JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.24/2012:- Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 2 months' Additional S.I. 309 IPC 1 Year’s S.I. -- - 3/25 (I-B)(A) Arms Act 1 Year’s SI Rs.2000/- 1 Month’s Additional S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. He has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the said judgment. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- 4. Prem Chand (PW.1) (hereinafter referred to as the informant) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO PS Sri Vijaynagar District Sri Ganganagar on 09.04.2012 at 03:15 PM alleging inter alia that he was a resident of Village 4 B.L.D. and was working as a house-cleaner in the Shivpuri Garh (castle of erstwhile ruling family). Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore who had been elected as the Chairperson of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Vijaynagar was staying at the Garh with his wife Smt. Annu Kanwar and Rani Sahiba. Shri Rajendra Singh indulged into excessive consumption of liquor after winning the election of Chairperson and thus, he had been admitted to a de-addiction centre at Sri Ganganagar. In the morning, the informant reached the Garh for his routine cleaning duties whereupon he saw Rajendra Singh and his wife sitting under a tree outside the Garh. They were quarreling over keys of the car. The informant cleaned the ground floor and went upstairs. Rani Sahiba went to the nearby school. Rajendra Singh’s parents were staying on the upper floor of the Garh. At about 12:45 PM, he heard a gunshot on which he rushed down and saw Annu Kanwar lying on the ground imbrued in blood. Rajendra Singh was standing nearby and went back to his room on seeing the informant. He approached Rani Sahiba at the school and told her and Tejpal Guruji that Rajendra Singh had shot his wife Smt. Annu Kanwar who was lying down in the hall. Tejpal made a call to the police station. A police vehicle came and took Smt. Annu Kanwar to the hospital in an injured condition where, she expired while undergoing treatment. 5. Tejpal made a call to the police station. A police vehicle came and took Smt. Annu Kanwar to the hospital in an injured condition where, she expired while undergoing treatment. 5. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.98/2012 came to be registered at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 6. It may be stated that prior to registration of the above FIR, the Incharge SHO Sri Vijaynagar Sawai Singh (PW.15) who received the call of Tejpal master at around 01:05 PM had reached the Garh where, he saw Smt. Annu Kanwar lying down in an injured condition. Her guts were spilling out and blood was smeared all around. He got some photographs taken. Annu Kanwar though seemingly alive was not speaking. Shri Sawai Singh immediately took her to the hospital and got her admitted. He then, collected a police team and came back to Shivpuri Garh where he heard sound of glass breaking from the upper floor. He proceeded to the upper storey of the building where he saw that Rajendra Singh was trying to break the windowpanes and his hands and clothes were stained in blood. Rajendra Singh confessed before the police officials that he had made a mistake and that he would commit suicide. Rajendra Singh was overpowered and was taken to the hospital. Annu Kanwar succumbed to her injury. Prem Chand thereafter submitted the written report (Ex.P/1) whereupon FIR No.98/2012 came to be registered at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. Initial investigation was undertaken by Shri Sawai Singh, Incharge SHO. Naresh Kumar (PW.23) SHO, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar returned to the police station in the late hours of the day and further investigation was undertaken by him. Shri Naresh Kumar interrogated the accused Rajendra Singh in custody and in furtherance of the informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, got recovered the incriminating articles. 7. The broken 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of Rajendra Singh was sent to the FSL for ballistic examination. However, the FSL authorities returned the gun with a remark that the cartridge stuck in the chamber should be got unloaded through the armourer. 8. 7. The broken 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of Rajendra Singh was sent to the FSL for ballistic examination. However, the FSL authorities returned the gun with a remark that the cartridge stuck in the chamber should be got unloaded through the armourer. 8. Accordingly, the two cartridges stuck in the chamber of the gun were got unloaded with the assistance of the armourer and thereafter, the weapon, cartridges and other incriminating articles were again forwarded to the FSL from where a report (Ex.P/98) was received. The IO concluded the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 309 IPC. However, the matter was kept pending regarding the offences under the Arms Act for receiving sanction, which was procured and then, a supplementary chargesheet was filed for the offences punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Since the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed and then transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Sri Ganganagar where, charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 309 IPC and Section 3/25 (1-B)(A) of the Arms Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 103 documents to prove its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence which he denied and claimed to be innocent. He took a pertinent plea in defence that the deceased was distressed and disturbed because she was not able to conceive. She was also unhappy and dissatisfied in living at Sri Vijaynagar being a very small place. He assured the deceased that she would conceive in due course of time. However, she could not reconcile with the circumstances and committed suicide. He was not present at the time of the incident, and when he came to know that his wife had committed suicide, he returned home. However, before he had reached, his wife had been taken to the hospital. He became perturbed and in this process, he hit the window-glass with his hands and got injured. He claimed to be completely innocent stating that he and his wife were deeply in love with each other. However, before he had reached, his wife had been taken to the hospital. He became perturbed and in this process, he hit the window-glass with his hands and got injured. He claimed to be completely innocent stating that he and his wife were deeply in love with each other. Five documents were exhibited but no oral evidence was led in defence. 9. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellant as above by judgment dated 26.07.2018 which is assailed in this appeal. 10. Shri J.S. Choudhary, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to bring home the charges against the appellant. The star prosecution witness, the first informant Prem Chand did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile and thus, there is no witness to prove that the accused appellant fired the gunshot at his wife, the deceased. The prosecution could not lead any evidence to prove that the appellant was present in the house at the time of the incident and thus, the conclusions drawn by the trial court against the accused by raising the reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act are totally illegal and unjustified. The police inspected the entire house on 09.04.2012 and site inspection memo/map (Ex.P/9 & Ex.P/10) were prepared on the same day. However, at that point of time, no recovery of any weapons etc. was shown to have been effected. The accused was shown arrested on 10.04.2012 and fake informations were shown to have been recorded at his instance on 13.04.2012 and the recoveries were planted upon the accused whereas, all the articles including weapons etc. had already been recovered on 09.04.2012 itself. Despite the incident having taken place in a thickly populated area of Vijaynagar, only two police officers PW.4 Manguram and PW.5 Resham Singh and some stock panch witnesses were associated in the process of recoveries and no effort was made to involve independent witnesses and hence also, the process of recoveries is tainted. had already been recovered on 09.04.2012 itself. Despite the incident having taken place in a thickly populated area of Vijaynagar, only two police officers PW.4 Manguram and PW.5 Resham Singh and some stock panch witnesses were associated in the process of recoveries and no effort was made to involve independent witnesses and hence also, the process of recoveries is tainted. Except for the blood group on the shirt of the accused, no other article recovered from or at the instance of the accused gave positive test for blood group identical to that of the deceased. On the sole basis of presence of matching blood group on an isolated piece of clothing, inference of guilt could not be drawn against the accused. The prosecution did not lead proper link evidence to establish safekeeping of the gun recovered at the instance of the accused and hence, the ballistic expert’s report Ex.P/98 is of no value whatsoever. Shri Choudhary further urged that the appellant had no motive whatsoever to kill his wife. The parents and brother of Smt. Annu, admitted in their evidence that Annu was not able to conceive despite seven years of the marriage and hence, she was perturbed. Shri Choudhary fervently contended that Smt. Annu Kanwar committed suicide and the charge of murder attributed to the appellant is totally false and remained unsubstantiated. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the charge. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. They urged that the prosecution has proved the motive attributed to the appellant for the murder. The witnesses being close relatives of the deceased gave clear evidence to the effect that the accused was maltreating the deceased on account of demand of money. The deceased called her father just before the incident and conveyed to him that the accused was pressurizing her for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and was threatening to kill her in case the money was not paid. Since, this demand was not satisfied, the accused who was heavily intoxicated, murdered Smt. Annu by firing his 12- bore gun. The deceased called her father just before the incident and conveyed to him that the accused was pressurizing her for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and was threatening to kill her in case the money was not paid. Since, this demand was not satisfied, the accused who was heavily intoxicated, murdered Smt. Annu by firing his 12- bore gun. Thereafter, he went to the upper storey room and tried to hurt himself in an endeavour to show that he was deeply perturbed on account of the fate which had befallen his wife. However, this futile attempt of the accused is of no consequence because the clothes worn by him at the time of incident were found stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased. The accused claimed that he was not in the house when the incident took place. This defence taken by the accused is falsified because the accused failed to offer any explanation for presence of same blood group as that of the deceased on his own clothes. The first informant Prem Chand was an employee in the fort and thus, he was pressurized not to give evidence against his employer and hence, he turned hostile. However, when the witness was confronted by the learned Public Prosecutor after being declared hostile, he made significant admissions establishing the incriminating circumstances giving strong indications pointing to the guilt of the accused. He further urged that the 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of the accused and empties found in the barrel thereof were tested at the FSL and a clear opinion was given that the firing pin impression found on the fired cartridge matched with the firing pin of the weapon and hence, it is well and truly established that the accused fired the fatal gun shot on his wife Smt. Annu Kanwar thereby killing her. The prosecution has led unimpeachable direct and circumstantial evidence to bring home guilt of the accused and that the impugned judgment is based on apropos appreciation of evidence. On these submissions, they craved dismissal of the appeal. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned Judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 13. On these submissions, they craved dismissal of the appeal. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned Judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 13. At the outset, it may be stated here that the sole eyewitness, the first informant Shri Prem Chand (PW.1) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Shri Prem Chand lodged the written report (Ex.P/1) wherein he alleged that he was employed to do cleaning activities in the Garh where, Rajendra Singh, Annu Kanwar and Madhuri Singh, owner of the Garh used to reside. He was on duty on the day of occurrence i.e., on 09.04.2012. He heard the sound of a gunshot and rushed to the hall at the ground floor and saw Smt. Annu Kanwar lying in a pool of blood. Rajendra Singh was standing nearby. However, when the witness was examined on oath, he disowned his own FIR and stated that Rajendra Singh was not present in the Garh at the time of the incident. He did not hear the sound of the gushot. However, he heard a noise on which, he came down and saw that Annu Kanwar was lying down calmly and blood was oozing out from her abdomen. He went to the school where Tejpal Singh and Madhuri Singh were sitting and he told them of the incident. He denied having submitted report (Ex.P/1) to the police and claimed that he was forced to sign the report. The Public Prosecutor, declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him whereupon the witness admitted that he was employed by Rani Madhuri Singh who used to pay salary to him. He was expecting next salary on Deepawali. There are two rooms each on the ground floor and on the first floor of Shivpuri Garh. Rajendra Singh used to reside with his wife in the room on the ground floor whereas, Madhuri Singh resided in the room on the first floor. One of the rooms was kept reserved for guests. The parents of Rajendra Singh was not present in the Garh on the day of the incident. He feigned ignorance as to whether Rajendra Singh was in a habit of consuming liquor or whether he was made to attend the de-addiction camp at Ganganagar. One of the rooms was kept reserved for guests. The parents of Rajendra Singh was not present in the Garh on the day of the incident. He feigned ignorance as to whether Rajendra Singh was in a habit of consuming liquor or whether he was made to attend the de-addiction camp at Ganganagar. He admitted his signatures on the written report (Ex.P/1) but denied that the report bore his signatures. Upon being confronted with the police statement (Ex.P/11), the witness denied to have given such statement to the police. He admitted that police came to the spot and took Annu Kanwar to hospital. He could not say as to whether Rajendra Singh came near Annu Kanwar after the incident. He denied all other suggestions given to him by learned Public Prosecutor. The reason for Shri Prem Chand resiling from the FIR and the original version is apparent. He was a lowly paid employee doing cleaning activities at the Garh and Rajendra Singh’s adoptive mother Madhuri Singh was his employer. Apparently thus, the witness could not be expected to muster the courage to give evidence against his employer’s son. Be that as it may. Since the witness has denied having any knowledge about the incident, except the fact that Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar used to reside together in the Garh, the remaining part of his testimony is of no avail to the prosecution. 14. PW.2 Tejpal Singh was working as a Director in Azadshatru Singh Memorial School being operated by Smt. Madhuri Singh. This witness only supported the prosecution case to the extent that he and Madhuri Singh were sitting together in the school on 09.04.2012. At about 01:30 pm, Prem Chand came running to the school and blurted out that Annu Kanwar was lying injured in the hall. Madhuri Singh asked him to call the police and he did the needful. He denied having gone to the spot when the police came. Thus, the evidence of this witness is also not of much consequence to the prosecution case. 15. PW.3 Rajaram was another employee working in the Shivpuri Garh. He resiled from his earlier version as stated to the Investigating Officer and was declared hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor, confronted him with his previous statement (Ex.P/20) but the witness denied all the suggestions given by the prosecutor. 15. PW.3 Rajaram was another employee working in the Shivpuri Garh. He resiled from his earlier version as stated to the Investigating Officer and was declared hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor, confronted him with his previous statement (Ex.P/20) but the witness denied all the suggestions given by the prosecutor. However, one important fact which the witness admitted is that no unknown person came inside the Shivpuri Garh on the day of the incident. 16. PW.4 Manguram was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at the Police Station Sri Vijanynagar. He stated that the SHO Shri Naresh Kumar along with him and officials of the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar proceeded to Shivpuri Garh in furtherance of an information provided by the accused Rajendra Singh who led the police team to his residential room, opened the box of a double bed lying therein, took out a pair of blood stained trousers, a blood stained shirt and a pair of shoes kept therein and handed the same over to the SHO. These articles were sealed at the spot. Rajendra Singh then took out a key from underneath the mattress of the double-bed with which, he opened an almirah and presented a double barrel gun which was broken in three pieces to the SHO. The SHO seized and sealed the gun at the spot. He also stated that the accused took out two firearms from the almirah, one was of 450-bore and the other was a broken 12-bore gun wherein two empty cartridges were stuck. The key provided by Rajendra Singh was also seized and seizure memos were prepared. The SHO also prepared the site inspection plan. The significant part of cross-examination which was undertaken from the witness pertained to the non-association of independent witnesses in the recovery proceedings. The witness denied the suggestion that all the recoveries were fabricated or that the memos had been prepared at the police station. 17. PW.5 Resham Singh was a Constable at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He too was associated in the same proceedings as Manguram (PW.4) and his statement is also on the same lines. 18. PW.6 Bhiluram gave formal evidence regarding presentation of compact discs containing recording of the marriage ceremonies of Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar. 19. PW.7 Sudhir Kumar was also a formal witness, not directly connected with the events which took place at the Garh. 18. PW.6 Bhiluram gave formal evidence regarding presentation of compact discs containing recording of the marriage ceremonies of Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar. 19. PW.7 Sudhir Kumar was also a formal witness, not directly connected with the events which took place at the Garh. The witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In cross-examination, the witness supported the defence theory and stated that Annu Kanwar had come to stay with Rajendra Singh at Sri Vijaynagar six months before the incident. However, she was not happy at Vijaynagar it being a very small place. She was also depressed on account of not being able to conceive. 20. PW.8 Jaswant Singh was also declared hostile. He also supported the defence theory regarding Annu Kanwar being depressed. He also stated that there was a rumour going on that Annu Kanwar had committed suicide because she was under depression. 21. PW.9 Surendra Singh is Annu Kanwar’s relative. He stated that Annu Kanwar was married to Rajendra Singh at Pilani on 30.06.2005. Significant dowry was given in the marriage. About ten days after the marriage, Madhuri Singh sent her clerk with a demand for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and that Annu Kanwar’s father Shri Sawai Singh gave this amount to Madhuri Singh in presence of the witness. Whenever, Annu Kanwar came to Pilani, she would complain that Madhuri Singh and her husband Rajendra Singh were harassing and humiliating her and were pressurizing her to bring money. She was being maligned/insulted with the insinuation that her father was a beggar. Annu Kanwar was turned out of the matrimonial home. Rajendra Singh contested and won the election of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Vijaynagar whereafter a Sarpanch and two-three other persons came to Pilani and assured that Annu Kanwar would not be harassed again and with this assurance, she was taken back to Sri Vijaynagar. 22. Prolonged cross-examination was undertaken from this witness but he could not be shaken from what he stated in his examination-in-chief. What can be inferred from the statement of this witness is that accused Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh were having a greed for money and the deceased would often be maligned and pressurized to bring money and valuables from her father. What can be inferred from the statement of this witness is that accused Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh were having a greed for money and the deceased would often be maligned and pressurized to bring money and valuables from her father. As a culmination of this cruel behaviour, Smt. Annu Kanwar was turned out of the matrimonial home but after Rajendra Singh won the election, he seems to have decided to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home so as to maintain the impression of a good human being in the society. 23. Shri Sawai Singh (PW.10) being the father of Smt. Annu Kanwar gave evidence to the effect that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Rajendra Singh at Pilani on 30.06.2005. Significant dowry was given at the time of the marriage. Rajendra Singh was the adoptee son of Smt. Madhuri Singh. Right after the marriage, the demands of money started coming from the side of Shri Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh. Annu Kanwar returned home after a few days of the marriage and complained about the bad conduct of Madhuri Singh and Rajendra Singh and also told that she was being harassed and humiliated for demand of money. The witness called Madhuri Singh and Rajendra Singh and requested them not to harass Annu Kanwar. He once went to Shivpuri Garh and gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Madhuri Singh and assured that he would keep on sending more money as per his capacity. However, Madhuri Singh insulted him saying that they were in habit of donating such small amounts amongst poor persons. Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh abused and insulted him and he was disgraced and sent out of the Garh. Rajendra Singh pointed a gun towards him on which, the witness became frightened and took Annu Kanwar with himself and brought her back to Pilani. She was sent to Indore for doing fashion designing course. No one from the matrimonial home ever tried to take stock of Annu Kanwar for a period of two years. Thereafter, Shri Rajendra Singh came to his village with some leaders from Shivpuri and assured that Annu Kanwar would not be maltreated in future. On this assurance, he sent Annu Kanwar back to Shivpuri Garh with some money but just a week later, the ill-treatment resumed. Thereafter, Shri Rajendra Singh came to his village with some leaders from Shivpuri and assured that Annu Kanwar would not be maltreated in future. On this assurance, he sent Annu Kanwar back to Shivpuri Garh with some money but just a week later, the ill-treatment resumed. Annu Kanwar called him and told that the family was indulged in dabauchary and Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh would sit together and consume liquor. On 09.04.2012, Annu Kanwar called him. She was crying and was requesting that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- should be provided or else she would be killed. The witness agreed that he would come with money but before he could make arrangement for the amount, he received a call from the police at about 3 O’ clock that his daughter had been fired upon and killed by Rajendra Singh inside the Shivpuri Garh. He and his family members proceeded for Shivpuri Garh. They straight away went to the Vijaynagar hospital where the dead body of Annu Kanwar was lying. In cross-examination, the witness was grilled regarding the statement that Annu Kanwar called him and made a complaint regarding accused demanding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her. The witness stuck to the story but could not recollect the mobile numbers. He explained that Annu Kanwar always used to call on his son’s mobile number and that he himself did not use a mobile. The witness stuck to the story but could not recollect the mobile numbers. He explained that Annu Kanwar always used to call on his son’s mobile number and that he himself did not use a mobile. The witness admitted that the following parts of his examination-in-chief were improvements from his police statement (Ex.D/2): ^^eSus esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr crkbZ Fkh fd ^^fQj grk nl fnu ds ckn vUuq daoj gekjs ikl ?kj vkbZ Fkh mlus crk;k fd jktsUæflag o ek/kqjhflag dk pky pyu vPNk ugha gS ;s yksx v;;k'k fdLe ds gS vUuq us eq>s crk;k fd ek/kqjhflag o jktsUæflag eq>s rax ijs'kku djrs gS** mDr ckr Án'kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s ugha irkA eSaus esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr crk nh Fkh fd ^^os dgrs gS fd gekjk ifjokj jkt?kjkus dk gS mlds fglkc ls 'kknh ugha dh rFkk u gh jkt?kjkus ds fglkc ls lkeku fn;k gS bl ckr ls jktsUæflag o ek/kqjhflag rax ijs'kku djrs gS ;g ckr eq>s vUuq daoj us crkbZ Fkh** mDr ckr Án'kZ Mh&2 esa dSls ugha fy[kh eq>s ugha irkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eq>s vUuq daoj us ,slh dksbZ ckr u crkbZ gksA eSaus esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr fy[kokbZ Fkh fd ^^tc Hkh vUuq daoj fiykuh vkrh Fkh rc eq>s mDr ckrsa crkrh Fkh rc mldks dqN iSlk nsdj o migkj nsdj Hkst nsrs vkSj Qksu ij jktsUæflag o ek/kqjhflag dks le>krs Fks fd vUuq daoj dks rax ijs'kku er djks vUuq daoj dk Qksu vkrk Fkk vkSj og crkrh Fkh fd eq>s rax ijs'kku djrs gS o ekjihV djrs gS rFkk iSlksa dh ekax djrs gS eSa f'koiqjhxढ fot;uxj esa iSlk ysdj vk;k vkSj 50 gtkj :i;k ek/kqjhflag ds lkFk esa fn, mudks le>k;k fd vUuq daoj dks ijs'kku er djks eSa viuh gSfl;r vuqlkj iSlk nsrk jgwaxk ek/kqjhflag us dgk fd ;g iSlk rks dqN Hkh ugha gS brus iSls rks ge xjhcksa esa ckaV nsrs gS vkSj mlh oDr jktsUæflag o ek/kqjhflag xqLlk gks x, rFkk ek/kqjhflag o jktsUæflag us eq>s xkyh xykSp fd;k** mDr ckr Án'kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh eq>s ugha irkA eSa 'kknh ds nks rhu eghus ckn esa ipkl gtkj :i, ysdj x;k FkkA ipkl gtkj :i, 'kknh ds 2&3 eghus ckn ysdj tkus okyh ckr eSaus iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa blh Øe esa fy[kokbZ Fkh fd ^^vkSj esjs lkeus esjh yM+dh vUuq daoj ds lkFk ekjihV dh vkSj eq>s /kDdk nsdj ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k vkSj jktsUæflag canwd ysdj [kM+k gks x;k vkSj dgus yxk fd vki viuh yM+dh dks ys tkvks vxj ugha ys tkvksaxs rks vkidh yM+dh dks tku ls ekj nsaxs rFkk esjs mij jktsUæflag us canwd rku nh eSa ?kcjk x;k vkSj eSa esjh yM+dh dks ysdj fiykuh vk x;k** mDr ckr Án'kZ Mh&2 esa dSls ugha fy[kh eSa ugha ckr ldrkA esjs /;ku esa ugha fd mDr ?kVuk dh ckr eSaus iqfyl dks crkbZ ;k ughaA fQj dgk fd bl ?kVuk ckcr eSaus ml oDr iqfyl dks ugha crk;kA vkSj u gh bl ckcr dksbZ eqdnek ntZ djok;kA 'kknh ds ckn esjh yM+dh ds dksbZ cPpk iSnk ugha gqvkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eq>s ek/kqjhflag us Qksu ij crk;k Fkk fd vki ukuk cuus okys gS ftl ij eSa esjh cPph vUuq daoj ds llqjky f'koiqjhxढ esa vk;kA ;g ckr lu~ 2007 dh gSA eq>s ek/kqjhflag us ugha dgk Fkk fd cPph esa dkcfy;r gS mls dkslZ djok nksA esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 dk fgLlk , ls ch ^^vkSj eSaus-----------djok nks** lquk] mDr c;ku eSaus iqfyl dks ugha fn,A ;g lgh gS fd 2007 esa eSus esjh yM+dh dks fot;uxj ls lruk ysdj vk;k vkSj fQj bankSj Hkst fn;k vkSj fQj og bankSj esa QS'ku fMtkbZfuax dks dkslZ djus esa yx xbZA esjh yM+dh vUuq daoj 2011 rd bankSj esa dkslZ djrh jghA ebZ 2011 esa esjh yM+dh us dkslZ iwjk dj fy;kA esjh jktsUæflag ls dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZ vkSj u gh eSus jktsUæ dks crk;k fd vUuq us dkslZ iwjk dj fy;k gSA vUuq daoj ls ckr gksrh jgrh gks rks eq>s irk ughaA eSus esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr crk nh Fkh fd ^^ogka ij cPph dkslZ dj jgh Fkh bu yksxksa us cPph dh dksbZ [kcj ugha yh o u gh dksbZ ckrphr dhA cPph nks lky rd ogka ij jgh** mDr ckr Án'kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh eS ugha crk ldrkA eSaus esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa ;g Hkh crk fn;k Fkk fd ^^iSlk nsdj yM+dh dks f'koiqjhxढ Hkst fn;k ,d grs ckn esa budk O;ogkj fQj oSlk gks x;k eq>s vUuq daoj us Qksu ij crk;k fd budk O;ogkj fQj igys tSlk gks x;k gS ;g ckr eq>s vUuq daoj us Qksu ij crkbZ vUuq daoj us crk;k fd ;g yksx v;;k'k fdLe ds gS] nk: ihrs gS jktsUæflag o ek/kqjhflag lkFk esa 'kjkc ihrs gS vkSj crk;k fd esjs lkFk ekjihV djrs gS chp&chp esa ;s yksx iSlk ekaxrs o esjh yM+dk vUuq daoj ds ,dkmaV esa iSlk Myokrk Fkk** mDr ckr Án'kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s ugha irkA eSusa esjs iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa ;g Hkh crk fn;k Fkk fd ^^fnukad 09-04-2012 dks yxHkx 12 cts esjs ikl vUuq daoj dks Qksu vk;k fd ikik nks yk[k :i, ysdj vkvks vkSj dgk fd vkt gh vkbZ, esjh cPph Qksu ij jks jgh Fkh yM+dh us ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd iSlk ysdj vkbZ, ugha rks ;s yksx eq>s tku ls ekj nsxsa eS iSlksa dk bartke djds vkus ds fy, rS;kj gks x;k eq>s rhu cts bankSj ls [kcj iqfyl us nh Fkh fd vkidh cPph f'koiqjhxढ esa jktsUæ dqekj us xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh** mDr ckr iqfyl c;ku Án'kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh eSa ugh crk ldrkA** 24. A suggestion was given to the witness that Annu Kanwar was depressed because she was unable to conceive and that she committed suicide for this reason. The witness emphatically denied the suggestion. A suggestion was also given to the witness that Annu Kanwar had stayed in a big town like Indore and thus, she was not comfortable living at a small place like Sri Vijaynagar. The witness denied this suggestion as well. From a threadbare analysis of the statement of Shri Sawai Singh (PW.10), we are duly satisfied that his evidence inspires confidence to the extent, he alleged that Smt. Annu Kanwar was harassed and humiliated by Shri Rajendra Singh for demand of money and that she had been turned out of the matrimonial home after subjecting her to cruelty on this count. 25. PW.11 Jagjot Singh was posted as an Armourer at the Police Line Sri Ganganagar. He gave evidence that on 21.05.2012, Shrawan Kumar, FC, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar brought a sealed packet with the requisition of the SHO. The packet was intact and bore the seal of SHO. When the packet was opened, a 12-bore gun broken in pieces was found therein. Two cartridges were stuck in the chamber of the gun. The witness checked the gun and on joining the broken parts, found it to be serviceable. He took out two stuck cartridges and after testing the weapon and finding it to be serviceable, he re-packed the same and handed it over to FC Shrawan Kumar. He prepared a report on the overleaf of the letter (Ex.P/36) forwarded by the SHO. 26. PW.12 Kamlesh Kumar was a Foot Constable at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He snapped 23 photographs of the place of the incident on the instructions of the SHO. No such fact emerges from the statement of this witness which can have a bearing on the outcome of the case and his evidence is more or less formal in nature. 27. PW.13 Dholaram was posted as Malkhana Incharge at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He gave evidence regarding deposition of the Malkhana articles of this case in the Malkhana and the forwarding thereof to the concerned laboratories through constables of the police station. On thorough appreciation of evidence of the Constable Dholaram, we find that his testimony is unimpeachable and acceptable. 28. He gave evidence regarding deposition of the Malkhana articles of this case in the Malkhana and the forwarding thereof to the concerned laboratories through constables of the police station. On thorough appreciation of evidence of the Constable Dholaram, we find that his testimony is unimpeachable and acceptable. 28. PW.14 Manjeet Chalana was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He gave evidence regarding transmission of some sample packets of this case to the S.P. Office and then, onwards to FSL, Jodhpur. The evidence of this witness is also trustworthy. 29. PW.15 Sawai Singh is the most important witness of prosecution. He was posted as Incharge of the Police Station at the relevant point of time. He testified stating that at 01:15 pm, Tejpal, teacher posted at the Shivpuri School gave a telephonic call regarding sounds of firing being heard from the Shivpuri Garh. The witness, along with Head Constable Bhagat Singh, and Constables Ramkumar, Manjeet, Kamlesh left for the Shivpuri Garh after making an entry in the Roznamcha (Ex.P/69). He and the members of the police team reached the Garh and saw Annu Kanwar W/o Shri Rajendra Singh lying injured in the hall at the ground floor. Her guts were spilling out of the abdomen and blood was spilling all around. He immediately lifted Annu Kanwar and took her to the hospital. The witness then returned to the Garh and heard sounds of glass breaking coming from the upper-floor. He went to the first floor and saw the accused Rajendra Singh in the room. His hands and clothes were stained with blood. He was trying to break the glass windowpanes. The witness asked Shri Rajendra Singh as to why he was doing so on which, Rajendra Singh blurted out that he had made a mistake and would commit suicide. He was overpowered and then admitted to the Government Hospital. In the meantime, Annu Kanwar passed away. Prem Chand (PW.1), employee of the Garh gave the written report (Ex.P/1) to the witness on which, he marked an endorsement and forwarded the same to the Police Station with Ramkumar, FC for registration of FIR. The witness undertook following steps of investigation:- (1) Taking photographs of the injured Annu Kanwar (2) Preparation of site-inspection plan (Ex.P/9) (3) Recovery of cartridge (Ex.P/2), hairclip and cap (Ex.P/5), bottle, glass, steel tumbler, one plate (Ex.P/7) seized from the place of incident. The witness undertook following steps of investigation:- (1) Taking photographs of the injured Annu Kanwar (2) Preparation of site-inspection plan (Ex.P/9) (3) Recovery of cartridge (Ex.P/2), hairclip and cap (Ex.P/5), bottle, glass, steel tumbler, one plate (Ex.P/7) seized from the place of incident. (4) Getting the photographs of place of incident-ground floor (Ex.P/a), near the banyan tree, etc. (5) Collection of dried blood of Annu Kanwar from place of incident (Ex.P/3) (6) Seizure of a pair of slippers (Ex.P/4) from place of incident. (7) Preparation of seizure memo of scissors (Ex.P/8) from place of incident. (8) Preparation of seizure memo of blood stains (Ex.P/4) from the wall. (9) Preparation of seizure memo of live cartridge (Ex.P/12) from the place of incident. (10) Preparation of site-map plan of upper floor-place of incident. (11) Preparation of seizure memo of 2 phones recovered (Ex.P/13) from the place of incident. (12) Preparation of seizure memo of an iron knife with a plastic handle (Ex.P/17) from the place of incident. (13) Preparation of seizure memo of broken pieces of blood stained glass shards (Ex.P/14) & plain broken glass pieces (Ex.P/16) from the upper floor of the garh. (14) Preparation of seizure memo of revolver (Ex.P/15) from place of incident-upper floor. (15) Recorded statement of the Informant Premchand (Ex.P/11), witness Tejpal (Ex.P/19) & witness Rajaram (Ex.P/20) (16) Getting photographs of the place of incident (Ex.P/37- P/53) 30. The witness effected following seizures from inside the Shivpuri Garh and from the outer areas:- Sr. No. Articles Exhibits 1. 4 empty cartridges Ex.P/2 2. Hair-clip & Cap Ex.P/5 3. Pair of leather woman’s slippers Ex.P/6 4. Collection of dried blood of Annu Kanwar Ex.P/3 5. Collection of dried blood from wall Ex.P/4 6. Empty ‘Royal Stag’ liquor bottle, steel tumbler, plate Ex.P/7 7. 1 Steel scissor with plastic handle Ex.P/8 8. 1 live cartridge Ex.P/12 9. 2 blood covered Nokia mobile phones Ex.P/13 10. Broken blood stained glass shards Ex.P/14 11. 1 dummy revolver Ex.P/15 12. Broken Glass Shards Ex.P/16 13. 1 Knife with plastic handle Ex.P/17 31. He completed the process of investigation at the Shivpuri Garh and proceeded back to the Police Station and marked his return in the Roznamcha Entry No. 306 (Ex.P-78) at 8:30 PM. The SHO Naresh Kumar returned to the Police Station in the evening on which, Shri Sawai Singh handed over the file to him. He completed the process of investigation at the Shivpuri Garh and proceeded back to the Police Station and marked his return in the Roznamcha Entry No. 306 (Ex.P-78) at 8:30 PM. The SHO Naresh Kumar returned to the Police Station in the evening on which, Shri Sawai Singh handed over the file to him. The significant extracts from the cross-examination conducted from the witness are noted hereinbelow:- 32. He and the police team reached Shivpuri Garh at 01:15 in the afternoon. Smt. Madhuri Singh, owner of the Shivpuri Garh was not present and was called from the nearby school. He got Annu Kanwar admitted to the Sri Vijaynagar hospital in an injured condition where doctors started her treatment. He reached the hospital and gave a requisition to the doctor on which, Smt. Annu Kanwar was admitted and he came back to the Garh. When he firstly reached the crime scene, Annu Kanwar was lying in the lower hall in an injured condition and her eyes were blinking. He thought fit to take her photographs and then shifted her to the hospital. While he was lifting the injured from the spot, many people reached there. Prem Chand met him in the hospital. Rajaram came to the Garh later. Pram Chand gave him the report at 3:15 pm. The witness took Prem Chand to the Garh and completed the spot proceedings. He did not prepare any requisition before taking control of Shri Rajendra Singh nor did he prepare any document regarding the observations made by him at that point of time. Shri Rajendra Singh was not made to sign any document pertaining to the words spoken out before the witness. Requisition given to the doctor for admitting Rajendra Singh was not available on the file. He took the accused to the hospital and reached there at about 2:30 PM. He could not state the precise time when he reached the Garh after getting Annu Kanwar admitted in the hospital. He did not make a note in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/78) that he had seen Rajendra Singh breaking windowpanes and that he confessed to have made a mistake and that he would commit suicide. It was also not mentioned in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/78) that he took Rajendra Singh to the hospital and got him admitted. He did not make a note in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/78) that he had seen Rajendra Singh breaking windowpanes and that he confessed to have made a mistake and that he would commit suicide. It was also not mentioned in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/78) that he took Rajendra Singh to the hospital and got him admitted. When he went back to the Garh for the spot proceedings, a little later, the Additional Superintendent of Police, C.O. Shri Ramkishan Songara and Raisinghnagar SHO also reached there. He could not recollect the name of Addl. SP. He stated that Abdul Kayyum, SI had also reached the spot from Ganganagar. However, he did not get the signatures of any of these police officials on the spot documents. He remained in the Garh till 08:15 and then proceeded to the Police Station. Rajaram and Prem Chand were present in the Garh during these proceedings. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not prepare the documents faithfully and that Rajaram and Prem Chand were called to the police station at a later point of time where they were made to attest the spot documents. He stated that Madhuri Singh entered the Garh while Annu Kanwar was lying in an injured condition but she immediately returned and did not come back. The witness did not record any statement of Smt. Madhuri Singh. 33. PW.16. Kistura Ram was posted as ASI at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He received the report (Ex.P/1) forwarded by Sub Inspector Shri Sawai Singh through Shri Ram Kumar, FC and registered the FIR No.98/2012. Thereafter, the FIR was sent to the place of incident. 34. Subsequent investigation was undertaken by Naresh Kumar, SHO who appeared in the witness box as PW.23 and stated that he verified the place of incident. Dead body of Annu Kanwr was got subjected to postmortem through a medical board. The clothes of the deceased and the pellets recovered from the dead body were presented by the medical jurist and were taken into possession. The accused Rajendra Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.P/93. The SHO recorded statements of various witnesses including Sawai Singh (PW.15). Dead body of Annu Kanwr was got subjected to postmortem through a medical board. The clothes of the deceased and the pellets recovered from the dead body were presented by the medical jurist and were taken into possession. The accused Rajendra Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.P/93. The SHO recorded statements of various witnesses including Sawai Singh (PW.15). He gave evidence regarding informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recoveries effected as a consequence thereof which are reproduced hereinbelow in a tabular form for the sake of ready reference:- Name of the Appellant Information Memo Date of Information Details of Information Memo Recovery Memo Date of Recovery Details of Recovery Memo Rajendra Singh Ex. P94 13-04-2012 at 07:00 AM Pertaining to the place where clothes t-shirt) and shoes worn during the time of incident (pant & Ex. P21 13-04- 2012 1 pant, 1 t-shirt and 1 pair of shoes blood covered Ex. P95 13-04-2012 at 07:40 AM Pertaining to the place where he had kept the broken 12 bore gun Ex. P23 13-04- 2012 at 11:50 PM Broken 12 bore gun Ex. P96 13-04-2012 at 09:30 AM Pertaining to the place where he had kept the key to the lock of the almirah Ex. P25 13-04- 2012 at 02:00 PM Key of a Vespa lock 35. The broken 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of Rajendra Singh was forwarded to the FSL in a sealed condition. The Deputy Director, FSL returned the gun to the police station for getting it unloaded through the armourer. The letter was exhibited as Ex.P/36. The witness summoned the armourer Jagjot Singh and utilized his services to take remedial steps as requested by the FSL official. Thereafter, the gun was again sent to the FSL from where reports Ex.P/79, Ex.P/80 & Ex.P/98 were received. The IO filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 309 IPC. Investigation was kept pending for the offences punishable under the Arms Act. In cross-examination, the witness was put questions regarding the condition of the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused and the cartridges etc. The IO withstood stringent cross-examination and stood firm on the aspect of recoveries. He stated that the accused was arrested on the night next to the incident. Vague suggestions were given to the IO regarding the recoveries not being faithful. The IO withstood stringent cross-examination and stood firm on the aspect of recoveries. He stated that the accused was arrested on the night next to the incident. Vague suggestions were given to the IO regarding the recoveries not being faithful. However, the IO refuted the same. From a thorough appreciation of the statement of Shri Naresh Kumar, we are duly satisfied that he has given convincing evidence regarding the steps of investigation viz. arrest of accused, informations provided by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the incriminating recoveries effected in pursuance thereof, forwarding of the muddamal articles to the FSL in a sealed condition and his testimony is beyond reproach. 36. PW.24 Shri Jagdish Charaya gave evidence regarding issuance of permission to launch prosecution against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 37. PW.11 Jagjot Singh was the armourer posted at the Police Line Sri Ganganagar. The sealed packet of the broken 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of the accused was presented to the witness. He stated that he opened the packet which was in a sealed condition. A 12-bore double barrel gun broken in pieces i.e. barrel, butt and GHF was found in the packet. Two empty cartridges were present in the chamber of the gun which were taken out. The gun was in a working condition and was capable of firing. After inspection and removal of empties, the weapon was repacked in the same cloth bag and was sealed and the packet was handed over to Shri Shrawan Kumar, FC, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. 38. Two family members of the deceased namely Shri Sawai Singh, father (PW.10) and Shri Nitin, brother (PW.17) gave evidence regarding the marital disclord existing inter se between the appellant herein and his wife the deceased Smt. Annu Kanwar. These witnesses emphatically stated that that marriage of Annu Kanwar was solemnized with Shri Rajendra Singh on 30.06.2005. Significant dowry to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- was given in the marriage. A week after the marriage, Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh called and demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of travelling expenses because the spouses were to go on a tour. Significant dowry to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- was given in the marriage. A week after the marriage, Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh called and demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of travelling expenses because the spouses were to go on a tour. Few days later, Annu Kanwar came back to the parental home and complained that Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh were not good people and they were leading a wayward life. She was harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home imputing that the accused Rajendra Singh belonged to a royal family and that dowry which was given in the marriage was not upto the mark. Shri Sawai Singh (PW.10) called Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh and requested them to not to harass Annu Kanwar. However, the maltreatment continued. Being fed up with the reports regarding continuous maltreatment of Annu Kanwar, the informant went to Shivpuri Garh where Rajendra Singh pointed a gun at him. On this, Shri Sawai Singh brought his daughter back to the parental home and then, sent her to Indore for pursuing fashion designing course. She stayed there for about two years. 5-6 months before the incident, Rajendra Singh accompanied with some community leaders from Vijaynagar came to the house of the complainant and assured that henceforth, Annu Kanwar would not be harassed. On this, he sent his daughter to Vijaynagar with some money. Just after a week, Annu Kanwar, again called and complained that she was being maltreated. She stated that Shri Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh would consume drinks together and demanded money from her. On 09.04.2011, at about 12 O’ clock, Annu Kanwar called him and she was crying on phone and was pleading that he should make arrangement of Rs.2,00,000/- else she would be killed. Shri Sawai Singh made arrangement of the amount and was about to proceed to Vijaynagar when he received an information that Annu Kanwar had been shot by Shri Rajendra Singh in the Shivpuri Garh. Extensive cross-examination was conducted from both the witnesses. They were confronted with their previous police statements. Main thrust of the cross-examination conducted from the witnesses was that Annu Kanwar was not able to conceive and that is why, she was frustrated and that she was not happily living in a small town like Vijaynagar and that is why, she committed suicide by shooting herself. They were confronted with their previous police statements. Main thrust of the cross-examination conducted from the witnesses was that Annu Kanwar was not able to conceive and that is why, she was frustrated and that she was not happily living in a small town like Vijaynagar and that is why, she committed suicide by shooting herself. We are duly satisfied that the deposition of these witnesses to the extent, they alleged that the accused used to indulge in harassing and humiliating the deceased with demand of money and valuables is absolutely convincing. There is a distinct allegation of these witnesses that Smt. Annu Kanwar was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of this ill-behaviour and that Rajendra Singh was compelled to bring back his wife to present a clean image before the society after winning the election on the post of Chairperson, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Vijaynagar. 39. After thorough appreciation of the evidence available on record, we are of the view that prosecution has proved the following facts and circumstances beyond all manner of doubt:- 1. That Smt. Annu Kanwar was maltreated by the appellant on account of demand of dowry. 2. That marital discord also cropped up between Shri Rajendra Singh and Smt. Annu Kanwar owing to the wayward lifestyle of Rajendra Singh and Smt. Madhuri Singh. 3. That Annu Kanwar got fed up of these adverse circumstances and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and pursued the fashion designing course at Indore, Madhya Pradesh for two years. A few months before the incident, Rajendra Singh won the election on the post of Chairperson, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Vijaynagar and in order to present a clean image in the society, assured that Annu Kanwar would not be maltreated in future and brought her back to Vijaynagar. 4. Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar were present in the Shivpuri Garh on the date of the incident. His parents were present on the top floor of the house. Some time before the incident of gun firing, Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar were seen sitting together in the open area outside the Garh where Rajendra Singh was consuming liquor. This fact is corroborated by recovery of glasses and liquor bottles around the sitting arrangement underneath the tree in the grounds of the Garh. 5. Some time before the incident of gun firing, Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar were seen sitting together in the open area outside the Garh where Rajendra Singh was consuming liquor. This fact is corroborated by recovery of glasses and liquor bottles around the sitting arrangement underneath the tree in the grounds of the Garh. 5. That gunshots were heard from the Garh on which, Prem Chand (P.W.1) rushed there. Though, Prem Chand did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile but he admitted the fact that when he reached near Annu Kanwar after hearing the sound of explosion, she was lying on the floor and was bleeding from her abdomen. The witness being an employee of the Garh, was won over by the accused. He admitted having signed all the documents from Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/10, but denied the contents thereof. However, Prem Chand did not state that he saw any firearm lying near Annu Kanwar. 6. Shri Sawai Singh (P.W.15) ASI reached the Garh soon after the incident. At that time, Annu Kanwar was lying injured in the lower hall of the Garh. The witness immediately took her to the hospital and came back. When he returned, he heard noise of glass breaking on which, he went on the first floor and saw the accused damaging the windowpanes. The confession made by the accused before Shri Sawai Singh is not admissible in the evidence as being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act but the presence of the accused in the Garh soon after the incident and his conduct in trying to hurt himself is a relevant fact under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused was arrested on 10.04.2012. He gave voluntary informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the SHO Naresh Kumar (P.W.23) leading to the recovery of a broken double barrel gun. Two empty cartridges were found in the barrel of the gun. The empties bore a matching firing pin impression connecting them with the weapon. The accused took up totally a flimsy plea that Smt. Annu Kanwar committed suicide because she was frustrated on account of not being able to conceive and she was unhappy in the small town like Sri Vijaynagar. 7. The empties bore a matching firing pin impression connecting them with the weapon. The accused took up totally a flimsy plea that Smt. Annu Kanwar committed suicide because she was frustrated on account of not being able to conceive and she was unhappy in the small town like Sri Vijaynagar. 7. The witnesses Sawai Singh and Nitin Singh have given conclusive evidence establishing that Smt. Annu Kanwar was being maltreated in the matrimonial home and that she had been brought back by Rajendra Singh after winning the elections on the post of Chairperson, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaynagar so that he could present a clean image in the society. The accused failed to offer any explanation as to how he came into possession of the 12-Bore Firearm from which, shots had been fired and empties were lying in the chamber thereof. The pellets which were recovered from the body of Smt. Annu Kanwar were of 12 Bore cartridges as per the FSL report (Ex.P/98). 40. In view of these material incriminating facts and circumstances, the burden shifted on to the accused by virtue under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain as to how his wife received fatal gunshot injury on her abdomen while he was present in the home. If at all, the defence theory regarding Smt. Annu Kanwar having attempted suicide was correct, then in natural course of events, Rajendra Singh should have taken immediate steps to take his wife to the hospital because she was still alive even when Sawai Singh (P.W.15) reached the Shivpuri Garh. However, the accused made no such attempt and instead was seen on the first floor of the Garh creating a sharade as if he was grieving because his wife had committed suicide even though she was alive till then. The accused emphatically claimed in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was not present in the house. If that was so, he could not have any idea as to the attempted suicide by his wife and thus, there was no reason as to why he was trying to break the windowpanes. No attempt was made by the accused to find out about the condition of his wife. He did not go to the hospital where Smt. Annu Kanwar was taken in an injured condition. These circumstances point towards the guilty mental state of the accused. No attempt was made by the accused to find out about the condition of his wife. He did not go to the hospital where Smt. Annu Kanwar was taken in an injured condition. These circumstances point towards the guilty mental state of the accused. A perusal of the postmortem report (Ex.P/84) of the deceased would also indicate that a ligature mark was found present on her neck. In this background, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court that as a matter of fact, Smt. Annu Kanwar was murdered and that too by someone close in the family is reinforced. Apparently, there was no access of anyone other than the accused appellant inside the Garh and as, a clear attempt was made to first strangulate Smt. Annu Kanwar and thereafter, she was shot dead from a point blank range, the entire story putforth by the accused that his wife committed suicide is nothing but a bunch of lies. He did not utter a single word that he made any attempt to save his wife. In this background, presence of ‘AB’ group blood on the t-shirt of the accused which was recovered during investigation and the blouse of the deceased, clearly establishes the fact that it was accused and no one else who shot his wife Smt. Annu Kanwar inside the Garh and also tried to stangulate her. Failure of the accused to offer any explanation regarding presence of the same group blood as that of the deceased on his clothes and the attending circumstances which we have discussed above prove that the circumstantial evidence available on record conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with his innocence or the involvement of anyone else for the murder of Smt. Annu Kanwar. 41. 41. The learned trial court appreciated evidence available on record and drew the following conclusions for recording the guilt of the accused appellant: ^^41- bl Ádj.k esa e`rdk vUuq daoj dks vfHk;qDr jktsUæflag }kjk xksyh ekjs tkus dh dksbZ lh/kh lk{; ugha gS] ijUrq ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; dk voyksdu djsa rks ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ?kVuk ds ckn tc ihŒMhŒ&15 lokbZflag f'koiqjhxढ igqapk] e`rdk vUuq daoj dh lkals py jgh Fkh ,oa mldks vLirky HkrhZ djokus ds ckn tc lokbZflag okil f'koiqjhxढ vk;k rks Åij ds 'kh'ks VwVus dh vkokt vkus ij tc Åij igqapk rks vfHk;qDr jktsUæflag ekStwn feyk] mlds gkFkksa o diM+ksa ij [kwu yxk gqvk Fkk o og f[kM+fd;ksa ds 'kh'ks rksM+ jgk FkkA ;fn vfHk;qDr dh e`rdk ds Áfr fdlh Ádkj dh lgkuqHkwfr gksrh rks og ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ mls vLirky igqapkrk ;k og Lo;a Hkh vLirky tkrk ijUrq bl Ádkj dk dksbZ Á;kl ugha djuk uSlfxZd vkpj.k ds f[kykQ gS rFkk bl Ádj.k esa vfHk;qDr jktsUæflag dks fxjrkj djus ds i'pkr~ vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh us mlls ?kVuk ds oDr igus gq, diM+s bR;kfn cjken fd, Fks mu diM+ksa esa mldh Vh&'kVZ rFkk e`rdk ds Cykmt nksuksa ij *,ch* xzqi dk jDr vk;k] ftldk Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;k rFkk bl Ádj.k esa vfHk;qDr dh lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh us ?kVuk esa Á;qDr dh xbZ 12cksj dh canwd ds rhu VqdM+s Hkh vfHk;qDr ls cjken fd, Fks] bl canwd dks fdlds }kjk rksM+k x;k] ,slk Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;kA blh canwd ls xksyh pykdj e`rdk dh gR;kdkfjr dh xbZ FkhA 42- vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls Áfrj{kk esa bl rF; dks ykus dk Á;kl fd;k x;k gS fd e`rdk ds 'kknh ds 7 lky i'pkr~ Hkh larku u gksus ds dkj.k og volkn esa jgrh Fkh] bl dkj.k ls mlus vkRegR;k dh] vfHk;qDr dk ;g dFku Hkh lgh Árhr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd ;fn e`rdk fdlh Ádkj ds volkn eas Fkh rks vfHk;qDr }kjk mldk bu 7 o"kZ esa dksbZ bZykt djok;k x;k gks] ,slk dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij ugha gS rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls e`rdk ds volkn ds laca/k esa fdlh Ádkj dh dksbZ Bksl ,oa larks"ktud lk{; i=koyh ij is'k ugha dh xbZ gSaA rdZ ds fy, ;fn vfHk;qDr dk ;g dFku fd e`rdk }kjk vkRegR;k dh xbZ gS] lgh Hkh ekuk tkos rks Hkh vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls bl Ádj.k esa ys'kek= Hkh lk{; vius bl dFku dks lkfcr djus gsrq ÁLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ;fn e`rdk }kjk vkRegR;k dh tkrh rks vfHk;qDr ;k vfHk;qDr ds f'koiqjhxढ esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh bl laca/k esa fdlh Ádkj dh lwpuk lacaf/kr iqfyl Fkkuk esa nsrsA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku Hkh vfHk;qDr }kjk bl rF; dks ugha mBk;k x;kA Ásepan ihŒMhŒ&1 gkykafd ftlus fd fyf[kr fjiksVZ Án'kZ ihŒ 1 ds rF;ksa ls badkj fd;k gS] oks ogka oDr ?kVuk ekSds ij Åij dh eafty esa mifLFkr FkkA vkRegR;k ls lacaf/kr fdlh Ádkj dh Áfrijh{kk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls bl lk{kh ls ugha dh xbZA vfHk;kstu lk{kh ihŒMhŒ&2 rstiky o ihŒMhŒ&3 jktkjke ls vUuq daoj ds volkn esa jgus ,oa mlds }kjk vkRegR;k fd, tkus dk dksbZ lq>kokRed Á'u Hkh Áfrijh{kk esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA 43- vfHk;qDr ds vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ fd vfHk;qDr ls tks /kkjk 27 lk{; vf/kfu;e dh lwpuk ysus ds oDr rFkk cjkenxh ds oDr fdlh Hkh Lora= lk{kh dks ugha cqyk;k x;k] blls rFkkdfFkr cjkenxh lafnX/k gksrh gS] mfpr Árhr ugha gksrk gS] D;ksafd vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh dh vfHk;qDr ls dksbZ }s"krk gks ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gS rFkk 12cksj dh canwd ls dksbZ O;fDr vius ij tSls e`rdk ds xksyh yxh gS] oSls xksyh pyk ldrk gks] ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gSA 44- vfHk;qDr }kjk ?kVuk ds oDr ekStwn u gksus ds laca/k esa tks Áfrj{kk yh xbZ gS] bl laca/k esa Hkh mlus ,slh dksbZ lk{; ÁLrqr ugha dh gS fd oDr ?kVuk og dgka ij FkkA Ásepan }kjk xksyh pyus dh lwpuk jkuh lkfgck dks nsuk ,oa ek/kqjhflag }kjk rstiky dks iqfyl esa fjiksVZ ntZ djokus gsrq tks dFku fd;k x;k gS] ;fn e`rdk vUuq daoj }kjk vkRegR;k dh xbZ gksrh rks fjiksVZ Hkh mlh vuq:i ntZ djokbZ tkrhA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ckn esa gR;k Ádj.k dks vkRegR;k dk :i nsus dk Á;kl fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr ds Lo;a ds tks pksVsa vkbZ] ml ckcr~ Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k mlds }kjk ugha fn;k x;kA vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh lokbZflag tc ekSds ij x;k Fkk rks mlus vfHk;qDr ds diM+ksa ij [kwu yxk gqvk ns[kk Fkk rFkk dkap rksM+us dh vkokt vk jgh Fkh ,oa vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh ds le{k vfHk;qDr us ;g Lohdkj fd;k Fkk fd og vkRegR;k djus dk Á;kl dj jgk gSA vr% bu lHkh rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 302] 309 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o /kkjk 3@25 ¼1ch½ ¼,½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k ds vkjksi lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA** 42. Having considered the above findings on the touchstone of the evidence available on record which we have threadbare analysed and discussed, we are of the firm opinion that the conclusions so drawn by the trial court are based on an appropos appreciation of prosecution evidence and the theory putforth in defence. The findings so recorded cannot be termed be to unjusitified in any manner. 43. As an upshot of the above discussion, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2018, which is affirmed. The appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed as beind devoid of merit. 44. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.