Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1054 (GUJ)

Govindbhai Adherabhai Katara v. State of Gujarat

2015-10-16

K.J.THAKER, M.R.SHAH

body2015
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar camp Idar passed in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2009, by which, the learned Sessions Court has convicted the appellant herein - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo further six months RI, the original accused has preferred present Criminal Appeal. 2.0. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that one Ishwarbhai Jeevabhai Dodiya lodged an FIR with the Idar Police Station, which was registered as CR-I- No. 70 of 2009 against the original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the appellant herein - original accused killed his wife i.e. deceased Hiraben by strangulating. It was alleged that the incident took place on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m.. There was quarrel with respect to late cooking Rotla and thereby accused became angry upon the deceased and thereafter strangulated her. It was further alleged that as the accused wanted to bring his first wife back because of the maintenance dispute, he killed his second wife - deceased Hiraben. It was further alleged in the FIR by the original complainant Shri Ishwarbhai Dodiya that one Babubhai Rameshbai Katara told him that on the next day of alleged incident accused went to his shop to buy household things and when he asked the accused what had happened in the last night, the accused informed him that there was quarrel on the last night and his wife has passed away. As per the case of the prosecution and as per the case of Shri Ishwarbhai Dodiya so stated in the FIR, said Babubhai informed him about the death of deceased Hiraben and also told him that the accused - Govindbhai Katara has killed his wife. According to the case of the prosecution, thereafter Shri Ishawarbhai went to the house of the accused thereby he show body of the deceased lying. That thereafter, he went to his house and thereafter when police came, he gave FIR about the death of deceased Hiraben. According to the case of the prosecution, thereafter Shri Ishawarbhai went to the house of the accused thereby he show body of the deceased lying. That thereafter, he went to his house and thereafter when police came, he gave FIR about the death of deceased Hiraben. According to the case of the prosecution, at the time when the FIR was lodged the brother of the deceased - Becharbhai Dodiay who according to the prosecution was eyewitness to the incident at about 8.30 p.m. on 27.6.2009 was also present. 2.1. That the investigation was carried out by the Police Officer of Idar Police Station. He recorded the statements of concerned witness. He also collected the documentary evidences. That during the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant herein - original accused on 8.6.2009 and also prepared the panchnama of place of incident, recovery of cloths of the deceased as well as accused. That thereafter, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the appellant herein - original accused in the Court of learned JMFC for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned JMFC committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, which was transferred to Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 81 of 2009. That the learned Sessions Court framed the charge against the accused below Exh. 7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.2. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as following 20 witnesses: P.W.NO. Name of witness Exh. No. 1 Dr. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.2. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as following 20 witnesses: P.W.NO. Name of witness Exh. No. 1 Dr. Prakash Rameshbhai Tahaliyani 10 2 Ishwarbhai Jeevabhai Dodiya 16 3 Becharbhai Laljibhai Dodiya 18 4 Amit @ /Teeko, s/o of Govindbhai Adherabhai 19 5 Babubhai Ramjibhai Katara 20 6 Baliben Kalubhai Damor 21 7 Dineshbhai Gopalbhai Damor 22 8 Rupjibhai Bhanabhai Ojat 23 9 Amrutbhai Jalmabhai Dodiya 25 10 Firojkhan Mustafkhan Makrani 33 11 Jeetubhai Kantibhai Chenva 39 12 Khemabhai Hirabhai Dodiya 38 13 Rameshbhai Hirabhai Parmar 42 14 Ramilaben Rupshibhai 50 15 Babubhai Prabhabhai 51 16 Jitendrasinh Mansinh 54 17 Maganbhai Lekhabhai Parmar 55 18 Arundan Surajdan Gadhvi 61 19 Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Mehta 63 20 Dharmendrasinh Jaswantsinh Chavda 65 2.3. Through, the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution also brought on record following documentary evidence: SR.NO. Description of Evidence Exh. No. 1 Original Complaint 17 2 Inquest Panchnama 22 3 Rough sketch of place of incident 52 4 Panchnama of recovery of cloths of accused 42 5 Discovery Panchnama 34 6 Panchnama of cloths of deceased 43 7 Report of Scientific Officer of R. N. Mehta 64 8 Yadi for preparing inquest panchnama 57 9 Copy of dying declaration 12 10 Postmortem note of deceased 13 11 Certificate of cause of death 14 12 Receipt of dead body given 66 13 Yadi for preparation of sketch of place of incident 67 14 Yadi sent to FSL, Ahmedabad 68 15 Receipt of Mudamals received by FSL, Ahmedabad 69 16 Report of Mudamal 70 17 Map of place of incident prepared by the Circle Officer, Chitroda 62 18 Suchipatra 59 19 Copy of massage sent for visitation 58 20 Yadi of Postmortem 11 21 Panchnama of place of incident 24 22 Slip of Panchnama bearing Nos. 27 to 31, 35, 36, 39, 40 and 44 46 23 Copy of station diary 56 24 FTP Massage 58 2.4. That after closing purshis by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court thereafter recorded the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the accused specifically pleaded that he is falsely implicated in the case. He also gave separate further statement at Exh. That after closing purshis by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court thereafter recorded the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the accused specifically pleaded that he is falsely implicated in the case. He also gave separate further statement at Exh. 72 pleading alibi and stated that on the day of incident i.e. 27.06.2009 he was not at his residence and even in the village and that he had gone to another village to purchase bullock. He also specifically stated that as he had married with deceased Hiraben against the will and wish of the Becharbhai Laljibhai and his family members and there was love marriage which was not liked by the Becharbhai Laljibhai and his family members, he is falsely implicated in the case. He further stated that on the next day when he came from another village, he came to be arrested. He also stated that relation with in laws were so strange that the cremation was done in the front portion of his house and not at the crematorium. That thereafter, on appreciation of evidence and mainly and solely relying upon the deposition of sole witness Becharbhai Dodiya brother of deceased Hiraben - PW No. 3 who came to be examined at Exh. 18, by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has held the appellant herein - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted the appellant herein - original accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed his wife- deceased Hiraben and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo further six months RI. 2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court, the appellant herein - original accused has preferred present Criminal Appeal. 3.0. Shri Param Buch, learned advocate for Shri Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding the appellant herein - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed his wife - deceased Hiraben. 3.1. 3.0. Shri Param Buch, learned advocate for Shri Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding the appellant herein - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed his wife - deceased Hiraben. 3.1. Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the accused killed his wife - deceased Hiraben on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m by strangulation. It is further submitted that as such learned trial Court has materially erred in relying upon the deposition of sole witness and alleged eyewitness Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3. 3.2. It is submitted that looking to the abnormal and unnatural conduct of Shri Becharbhai - Brother of deceased Hiraben, after incident took place at 8.30 p.m and the material contradictions and his improvement in the story which he stated in his cross examination in chief but never stated earlier before the police, the learned trial Court ought not to have relied upon the deposition of Shri Becharbhai- PW No. 3, as the said witness is neither reliable nor trustworthy. 3.3. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that so far as Ishwarbhai - original complainant is concerned, apart from the fact that he was cousin brother of the deceased- Hiraben - Becharbhai PW No. 3, he had no personal knowledge about the incident which took place at about 8.30 p.m. on 27.6.2009 and that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. It is submitted that so far as Shri Ishwarbhai is concerned, his evidence is hearsay evidence and even as per the case of the prosecution one Shri Babubhai Rameshbai Katara told him that accused told him on 27.6.2009 in the morning that on the earlier night he had quarrel with his wife and that his wife has passed away. It is submitted that as such the said Shri Babubhai Rameshbai Katara who is alleged to have told the aforesaid Ishwarbhai, is declared as hostile witness. Therefore, what is stated by Shri Ishwarbhai in his complaint/FIR and/or even his deposition is not corroborated by any other witness. 3.4. It is submitted that as such the said Shri Babubhai Rameshbai Katara who is alleged to have told the aforesaid Ishwarbhai, is declared as hostile witness. Therefore, what is stated by Shri Ishwarbhai in his complaint/FIR and/or even his deposition is not corroborated by any other witness. 3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that even as per Shri Ishwarbhai at the time when he lodged the FIR when the police came, other 40 to 50 village people were there and even Shri Becharbhai was also there, still Shri Becharbhai who claims to be eyewitness to the incident did not lodge any FIR, which creates doubt about the prosecution case. 3.5. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that the learned Sessions Court ought not to have believed the story of the complainant and the prosecution that as the appellant wanted to bring her first wife back, he committed the said act. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Court ought not to have believed the same in absence of any evidence to support and prove the said allegations. 3.6. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that the learned Sessions Court ought not to have believed the fact that the brother of the deceased i.e. PW No. 3- Shri Becharbhai Dodiay examined at Exh. 18 stated that he was present at the time of the incident and upon witnessing the said incident he got scared and ran away and further he did not bother to inform about the said incident to anyone. It is submitted that said story is highly unnatural and ought not to have been believed. 3.7. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that the learned Sessions Judge has not believed the version of the appellant that on the day of the incident, the appellant went to some other village to buy bullock. It is further submitted that the said fact is also proved by relying upon the deposition of one Shri Babubhai Somabhai Asari examined at Exh. 74 whereby he has clearly stated that on the day of the incident, the appellant had gone to his village to buy bullock and stayed there over night and had left in the morning. 3.8. It is further submitted that the said fact is also proved by relying upon the deposition of one Shri Babubhai Somabhai Asari examined at Exh. 74 whereby he has clearly stated that on the day of the incident, the appellant had gone to his village to buy bullock and stayed there over night and had left in the morning. 3.8. It is further submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the prosecution has been successful in proving the motive behind the incident i.e. accused wanted to bring his first wife back. 3.9. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding the appellant herein - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by recording the finding that the appellant herein - original accused killed his wife on 26.7.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., solely relying upon the deposition of Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who has been examined at Exh. 18 who is neither a trustworthy or reliable witness, which can been seen from his contradictory deposition before the Court and Police statement and improved story and looking to his abnormal and unnatural conduct after the incident, which he has alleged to have seen on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj v. State reported in (2015) 4 SCC 739 and another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ali Mollaj and Another v. State of W.B reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 1028, it is requested by Shri Buch, learned advocate for the accused to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code, for which, he came to be tried even by giving benefit of doubt. 4.0. Present appeal is opposed by Shri H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State. 4.1. 4.0. Present appeal is opposed by Shri H.K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State. 4.1. Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court holding the appellant herein-original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed his wife- deceased Hiraben on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. is on appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that finding recorded by the learned trial Court is as such neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal. 4.2. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that in the present case prosecution has been successful in establishing and proving that the accused- Govindbhai Katara killed his wife on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m by leading cogent and reliable evidence. 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the present case there is an eyewitness to the incident i.e. Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the deposition of the eyewitness - Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who at the relevant time and when the incident took place was present and no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in holding the appellant herein- original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and by holding that the appellant - original accused killed his wife. It is further submitted that even prosecution has been successful in proving the motive for the incident by leading cogent evidence. It is submitted that as the accused was facing the proceedings for maintenance initiated by his first wife and therefore, he wanted to see that his first wife returns, he created false reason of late cooking and first beaten his second wife - deceased and thereafter strangulated her. It is submitted that as the accused was facing the proceedings for maintenance initiated by his first wife and therefore, he wanted to see that his first wife returns, he created false reason of late cooking and first beaten his second wife - deceased and thereafter strangulated her. It is submitted that therefore, when the prosecution has been successful in proving the motive as well as fact that the accused killed his wife by examining the eyewitness - PW No. 3- Shri Becharbhai and thereby findings recorded by learned trial Court are on appreciation of evidence, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error in holding the appellant herein - original accused guilty. 4.4. It is further submitted that in the present case even the appellant herein - original accused gave false explanation in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he went to the another village for buying bullock and therefore, he pleaded alibi and thereby he came out a false theory of alibi and as rightly observed by the learned trial Court the plea of alibi put forward by the accused is not believable, conviction can be sustained on the aforesaid ground alone. It is submitted that if the appellant was innocent as pleaded by him in that case, he ought not have come out with a false theory of alibi so stated in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exh. 70). It is submitted that the fact that the accused had not proved beyond doubt the case put forward by him in a further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, meaning thereby the accused has not stated true facts before the Court and has tried to make out a false case so stated in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding the appellant - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.5. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in relying upon the deposition of PW No. 3 - Shri Becharbhai who is on eyewitness to the incident. 4.5. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in relying upon the deposition of PW No. 3 - Shri Becharbhai who is on eyewitness to the incident. It is submitted that presence of the brother of the deceased who was present at the time of incident at the residence of the accused and his wife was natural. It is submitted that having seen his sister being killed and apprehending that he will also be beaten by the accused, when Shri Becharbhai ran away from the place of incident, the said conduct of Shri Becharbhai can be said to be natural and in any case, it cannot be said to be abnormal and/or unnatural which creates doubt about his credibility and/or trustworthiness. It is further submitted that therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding the appellant herein - original accused guilty relying upon the deposition of Shri Becharbhai -PW No. 3. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5.0. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record so as to satisfy ourselves whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned trial Court has justified in holding appellant herein - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed his wife -deceased Hiraben on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, it appears that learned trial Court has heavily relied upon the deposition of Shri Becharbhai -PW No. 3 who has been examined at Exh. 18 who claimed to be the eyewitness to the incident. Even the prosecution is also heavily relied upon the deposition of PW No. 3 - Shri Becharbhai. Therefore, as such the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant herein - original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code having killed his wife-deceased Hiraben on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. is solely based upon the deposition of so called eyewitness - Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who has been examined at Exh. 18. It is required to be noted that Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who claimed to be the eyewitness is brother of the deceased - Hiraben. 18. It is required to be noted that Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who claimed to be the eyewitness is brother of the deceased - Hiraben. From the entire evidence on record, it appears that the appellant herein - original accused - Govindbhai had married with deceased Hiraben against the Will of the family members of the deceased -Hiraben and that the marriage between the appellant herein - original accused and the deceased Hiraben was love marriage, which was not liked by the family members of his wife i.e. Shri Becharbhai and others. Therefore, when the case is based upon the sole witness and that too interested witness -relative of the deceased, deposition of the said witness is required to be considered minutely and with great care and caution. 5.1. From the deposition of Shri Becharbhai- PW No. 3 who claimed to be the eyewitness as a whole, we are of the opinion that his deposition is full of contradictions and improvement in the story. We are also of the opinion that his conduct after incident at about 8.30 p.m on 27.6.2009 till next day noon is absolutely abnormal and unnatural. According to the said witness, he went to the residence of his sister - appellant accused on 27.6.2009 to meet. According to him, appellant herein - original accused told him to stay and to take dinner with them and according to said witness thereafter accused cooked/prepared vegetable by cutting hen. According to the said witness thereafter accused become angry with his wife - deceased Hiraben for late cooking and thereby he first beat her by stick and thereafter strangulated her. According to the said witness, even the accused caused the injury on his backside and thereafter he ran away. It is not in dispute that thereafter he does nothing. He went to his house and goes to sleep and thereafter comes out with a case on the next day i.e. 28.6.2009 that he had seen the incident. He had admitted that he did not disclose even to his wife and/or any other family members or any other village people that on the earlier night the accused killed his wife. He even does not go to the police station and gives any complaint/FIR. He had admitted that he did not disclose even to his wife and/or any other family members or any other village people that on the earlier night the accused killed his wife. He even does not go to the police station and gives any complaint/FIR. Even the FIR has been lodged/given by one Shri Ishawarbhai who is his cousin brother, who had no personal knowledge about the incident as he is not an eyewitness to the incident and he is the hearsay witness. On considering the entire deposition/evidence of Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3, the same is full of contradictions and improvement in the story. In the examination in chief, he has stated that he was also beaten by the accused on back side, however in the cross examination he has specifically admitted that he had not disclosed aforesaid before the police. In the cross examination he had specifically admitted that so many things which are stated by him in the examination in chief were not stated before the police. Under the circumstances, when the case is based upon sole witness and trustworthiness is doubted, it is not safe to convict accused relying upon the deposition of the said sole/solitary witness. Even what is stated by said witness is not corroborated by any other witnesses. As observed herein above, his conduct in not telling anything about occurrence till next day is unnatural and creates an impression/doubt that he had not witnessed the incident. In the case of Ali Mollan And Another (supra) in identical fact situation when the conviction was based on testimony of the single eyewitness and solitary witness who was found to be not trustworthy and/or reliable, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that conviction can be based on the testimony of the single eyewitness if he is wholly reliable, however corroboration is required when he is only partly reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the conduct of the witness in not telling anyone about occurrence till next day is unnatural creating impression that he had not witnessed the incident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the circumstances of the case, no conviction can be founded on his uncorroborated testimony. 5.2. As observed herein above, the conduct of the sole/solitary witness - Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3 is absolutely unnatural and abnormal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the circumstances of the case, no conviction can be founded on his uncorroborated testimony. 5.2. As observed herein above, the conduct of the sole/solitary witness - Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3 is absolutely unnatural and abnormal. His deposition is full of material contradictions and improvement in the story. Therefore, presence of the said witness is doubtful and it creates an impression that he has not witnessed to the incident. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3 who claims to be eyewitness to the incident is not trustworthy and/or reliable and it is not safe to convict the accused solely relying upon the deposition of the said solitary witness. 6.0. It is also required to be noted that so far as Shri Ishwarbhai - original complainant is concerned, he is not an eyewitness to the incident and his case is hearsay. According to him, Shri Babubhai told him on phone that in the morning i.e. 28.06.2009 the accused came to be his shop for purchasing household things and he told him that earlier in night he had a quarrel with his wife and his wife has passed away. It is to be noted that his aforesaid version/case so stated in the FIR is not corroborated by evidence of any other witness. Shri Babubhai who has been examined at Exh. 20 is declared hostile. Therefore, the deposition of Shri Ishwarbhai would not be helpful to the prosecution. It is also required to be noted that even according to the said witness when he got information about death of deceased from Shri Babubhai and he went to the place of house of the accused he show Govindbhai behind his house along with his minor child with Axe and thereafter he ran away. It is admitted by said witness Ishwarbhai that he had not gone behind the accused and his minor child and not tried to caught him. His aforesaid conduct is also unnatural. 6.1. Under the circumstances, as such prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond doubt by leading cogent evidence that the appellant herein - original accused killed his wife on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. as alleged. His aforesaid conduct is also unnatural. 6.1. Under the circumstances, as such prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond doubt by leading cogent evidence that the appellant herein - original accused killed his wife on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. as alleged. As observed herein above, the conduct of the so called eyewitness - Shri Becharbhai - PW No. 3 is absolutely unnatural and abnormal and his deposition does not inspire any confidence. As observed herein above, the said witness is neither reliable nor trustworthy so as to bring home the charge against the accused and it is not safe to rely upon the said solitary witness to convict the appellant herein - original accused. 7.0. Now, so far as contention on behalf of the state that false explanation by the accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient to hold accused guilty is concerned, it is required to be noted and it cannot be disputed that as such it is for the prosecution first to prove beyond doubt that the accused has committed the offence. The purpose and object of recording further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Nagraj (supra). In para 14 and 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "14. The Impugned Judgment has found the answers of the Accused under Section 313 CrPC evasive and untrustworthy, and held this to be another factor indicating his guilt. Section 313 CrPC is of seminal importance in our criminal law jurisdiction and, therefore, justifies reiteration and elucidation by this Court. We shall start, with profit, by reproducing extracts from 41st Report of the Law Commission made in the context of Section 342 of the old Criminal Procedure Code which corresponds to this Section where the Commission observed, inter alia, thus: "24.40. Section 342 is one of the most important sections in the Code. It requires that the Court must, at the close of prosecution evidence, examine the accused "for the purposes of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him." The section for a moment, brushes aside all counsel, all prosecutors, all witnesses, and all third persons. Section 342 is one of the most important sections in the Code. It requires that the Court must, at the close of prosecution evidence, examine the accused "for the purposes of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him." The section for a moment, brushes aside all counsel, all prosecutors, all witnesses, and all third persons. It seeks to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused for the purpose of enabling the accused to give his explanation. For a while the section was misunderstood and regarded as authorizing an inquisitorial interrogation of the accused, which is not its object at all. The key to the section is contained in the first sixteen words of the section. Giving an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence is the only object of the examination. He may, if he chooses, keep his mouth shut or he may give a full explanation, or, he is so advised, he may explain only a part of the case against him. 24.45 We have, after considering the various aspects of the matter as summarized above, come to the conclusion that S. 342 should not be deleted. In our opinion the stage has not yet come for its being removed from the statute book. With further increase in literacy and with better facilities for legal aid, it may be possible to take that step in the future." (ii) 'Clause 320 - The existing provision in S. 342 (2) enabling a Court to draw an inference, whether adverse or not from an answer or a refusal to answer a question put to the accused during the examination, is being omitted as it may offend Art. 20(3) of the Constitution" - S.O.R." 15. In the context of this aspect of the law it is been held by this Court in Parsuram Pandey v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189 that Section 313 CrPC is imperative to enable an accused to explain away any incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution. It is intended to benefit the accused, its corollary being to benefit the Court in reaching its final conclusion; its intention is not to nail the accused, but to comply with the most salutary and fundamental principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem, as explained in Arsaf Ali v. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328. It is intended to benefit the accused, its corollary being to benefit the Court in reaching its final conclusion; its intention is not to nail the accused, but to comply with the most salutary and fundamental principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem, as explained in Arsaf Ali v. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328. In Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCR 29 this Court has recently clarified that because of the language employed in Section 304B of the IPC, which deals with dowry death, the burden of proving innocence shifts to the accused which is in stark contrast and dissonance to a person's right not to incriminate himself. It is only in the backdrop of Section 304B that an accused must furnish credible evidence which is indicative of his innocence, either under Section 313 CrPC or by examining himself in the witness box or through defence witnesses, as he may be best advised. Having made this clarification, refusal to answer any question put to the accused by the Court in relation to any evidence that may have been presented against him by the prosecution or the accused giving an evasive or unsatisfactory answer, would not justify the Court to return a finding of guilt on this score. Even if it is assumed that his statements do not inspire acceptance, it must not be lost sight of that the burden is cast on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Once this burden is met, the Statements under Section 313 assume significance to the extent that the accused may cast some incredulity on the prosecution version. It is not the other way around; in our legal system the accused is not required to establish his innocence. We say this because we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion of the High Court that the substance of his examination under Section 313 was indicative of his guilt. If no explanation is forthcoming, or is unsatisfactory in quality, the effect will be that the conclusion that may reasonably be arrived at would not be dislodged, and would, therefore, subject to the quality of the defence evidence, seal his guilt. Article 20(3) of the Constitution declares that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Article 20(3) of the Constitution declares that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In the case in hand, the High Court was not correct in drawing an adverse inference against the Accused because of what he has stated or what he has failed to state in his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure." 8.0. Under the circumstances, in the present case when prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt by leading cogent evidence that the accused killed his wife by strangulation on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m, the appellant herein original accused cannot be held guilty and/or cannot be convicted relying upon his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which may be found to be false. A further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant and/or to be considered for the purpose of corroboration, provided prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused by leading cogent evidence. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above, more particularly when the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt by leading evidence that the appellant herein killed his wife on 27.6.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant herein - original accused cannot be convicted relying upon and/or considering his further statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which as observed by the learned trial Court even if it is accepted to be found to be false. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and the findings recorded herein above, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence convicting the appellant herein - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and the appellant herein - original accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside and appellant herein - original accused is acquitted for the charge for which he came to be tried i.e. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside and appellant herein - original accused is acquitted for the charge for which he came to be tried i.e. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is reported that accused is in jail and undergoing sentence pursuant to the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which is now set aside, the appellant herein - original accused shall be set at free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Present appeal is allowed accordingly.