Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2025:CGHC:43594-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1831 of 2019 Judgment reserved on : 08.07.2025 28 .08.2025 Judgment delivered on : • Munshi Ram, S/o Late Shri Baula Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village- Damodarpur, Police Station- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C A V Judgment Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 05.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. in S.T. No. 34/2014, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC R.I. for life with fine amount of Rs. 2 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for three months. Under Section 201 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. (Both sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that the complainant- Chandrabahadur (PW-3) lodged a complaint in the Police Station- Shankargarh to the effect that on 22.10.2013, during the Navakhani festival, his mother/deceased- Shanti and his father- Munshi Ram, i.e. the accused, altercation took place between both of them, as they were under the influence of Handia liquor and due to which the complainant's mother/deceased Shanti got upset and at around 10:00 in the night, she set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil and she died due to burn injuries. On being apprised regarding the fateful incident, by his uncle- Bhola Ram, the complainant (PW-3) went home and saw that the deceased was lying burnt to death in the courtyard of the house. There were burn marks on her neck, marks of injuries on the back of the head and on the left temple. On the basis of above information given by the complainant (PW-3), Morgue No. 55/2013 was registered by ASI- Gopal Ram (PW-14) vide Ex. P/6, he went to the spot and prepared the spot map vide Ex. P/7 in presence of the complainant (PW-3) and according to him. During the course of investigation, notice was issued to the witnesses vide Ex. P/1 for the Panchnama of the deceased's body at the scene of the incident. Thereafter, the Panchnama of the deceased’s body was prepared vide Ex. P/2. The witnesses of the Panchnama had advised to get her post- mortem saying that the injuries present on the body of the deceased and the skin was peeled off from the waist to both the knees due to burning, the cause of death of the deceased is unknown. On which, ASI- Gopal Ram (PW-14) of Shankargarh police station, along with constable number 653 Pradeep Munda, sent the body of the deceased to the Community Health Center Shankargarh for post-mortem with the 3 application vide Ex. P/26. Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Shanti Bai on 23.10.2013. The doctor was questioned in five points under Ex. P/28 and three points under Ex. P/23 regarding the death of the deceased and on that Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8) gave the query report vide Exs. P/13 & P/14, wherein she mentioned that the deceased did not die due to burn injuries or falling on the ground, rather the deceased succumbed to injuries which she received on assault, she further opined that the deceased could have been saved, if she was immediately treated for the said injuries. On the basis of the said query report, F.I.R. vide Ex. P/19 registered by S.I.- R. L. Tonde (PW-12). Spot map was prepared by Patwari Ku. Shushila Toppo (PW-13) vide Ex. P/22. On 13.01.2024, the statements of the witnesses i.e., the complainant- Chandrabahadur Kujur (PW-3), Bhola Ram, Prasann Kujur (PW-4), Johan Kujur (PW-1), Prem Say (PW-2) and Daroga Kujur (PW-5) were recorded. The appellant was taken into custody and recorded his memorandum statement vide Ex. P/15 of the appellant before the witnesses namely Ashok Jaiswal and Bansdeo. Club (danda lakdi) was used in the incident, has been seized vide Ex. P/16 and on 14.02.2014 statement of Shivkumar Kerketta, Mange
Legal Reasoning
Ram, Smt. Gahni Bai, Kabutari, Duhan and on 26.01.2014, statement of Sitaram were recorded. At the place of the incident, a half burnt piece of cloth worn by the deceased, a burnt and torn piece of sky blue coloured petticoat with mud on it were seized from the place of the incident and a white coloured plastic box containing burnt and rotten mud from near the place of the incident was sealed. The accused was arrested as per Ex. P/17 and information about the same was given to the complainant- Chandra Bahadur (PW-3). The aforesaid seized articles were preserved after the post-mortem. The petticoat and black coloured blouse of the deceased sent to FSL, Raipur for its chemical examination. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the 4 appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 3. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, no defence was examined by him in his defence. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is bad, illegal, contrary to the facts and law. Learned trial Court has committed a grave error to convict the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness in the case and there was material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that the statement of PW-3 Chandrabhadur, who have clearly stated that there was altercation between the appellant and deceased due to which the deceased become upset and set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene oil and therefore, it is clear cut case of suicide and learned trial Court has also failed to prove to motive of murder by appellant as there was no motive to commit offence by the appellant and the whole case of prosecution is doubtful. The appellant and the deceased was the husband and wife and they were living happily together and there is no such dispute in their life, as such there is no reason for the appellant to commit such heinous act with his wife. Learned trial Court did not consider this fact that the appellant having no criminal antecedents and as per prosecution case, the information about the incident given by Bholaram to the complainant- 5 Chandrabahadur (PW-3), but the prosecution did not examine Bholaram before learned trial Court and thus, the whole case of prosecution is suspicious and there is no circumstantial evidence is present in the case and other witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, the appellant is aged about 60 years and is guardian of his family and he is peaceful simple villager/cultivator and also very poor person. Learned trial Court did not consider this fact that the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its
Decision
case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid charges by giving him benefit of doubt. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Varkey Joseph vs. State of Kerala1 and in the matter of Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi2. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offences and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. Discussion and Analysis:- 8. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 302 of IPC and 201 of IPC. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 1 2 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745 2016 (3) SCC 108 6 9. First of all we have to see whether death of the deceased Shanti Bai was homicidal in nature or not? 10. PW-3 Chandrabahadur has stated that the appellant is his father and also admitted that the deceased Shanti was his mother. It has been almost a year since his mother died, he does not know how she died. He had gone to the police station to give information about the incident, but did not lodge the report. Morgue intimation is Ex. P/16, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part and also he admitted his signature on A to A part of the spot map (Ex.P/7). 11. PW-14 ASI- Gopal Ram has stated that on 23.10.2013, he was posted as ASI in the Police Station- Shankargarh and upon the information given by the complainant- Chandrabahadur S/o Munshi Ram, morgue was registered as Morgue Intimation No. 55/2013 vide Ex. P/6, in which he admitted his signature on B to B part. He also issued notice to the witnesses for inquest vide Ex. P/1, in which he admitted his signature on E to E part and on the same day, he prepared inquest report before the witnesses vide Ex.P/2. As per advise of panch witnesses, he gave application for autopsy to Medical Officer, Shankargarh vide Ex.P/26, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part. 12. PW- 8 Dr. Shashikala Toppo conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Shanti on 23.10.2013. External Examination & Internal Examination:- The body of the deceased was lying on her back. Both eyes were half open. The left hand was half bent. The right hand was straight. The left leg was half bent and the right leg was straight. There was stiffness in the whole body. There was mud on the right hand, chest and upper part of the stomach of the deceased. The injuries found on the body of the deceased Shanti are as follows - 7 1. Abrasion above the right iliac crest (waist area) measuring 5 cm x 2.5 cm. 2. There were two abrasions in the right iliac crest region. The first one was 2 cm x 1 cm and the second was a abrasion of 2 cm x 0.5 cm. 3. Abrasion on right hip- first 2 cm x 1 cm, second 3 cm x 1 cm and the third one was 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm. 4. Abrasion on the right knee- 1. 1 cm x 0.5 cm, 2. 1 cm x 1 cm, 3. 1.5 x 1 cm and 4. 1 cm x 1 cm. 5. Abrasion in right upper thigh - 5cm x4 cm. 6. Abrasion on the upper part of the left knee – 1.5 cm × 1 cm. 7. Abrasion on the left knee – 1.5 cm × 1 cm. 8. Abrasion on the right side of the waist – 2 cm × 5 cm. 9. Abrasion on the right side of the back – 3 cm × 0.2 cm. 10. Abrasion on the left side of the back – 3 cm × 1 cm. 11. Abrasion on the left shoulder – 1 cm × 1 cm. 12. Abrasion on the left chest – 6 cm × 1.5 cm. 13. Abrasion on the left arm – 2.5 cm × 1 cm. 14. Abrasion near the outer part of the left eye – 2 cm × 1 cm. 15. Abrasion on the upper part of the nose – 1 cm × 0.5 cm. 16. Abrasion on the left forehead – 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. 17. There was swelling in the left arm. The swelling extended up to two-thirds of the arm below the elbow. On opening the left arm, the left humerus bone was broken and there was a large blood clot under the skin. 18. Torn injury on the left occipital parietal region of the head- size 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm. 19. A torn injury on the left parietal part of the head, size was 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. On opening the head, a large blood clot was found on the left occipitotemporal part below the scalp, the size was 12 cm x 5 cm. All the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. All these injuries were before death. Black coloured superficial burnt was present on the private parts of the deceased and deep burns were present in whole gluteal region and thighs which 8 were more on the front and less on the back. One third portion below the knee of both the legs were burnt. One third portion of the lower abdomen was burnt. Burns were present on 25 to 30 % of the entire body. There was no redness on the burnt area. The lower portion of the burnt skin was dry, hard and yellowish white in colour. The burn injuries occurred after death. Chest- larynx windpipe, Right lung and left lung and right and right chamber of heart were empty. Abdomen- intestinal membrane, mouth, oesophagus, liver, spleen, kidney were yellowish, urine was present in the urinary bladder. Some digested food and some liquid was present in the stomach, small intestine was filled with air, and large intestine was filled with some stool and air. In her opinion, cause of death of the deceased is shock due to excessive hemorrhage, due to fracture of left humerus bone and injury in head. Further opined that the nature of death is homicidal and the death occurred within 24 hours of conducting post-mortem. She gave her report vide Ex. P/12. 13. On 11.01.2014, some queries were asked to Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8) by the prosecution regarding the death of the deceased Shanti Bai, which reads as under:- " ्ቚथम ्ቚ्- क्या मृति(cid:10)का की मृत्यु आग के जलने से हो सक(cid:10)ी है या नहीं ? उ्ቈर- मृति(cid:10)का की मृत्यु आग के जलने से नहीं हुई है। दुसरा ्ቚ्- क्या मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोट मारने से या गिगरने से आ सक(cid:10)ी है या नहीं? उ्ቈर- पी.एम. नही आ सक(cid:10)ी है, रिरपोट) में दशा)ई गई मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोटे गिगरने से एक साथ सभी चोटे मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोटे मारने से आई है। (cid:10)ीसरा ्ቚ्- मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोट के कारण मृत्यु हुई है या नहीं? उ्ቈर- मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोटे के कारण मृति(cid:10)का की मृत्यु हुई है। चौथा ्ቚ्- क्या मृति(cid:10)का को (cid:10)त्काल ईलाज कराने से बच सक(cid:10)ी थी या नहीं? उ्ቈर- मृति(cid:10)का को (cid:10)त्काल ईलाज कराने से मृति(cid:10)का बच सक(cid:10)ी थी। 9 पांचवा ्ቚ्- आई चोट के कारण हुई है? क्या मृति(cid:10)का की मृत्यु आग से जलने के कारण हुई या मारने से उसके शरीर में मृति(cid:10)का की मृत्यु मारने से उसके शरीर में आई चोट के कारण हुई है। मेरे ्ቛारा दी गई क्यूरी उ्ቈर- रिरपोट) ्ቚ०पी०-13 है, जिजसके अ से अ भाग पर मेरे हस्(cid:10)ा्ቌर है। " She has also examined the bamboo stick which reads as under:- बांस की लाठी की लम्बाई 118 से. बांस की लाठी- " से.मी. व दुसरे जिसरे की गोलाई 9 से. स(cid:10)ह सम(cid:10)ल था। बांस की लाठी पर कहीं- मी एवं मध्य की गोलाई 8.3 कही गिम्ሾी लगी हुई थी। मी की थी एवं एक जिसर की गोलाई 7.7 सेमी की थी। बांस की लाठी का जली सराई लकडी की लुठी की चौडाई 7.7 से.मी. जिजसका एक भाग काला जला हुआ था। आधी जली सराई लकडी की लुठी जिजसकी लम्बाई 19 से.मी. मध्य अभिभम(cid:10)ः क्यूरी नम्बर 01- सक(cid:10)ी है। ज्शुदा बांस का डण्डा (लाठी) से मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोट आ क्यूरी नम्बर 02- सक(cid:10)ी है। ज्शुदा बांस डण्डा (लाठी) के मार से मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में आई चोटो से मृत्यु हो क्यूरी नम्बर 03- जलाने से जल सक(cid:10)ी है। जली हुई सराई लकड़ी की लुठी से मृति(cid:10)का के शरीर में गिम्ሾी (cid:10)ेल भिCडककर बांस का डण्डा एवं सराई लकड़ी की लुठी को सीलबंद का उसी आर्ቌक को सौप दी थी " She gave her report vide Ex. P/14, in which she admitted her signature on A to A part. 14. In her cross-examination, she denied that injury no.17 could have been caused by falling on the ground with the help of hands while in an inebriated state and she has also denied the suggestion that the injuries succumbed by the deceased cannot occur due to a sudden fire in the house. She herself stated that all burnt injuries were post-mortem in nature. Thus, looking to the post-mortem report (Ex. P/12), query report (Ex. P/13) and cross-examination of Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8), the deceased Shanti Bai died due to injuries succumbed by her and burnt injuries were post-mortem in nature. It is quite evident from the statement of Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8) that the nature of death of the deceased is homicidal, though nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination to disbelieve her deposition. Thus, the prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased Shanti Bai is homicidal in nature. 15. Now we have to examine the evidence to ascertain whether it is the appellant who is author of the crime in question. 10 16. PW-3 Chandrabahadur, who is the informant of the said crime, as per his information, morgue intimation (Ex. P/6) was lodged, but before the learned trial Court, he has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. He has only admitted his signature in morgue intimation (Ex.P/6) on A to A part and saying that he did not know how his mother/deceased Shanti died. Though, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him and in cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution and has also denied his police statement (Ex. P/8). 17. As per morgue intimation, it was informed by the PW-3 Chandrabahadur, which reads as under:- “ lwpd us gejkg tksgu dqtwj S/o tkslsQ dqtwj mez 47 o"kZ lk0 eqjdk ds lkFk Fkkuk mifLFkr vkdj tqckuh exZ bUVhes’ku pkyw djk;k fd dy fnukad 22-10-2013 dks uok [kkuh R;ksgkj euk jgs Fks bldh eka 'kkafr firk eqa’kh nksuksa gfM+;k nk: ihdj nksuksa ifr ifRu में s vkilh >xM+k fookn gq, Fks fd bldh eka 'kkafr ujkt gksdj jkf= yxHkx 10 cts Lo;a ds mij feV~Vh rsy Mkydj vkx yxk yh vkx ls ty dj e`R;q gks xbZ fd bldk pkpk Hkksykjke us bls crk;k rc tkdj ns[kk vkaxu esa vkx ls ty dj e`R;q gks xbZ xys esa tyus dk fu’kku] flj ihNs cka;s duiVh esa pksV dk fu’kku gS fd fjiksVZ ij exZ lnj dk;e dj tkap iapukek dk;Zokgh esa fy;k x;k exZ dk;eh dh lwpuk SDM egksn; dqleh dks Hksth tkrh gSA””” 18. PW-1 Johan Kujur, PW-2 Prem Say, PW-4 Prasann Kujur, PW-5 Daroga Kujur, PW-6 Mangeram, PW-7 Sitaram, PW-9 Ashok Jaiswal, PW-11 Sukul Ram have not supported the prosecution case. Though, the prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but they denied all the suggestions of the prosecution and some witnesses have also denied their police statements. 19. PW-1 Johan Kujur, PW-10 Aghanu Ram and PW-11 Sukul Ram have admitted their signatures in the notice (Ex. P/1) and in inquest memo/report (Ex. P/2), but they have not supported the other allegations of the prosecution. 11 20. PW-9 Ashok Jaiswal stated that he is the witness of memorandum statement (Ex. P/15) of the appellant and also the seizure witness (Ex. P/16), but he has only admitted his signatures in Exs. P/15 & P/16 and also admitted his signature in the arrest memo (Ex. P/17). Further, he denied this fact that before him, the police inquired from the appellant. Though, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross- examined him, but he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution and he admitted the suggestion of defence that he had signed in the siezure memo (Ex. P/16) as per the instructions of the police. 21. PW-3 Chandrabahadur has stated in para 5 of his cross-examination that his uncle- Bholaram apprised him that the deceased set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene oil as she was upset after having altercation with her husband/appellant and she died. PW-4 Prasann Kujur has also stated in para 3 of his cross-examination that the accused told him that the deceased Shanti set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene oil as she was upset and she died. 22. As per morgue intimation (Ex. P/6), it is also informed by PW-3 Chandrabahadur that his mother- Shanti and father- Munshi Ram both consumed liquor (handia) and altercation took place between them, upon which his mother/deceased Shanti become upset and set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene oil, but as per Post-mortem report (Ex. P/12) and statement of Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8), it is quite evident that burnt injuries were post-mortem in nature and the deceased succumbed to that injuries. Thus, it is evident that the accused and Bholaram wrongly apprised regarding the death of the deceased. 23. All the witnesses have clearly proved this fact that at the time of incident, the accused and the deceased Shanti were present at home at about 9 pm and altercation took place between them, on being apprised regarding the death of his mother/ deceased by his uncle Bholaram, then the son of the deceased Chandrabahadur (PW- 3) reached home. 12 24. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT, 2024 INSC 368, held in the following terms: “40. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused.” 25. In the light of above cited judgement, it is quite evident that the prosecution has successfully proved this fact that at the time of incident, the accused and the deceased were present at home and some altercation took place between them and after that deceased died. However, it is evident from the statement of Prassan (PW- 4) that the accused informed him that the deceased set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, as a result of which, she died. But, as per post-mortem report (Ex. P/12), it is quite evident that, cause of death of the deceased is shock due to excessive hemorrhage and other injuries. However, the accused tried to conceal this fact that the deceased Shanti succumbed to injuries which she received after having altercation with him, as such to save himself from the aforesaid incident, he burnt 13 her body by pouring kerosene oil and fabricated the said incident as a suicide, as such he made disappearance of the evidence. But as per doctor’s report, burnt injuries were post-mortem in nature and in query reports (Exs. P/13 and P/14) of Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8) has specifically denied this fact that the cause of death of the deceased was due to burn injuries. All burn injuries were post-mortem in nature. Thus, it is evident that burden of proof falls upon the accused as he has falsely stated regarding the death of the deceased. It is clear that the accused assaulted his wife after having an altercation with her and she succumbed to injuries, the accused tried to save himself by disappearing the evidence. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved this case beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed the murder of his wife Shanti. 26. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is evident from the prosecution case and memorandum of the accused that some altercation took place between them when both were under the influence of liquor, so offence under Section 302 is not made out against the appellant and he is liable to be convicted for offence under Section 304-II of IPC, but there is no material available on record which shows that this incident happened due to any sudden and grave provocation, so offence under Section 304-II or 304- I is not made out against the appellant and thereby learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and convictions under the aforesaid Sections are hereby affirmed. 27. In the light of above, it is thus evident that as per memorandum statement of the accused, the deceased Shanti came to house at 8 pm under the influence of liquor and after having altercation between them, he assaulted his wife by bamboo stick (danda) and he pushed her, due to which she fell down and became unconscious upon receiving the assault, by taking advantage of the situation in his favour, the accused/appellant set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil, as such he made 14 disappearance of the evidence. Dr. Shashikala Toppo (PW-8) found various injuries on the body of the deceased Shanti, so looking to the specific injuries of the deceased i.e., Injury Nos. 17, 18 & 19, which are grievous in nature, therefore, we are of the opinion that in the above facts and circumstances, an offence under Section 302 of IPC would be made out and not that the case of the appellant would fall under any Exception to Section 300 IPC for punishment under some lesser Section. As such, there is no scope for any interference by this Court in this appeal. 28. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of overall evidence on record and rightly finds that the accused murdered his wife deceased Shanti. The prosecution has proved its case based on circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 29. In the result, the appeal being bereft of any merits is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, no specific order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. is required to be passed. 30. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. The copy of this judgment be also forwarded to concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for information about dismissal of this appeal. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE AMIT PATEL