is for the accused alone to explain as to what happened and how his wife died and that too on account of strangulation. In the case of Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryawanshi (supra), the apex Court held that where admittedly the husband, wife and children were residing in one room, the prosecution having been able to prove that apart from the minor children, at the time of occurrence it was he and the deceased alone who were residing in the house, it was for the appellant to prove that how the deceased had met her death. In the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar (supra), the apex Court has observed that once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife.The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same. The relevant paras No.24 and 25 are as under : “24. This legal position would appear from a decision of this Court in Nika Ram v. State of H.P. [ AIR 1972 SC 2077 ], wherein it was held : “16. It is in the evidence of Girju PW that only the accused and Churi deceased resided in the house of the accused. To similar effect are the statements of Mani Ram (PW8), who is the uncle of the accused, and Bhagat Ram, school teacher (PW16). According to Bhagat Ram, he saw the accused and the deceased together at their house on the day of occurrence. To similar effect are the statements of Mani Ram (PW8), who is the uncle of the accused, and Bhagat Ram, school teacher (PW16). According to Bhagat Ram, he saw the accused and the deceased together at their house on the day of occurrence. Mani Ram (PW8) saw the accused at his house at 3 p.m., while Poshu Ram (PW7) saw the accused and the deceased at their house on the evening of the day of occurrence. The accused also does not deny that he was with the deceased at his house on the day of occurrence. The house of the accused, according to plan PM consists of one residential room, one other small room and a varandah. The correctness of that plan is proved by A.R. Verma, overseer (PW5). The fact that the accused alone was with Churi deceased in the house when she was murdered there with the Khokhri and the fact that the relations of the accused with the deceased, as would be shown hereafter, were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt.” 25. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [JT 2006(9) SC 50], the law is stated in the following terms : “22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” 26. We are not at all impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries found on the person of the appellant, therefore, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. According to the evidence of Dr. Yogendra Singh Kushwah (PW9), he has examined the accused on 10.5.2001 at 2:15 a.m. and found the following injuries : “Incised wound 2x1/2xdepth not to know, oblique 4 cm above left side of umbilicus with bleeding. According to the evidence of Dr. Yogendra Singh Kushwah (PW9), he has examined the accused on 10.5.2001 at 2:15 a.m. and found the following injuries : “Incised wound 2x1/2xdepth not to know, oblique 4 cm above left side of umbilicus with bleeding. Incised wound 1-1/2x1xdepth not known oblique right side with bleeding.” According to the medical evidence, both the injuries sustained by the accused were not serious. In view of the facts of this case, mere non-explanation of the injuries of the appellant by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case as it is not the defence of the appellant that the injuries was caused to him by the deceased. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and falsity of defence, it cannot be ruled out that the injuries found on the person of the appellant were caused by the appellant himself. 27. In the case of Gopal (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, five accused were charged and prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 of the IPC. The trial Court found the accused, Gopal guilty for commission of offence under sections 148, 302, 323/149 of IPC, accused, Shankar Lal and Nand Lal under sections 148, 302/149, 323 of IPC, accused Chhotelal and Dinesh under sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 of IPC and awarded punishment. Against the said judgment and order of sentence, criminal appeals were preferred. The High Court in the appeal of Gopal has found him guilty of offence under section 304 Part I IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, in the other criminal appeals accused Shankarlal, Nandlal and Chhotelal were found guilty for commission of offence under section 324 of IPC and awarded sentence to the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs.200/- each and the accused, Dinesh was not found guilty for any of the offence and was accordingly acquitted. The apex Court held that since there is no appeal preferred by the State against the accused Gopal who has been found guilty for commission of offence under section 304 Part I of IPC and there cannot be any scope for considering the conviction of accused, Gopal from section 304 Part I to section 302 IPC as regards other accused, the High Court has assigned cogent and valid reasons as to why they have been found guilty for commission of offence under section 324 of IPC. The High Court has also noted that the injuries sustained by the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution at all. Therefore, the principle laid down in this case is not applicable in the present case because the facts of that case are totally different to the fact of the present case. 28. We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and we do not find any infirmity in it. The judgment is based on correct appreciation of the evidence placed on record and further we do not want to deviate ourselves from the reasonings recorded by the learned trial Court. The chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly and unerringly indicate that it was the appellant-accused only, who committed the murder of his wife, Richa Sharma. Hence, we extend our stamp of approval of the reasonings, findings and conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. 29. For the reasons stated here-in-above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.