JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging his conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) vide judgment/order dated 25.10.2016. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Dungaram lodged a report at Police Station Sanganer stating therein that Arti @ Padma, daughter of the complainant, had got married to the appellant on 12.06.2011. Thereafter, Arti started residing in her matrimonial home. No child was born to them out of the wedlock. Arti had qualified second year and was preparing for third year as a private candidate. Arti had come to her parental house about 18-20 days prior to the incident. On 27.10.2013, appellant had come to take his wife with him and had taken his wife with him at about 1.00 P.M. on 28.10.2013. Complainant had left for his office at 11.15 A.M. At about 2.30 P.M., complainant was informed by Ramkaran, elder brother of the appellant, that Arti had been murdered near Cheelgadi Restaurant. On hearing this, complainant became unconscious. After regaining consciousness, complainant along with 2-3 other persons reached the spot and found that his daughter was lying dead in a pool of blood at the spot and had suffered an injury on her neck. Complainant prayed that action be taken. 3. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, formal FIR No. 1092 dated 28.10.2013 was registered at Police Station Sanganer under Section 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case during trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. 6. Appellant, when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.), denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. He further stated that on 28.10.2013, he was taking his wife from her parental home to his village. On the way, they were waylaid by three persons, who were travelling on a motorcycle. One of the said persons snatched his purse and the other two persons tried to snatch the ornaments worn by his wife. He further stated that on 28.10.2013, he was taking his wife from her parental home to his village. On the way, they were waylaid by three persons, who were travelling on a motorcycle. One of the said persons snatched his purse and the other two persons tried to snatch the ornaments worn by his wife. They inflicted injury with an incised weapon to his wife and as a result, she died. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, it was a case of no evidence. It was settled principle of law that conviction of an accused could not be based merely due to the fact that he was last seen with the deceased. Prosecution was required to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as recoveries of the weapon, blood stained clothes effected from the appellant and the call details taken during the course of investigation are concerned, the Trial Court has disbelieved the same. 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhanpal, Appellant Vs. The State of M.P., Respondent, (1970) 0 AIR (SC) 1620, wherein it was held as under: “4. So far as the first circumstance is concerned in the facts of this particular case it is not sufficient to prove conclusively that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. According to P.W. Bhagwandas, the father of the appellant the sowing was stopped at 4 Oclock in the evening. In the circumstances, therefore, if the appellant would have attacked the deceased he being a young man of 17 years would have undoubtedly put up stiff resistance in order to protect himself and in all probability would have caused some injuries on the person of the appellant also. For these reasons, therefore, the mere fact that the appellant and the deceased were together in the field does not lead to the irresistible inference that the appellant must have murdered the deceased. As regards the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before Sukhlal, we are unable to believe the version given by the witness Sukhlal. While being examined as a witness in the Sessions Court he had clearly stated that no confession was made before him. As regards the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before Sukhlal, we are unable to believe the version given by the witness Sukhlal. While being examined as a witness in the Sessions Court he had clearly stated that no confession was made before him. His attention was however drawn to his statement made by him before the committing Magistrate where he had admitted that he saw the appellant running and on being questioned the appellant told him that he had committed a mistake and had killed his brother due to a quarrel. In cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not narrate this story of the murder to anybody. He made the disclosure for the first time when he was called to the police station. The witness met a number of persons on that day but he did not mention the factum of the confession to anyone of them. Secondly the evidence shows that he was not known to the appellant and therefore we find it difficult to believe that the appellant would make a confession to a person who was not known to him at all. For these reasons, therefore, we find it wholly unsafe to accept the evidence of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant to P.W. Sukhlal. Another important circumstance which negatives the prosecution case is that no motive whatsoever for the appellant to kill his brother has been either alleged or provided. Further the deceased appears to have received as many as 12 incised wounds on various parts of the body and this could not have been done by the appellant alone unless he was accompanied by other friends. We are clearly of the view that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the appellant of the charges framed against him. The appellant may now be released forthwith.” 9. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni, Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondents, (1993) 0 AIR (SC) 110, wherein it was held as under: “12. The appellant may now be released forthwith.” 9. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni, Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra, Respondents, (1993) 0 AIR (SC) 110, wherein it was held as under: “12. The only circumstances that have been found established are that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant on October 13, 1975 at about 6 p.m. and that the dead body of the deceased was found in the Ladni near the residential portion of the appellant in Pargaonkars wada. The said two circumstances, in our opinion, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and on the basis of these two circumstances alone, it cannot be held that the appellant was a party to the murder of the deceased. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC cannot, therefore, be upheld.” 10. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh and another, Appellants Vs. State of Punjab, Respondent, (1991) 0 AIR (SC) 1674, wherein it was held as under: “2. After giving our careful consideration, we are unable to agree with the Courts below. These circumstances are not sufficient to establish guilt of the accused. It is well settled that in a case pending on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. Among the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, in the light of these principles we find that except the circumstance No. 1, the other circumstances are not incriminating. In number of cases it has been held that the only circumstance namely that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. In number of cases it has been held that the only circumstance namely that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is no doubt true that the deceased's death was homicidal but since there is no direct witness connecting any of the appellants with the crime we should fall back on the circumstantial evidence and we are of the view that circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are hardly sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The circumstance, i.e., the absence of enmity between the accused and the deceased and the witness would also show that the accused also had no enmity against the deceased. Therefore, this circumstance is neutral. However, now coming to the recovery of the gun, the High Court has acquitted him of that charge. The only relevant circumstance as pointed above is that the appellants and the deceased left the house together in a friendly manner for bird-shooting. It is needless to say that no conviction can be passed on this sole circumstance. In the result; the convictions and sentences awarded by the Courts below are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellants be set at liberty.” 11. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellant was taking his wife from her parental home to his village. The story put forth by the appellant that they had been attacked by three persons was rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court as the ornaments worn by the deceased had not been taken away by anybody. Moreover, appellant, instead of travelling on the main road, was travelling on a link road. Perusal of the site plan Exhibit P-2 shows that from the main road, the link road, where the occurrence had taken place, was not visible on account of presence of trees and bushes. The road taken by the appellant was not much used by the traffic as it was found that people had been answering call of nature on the said road and there was foul smell at the spot. 12. Present case relates to murder of Arti @ Padma. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. The road taken by the appellant was not much used by the traffic as it was found that people had been answering call of nature on the said road and there was foul smell at the spot. 12. Present case relates to murder of Arti @ Padma. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is an admitted fact, as is evident from the plea taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was taking his wife Arti on his motorcycle from her parental home to his village. 13. Complainant Dungaram, while appearing in the witness box as P.W.8, has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 14. P.W.15 Sushil Kumar Sharma deposed that on 28.10.2013, they received an information regarding the incident. On reaching the spot, it was found that: (1) Near the boundary wall of Sanganer Airport, dead body of Arti was lying and near the dead body, motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ 14 ZS 4886 was lying. (2) There was an injury mark on the neck of the deceased. (3) The clothes of the deceased were blood stained. (4) Deceased was wearing her slipper (chappal) in her right foot and her left foot slipper (chappal) was lying nearby. (5) On the road, some broken bangles and some broken plastic pieces of helmet were found. (6) Two buttons with thread were seen lying at a distance of 15 feet. (7) A blue bag was found hanging on the luggage guard of the motorcycle. (8) On the side glass of the motorcycle, one helmet was found hanging and another helmet was found near the motorcycle in a damaged condition. (9) There were no recent scratch marks on the motorcycle. P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mathur and P.W.18 Dr. Vinay Kumar have proved Post Mortem Report of the deceased Exhibit P-13. As per Exhibit P-13, deceased had suffered following injuries: “1. Incised looking wound of size 8 x 3.5 cm x muscle deep present over Rt. side neck with dry red blood in Rt side submandibular region. One cm below to Rt. angle of mandible placed transversely oblique. On dissection the Rt. side sterno mastoid muscle found cut in corresponding region. The Rt. side carotid artery and Rt. side Thyrohyoid soft tissues found cut with surrounding antemortem Hematoma. On further dissection post laryngeal Hematoma seen. (2) Linear abrasion 4.5 cm long present over Rt. One cm below to Rt. angle of mandible placed transversely oblique. On dissection the Rt. side sterno mastoid muscle found cut in corresponding region. The Rt. side carotid artery and Rt. side Thyrohyoid soft tissues found cut with surrounding antemortem Hematoma. On further dissection post laryngeal Hematoma seen. (2) Linear abrasion 4.5 cm long present over Rt. nexulary region with dry red blood. (3) Abraded bruise of size 1.5 x 1/2 cm present over Rt. neck postero lateral aspect with dry red blood. (4) Linear abrasion 10.5 cm long present over left side neck in mid part with dry red blood. (5) Linear abrasion 9.5 cm long 1 cm below to Injury No. 4 on left side neck with dry red blood. (6) Abrasion 2.5 x 1.5 cm present over left supraclavicular region in lateral aspect. (7) abraded bruise of size 3.5 x 1/2 cm present over left supraclavicular region medial aspect with dry red blood. All above injuries are ante mortem in nature. Duration fresh prior to death.” 15. Cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock brought about as a result of ante mortem injury no. 1 and the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 16. Exhibit P-2 is the site plan where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. There was an injury mark on the neck of the deceased and her clothes were blood stained. Motorcycle was lying near the dead body and the key of the motorcycle was in the vehicle itself. It has also been mentioned therein that it appeared that the road was not much used by the travellers as there was smell of latrine which was lying here and there. It has also been mentioned that the link road was not visible from the main road as there were trees and plants in between the main road and the link road. 17. Thus, in the present case, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are that the appellant had taken the deceased with him on his motorcycle from her parental home for his village. However, on the way, dead body of Arti was found with an injury on her neck. Since the deceased Arti had left with the appellant on his motorcycle, it was for the appellant to have explained as to how his wife had died an unnatural death. However, on the way, dead body of Arti was found with an injury on her neck. Since the deceased Arti had left with the appellant on his motorcycle, it was for the appellant to have explained as to how his wife had died an unnatural death. In order to explain the said fact, appellant had taken the plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they had been attacked by three persons and they had taken away his purse and had tried to snatch the ornaments of his wife. While doing so, the assailants had inflicted injury to his wife. However, perusal of the photographs Exhibit P-21 to Exhibit P-25 reveal that the deceased is wearing earrings and a mangalsutra in her neck. She is also wearing bangles in her both hands and is wearing silver anklets. She is also wearing a nose pin. From the photographs it cannot be inferred that any effort had been made by the alleged assailants to remove her ornaments. Thus, the plea of the appellant that the murder had been committed by some assailants with a view to take away the ornaments worn by his wife is without any force and was rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court. 18. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant but the same fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. In the present case, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution lead to the irresistible conclusion that the murder of Arti @ Padma had been committed by the appellant. The circumstances proved on record are consistent with the guilt of the accused and negate the possibility of someone else having committed the crime. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court had, thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the charge framed against him. 20. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.