1 2025:CGHC:14016-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 540 of 2023 Vijay Shriwas S/o Shobharam Shriwas Aged About 36 Years R/o Block No. 14, D.S.- 156, Balagi Colony, P.S. - Bankimongara, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) Present Resident - Bansbadi, Muktidham Podibahaar, P.S. - Out - Post - Rampur, Kotwali Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer - Korba, Police - Outpost- Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.25 10:59:35 +0530 2 appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 22/2021 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine amount of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 05 days. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12/11/2020 at 9.30 am, Vijay Shrivas (accused) went to Rampur police station and informed that on 11/11/2020 at around 11.00 pm, he had an argument with his wife about the matter of illegal relation, then he took his wife to the bed in the bedroom of his residence and strangulated her and killed her by hitting her in the stomach and chest with iron scissors. On the basis of which the Sub-Inspector lodged an Inquest Report (Ex.P-17) on zero, which was signed by accused Vijay Shrivas and on the basis of the Inquest Report, he lodged an unnumbered First Information Report (Ex.P-18) on zero, which was signed by accused Vijay Shrivas. On the said information of the accused, when constable Shailendra Sidar No. 796 of Police Post Rampur brought the unnumbered FIR and First Information Report of Police Post Rampur to City Kotwali Korba Police Station for getting it numbered, they registered the numbered FIR (Ex.P-15) and numbered FIR (Ex.P-16). During the investigation, Investigating OfÏcer J.P. Shukla 3 on 12.11.2020 visited the spot of incident and prepared the site map(Ex.P-1). 4. During the investigation, in the presence of witnesses, while conducting the proceedings of the Panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Pushpalata Shrivas, prepared the Panchnama of the dead body and the body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Korba for conducting post mortem, wherein postmortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6) vide Ex.P-11, who found the following external injuries:- (i) Multiple stab wounds on the abdomen of the deceased measuring 1 X 5 cm. (ii) There was a lacerated wound measuring 1 x 5 cm under the right breast of the deceased. 5. Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6) vide Ex.P-11, who found the following internal injuries:- (I) Both lungs were pale, large vessels contained some blood, heart - both chambers of heart had blood, abdominal membrane and intestinal membrane had multiple perforations, mouth, esophagus and pharynx were normal, stomach contained undigested food and one perforation measuring 1 x 5 cm. (ii) Small intestine was empty and had multiple perforations measuring 1 x 5 cm. And large intestine was empty and had multiple perforations measuring 1 4 x 5 cm. (iii) There were perforations measuring 1 x 5 cm. The liver was pale and had a perforation measuring 1 x 5 cm. Spleen and kidney were pale. The urinary bladder was empty. Internal and external genitals were normal. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock which was caused by polytrauma (injury to various organs). The nature of death was homicidal. 6. On 12/11/2020 itself, the statement of the accused (Ex.P-5) was recorded under Section- 27 Evidence Act in the presence of witnesses, then it was found that he had thrown the scissors used in killing the deceased Smt. Pushpalata Shrivas and her mobile phone inside the water of Muktidham pond. The said iron scissors and the mobile phone of the deceased were searched in Muktidham pond, but the iron scissors and mobile phone were not found, then a search Panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses. On 12/11/2020, the T-shirt and full jeans worn by the accused, on which blood stains were visible, were seized in front of witnesses and a seizure memo was prepared. On the same date, the clothes, gown, undergarments present on the body of the deceased were sealed by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and given to Police Constable Gagan Jaiswal No.-691, which was seized by the Investigation OfÏcer in front of witnesses and a seizure memo was prepared. On 12/11/2020, the accused was arrested and an arrest memo was prepared. The investigation ofÏcer recorded the statements of witnesses and sent a letter to Tehsildar Korba to get the Patwari to prepare a map of 5 the place of incident, in continuation of which the Patwari made a survey of the place of incident. The clothes seized from the accused were sent to the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased's body for query. The clothes of the deceased and the accused were drafted and sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Bilaspur through the Superintendent of Police Korba for chemical testing. 7. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was presented against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba. From where, the said case has been transferred to the Sessions Court for trial. 8. When the accused was charged with the offence under Section 302 IPC, he denied the charge. When the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, he said that he was innocent and that he was being falsely implicated and in his defence, he got the statement of defence witness Jai Kumar Shrivas (DW-1) recorded. 9. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. 10. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record opining that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 11. Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the circumstantial evidence, without there being any eye witness, though the 6 chain of circumstances are missing and not completed to each other. He further submits that the learned trail Court vide passing the impugned judgment has failed to consider the material aspect that no incriminating article of the crime has been seized from the instance of the appellant/accused therefore he cannot held liable for the commission of the crime. The prosecution story is based upon the judicial confession of the accused made before the police but the prosecution also failed to prove the case beyond reasonable drought while passing the impugned totally losses the vision to see that there ids difference between the signature of the appellant obtained in merg and FIR registered in (0/2020). The learned trail Court vide passing the impugned judgment has failed to see that at the time of recording of the statement of extra judicial confession the appellant was already in custody of police therefore his confessional statement cannot be used against him and the same is not admissible in the eyes of evidence and also failed to see that in present case there is no eye witnesses is available and then the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the same prosecution could not prove against beyond all such reasonable drought. While passing the entire judgment, the learned trial Court failed to consider the FSL (Ex.-23) in which the article which was belongs to the deceased (A-1, A-2). The blood mark said to be found to said article/cloths is inconclusive and the prosecution has failed to prove that blood group which (group "O") which was found on the cloth is belonging to whom. In the absence of any direct evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted on the sole ground of extra judicial confession & without any evidentiary proof, the learned lower court has erred grave error in convicting the accused/appellant. Prosecution 7 witnesses have not completely supported the case of prosecution and have deposed that the accused appellant resides separately and there was complaint made by the appellant before the police station about deceased as she has been left her house even legal notice also served upon the family members of the deceased and one case was also filed in this regard. The learned Court also failed to appreciate that the memorandum as well as Search Panchanma of the witnesses has not supported to story of the prosecution and overlooked the material facts of the case as per the witnesses of the case the main door of the house was closed and it was locked and the police concern has opened the same and again closed the door by another lock but the prosecution is totally silent in his part that is the crime has been committed by the appellant/accused then the key of lock should have seized from the conscious possession of the appellant but in this case no key has been seized therefore it is creating highly doubt upon the story as narrated by the prosecution. The PW-1 Ramkumar Sriwas and PW-3 Dhanraj Shriwas who were the brothers of the deceased deposing that the deceased and appellant were residing separately and the appellant was tried to bring back the deceased to matrimonial house therefore the story narrated by the prosecution about residing of deceased and accused in the same house is not reliable and therefore the accused is not duty bound to explain his part in the light of section 106 of the evidence act. The learned trial Court also failed to see that to commit the crime motive is essential part but in present case prosecution has totally failed to prove the motive of the appellant therefore it would be very unsafe to sustain to impose conviction to the accused. Only on the basis of suspicion and 8 without the case been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, as there is no sufÏcient link to come to the irresistible conclusion pointing the guilt only to the appellant, the appellant could not be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. 12. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the statement of the prosecution witnesses clearly proved that, the deceased had been murdered by the accused/present appellant, as it has also been observed by the learned trial Court that, as per the postmortem report, (PW/11) Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6) /Medical OfÏcer has clearly opined that, that the death of the deceased was due to shock which was caused by polytrauma (injury to various organs) and the nature of death was homicidal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence available on record including the deposition of witnesses and thereafter, arrived at the finding of guilt of the appellant, which is supported by the credible and cogent evidences, as the learned trial Court has specifically observed that, from the medical evidence and FSL report, it is clearly proved the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Thus, looking to the gravity of the offence and the quality of the evidences, there is no reason for showing any leniency to the present appellant, thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original 9 records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 15. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 16. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, vide Ex.P/11, has clearly come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to shock which was caused by polytrauma (injury to various organs) and the nature of death was homicidal. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 17. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/11) of Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6), who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 10 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 18. The question for consideration would be, whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be applicable or not? 19. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 20. This provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 21. In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. 1 AIR 1956 SC 404 11 On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difÏcult, for the prosecution, to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difÏculty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word “especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: - “11. … The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 ER 36 AT P.49 (B).” Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and 12 never shifts. 22. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar2 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is 2 (2021) 10 SCC 725 13 not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 23. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab3, while considering the provisions contained in Sections 103 & 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 24. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar4 and it has been held that burden of proving the case against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence. 25. In the present case, the death of the deceased was due to shock 3 AIR 1956 SC 460 4 AIR 1974 SC 778 14 which was caused by polytrauma (injury to various organs) and the nature of death was homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 26. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6), Ramkumar Shrivas (PW-1), Rajesh Sharma (PW-2), Dhanraj Shrivas (PW-3), Smt. Shyama Bai Prajapati (PW-4) and Investigating OfÏcer J.P. Shukla (PW-9). 27. Ramkumar Shrivas (PW-1), who is the brother of the deceased, has given evidence that his sister Pushpalata Shrivas and accused Vijay Shrivas lived in Podibahar after marriage. Their married life was not going well, there were frequent fights between them. He further stated that he does not remember the day and date of the incident. On the day of the incident, he received a phone call from Rampur Police Station, after which he went to Rampur Station and came to know that accused Vijay Shrivas had killed his sister Pushpalata by stabbing her in the stomach and chest with scissors. He saw the injuries on the stomach and chest of his sister Pushpalata from which blood was oozing out. 28. Rajesh Sharma (PW-2) stated in his evidence that he does not remember the day and date of the incident. At about 10.00-10.30 a.m., he went to the house opposite the house of accused Vijay Shrivas to rectify a cable problem. There he found that accused Vijay Shrivas had killed his wife and her dead body was lying inside the house. He also found that the 15 house of accused Vijay Shrivas was locked. The police broke the lock and after seeing the dead body of the deceased, they locked it again and sealed it. The said witness further stated that on the same day at about 11.00 am, the police came to the place of incident, a large crowd of people had gathered there. The police opened the lock of the place of incident after preparing the Panchnama and showed the dead body of deceased Pushpalata, the dead body of deceased Pushpalata was lying there. Injuries were visible in many places on her body. The fan was running there and the bathroom door was open and the light was on. 29. Dhanraj Shrivas (PW-3), younger brother of deceased Pushpalata Shrivas, testifies that he does not remember the day and date of the incident. On the second day of the incident, at about 9.00 a.m., the councilor of ward no. 29 called him and told him that his sister had died and he should come and see. On being asked, he told that accused Vijay Shrivas had killed his sister. On receiving the information, he went to the house of the accused at Podibahar along with his mother Bhagyavati Shrivas, nephew Pratik Shrivas and niece Dimpy. On reaching there, they saw that his sister Pushpalata was lying dead on the bed inside the room of the house. There was blood coming out of her chest and stomach. Thereafter, he called his uncle, aunt and his sisters and informed them about the incident. On receiving the information, his uncle, aunt and sisters came to the spot and at that time, police also arrived. 30. Smt. Shyama Bai Prajapati (PW-4) stated that she was going to her work. At that time there was a crowd at the house of accused Vijay Shrivas, then she also went to his house and saw that the dead body of a woman was lying on the cot in the room of the house of the accused. 16 There was injury on the chest of the deceased and blood was visible. At that time the police also came there. At the scene of the incident, it was being discussed that the husband of the deceased had killed her and fled. 31. Dr. Amulya Kaushal (PW-6) has certified the postmortem report (Ex.P-11) of the deceased Smt. Pushpalata Shrivas through her evidence. From which, it is clear that there were several stab wounds in the stomach of the deceased. According to the postmortem report, there were seven stab wounds in the stomach of the deceased and one stab wound below her right breast. The length and width of all the above injuries were the same. From which, it appears that all the above injuries were inflicted by the same instrument. There were multiple holes (pierced wounds) in the internal organs of the deceased's body, membrane of the diaphragm and intestines and there were multiple holes (pierced wounds) in her small and large intestine and there was a hole (pierced wound) in the liver. From this it is proved that the deceased died due to eight fatal injuries in the sensitive parts of her body. She further deposed that she had sealed the clothes present on the body of the deceased i.e. pink colour gown, pink colour underwear and purple white bra and suggested to get them chemically tested and gave them to constable Gagan Jaiswal after sealing them. 32. It is clear from the evidence of PW-6 Dr. Amulya Kaushil and other witnesses, that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the bed in the bedroom and there were eight injuries in the sensitive parts of her body and it is not possible that these injuries were inflicted by herself. No, rather the said injuries were inflicted on her by someone else. This proves that the deceased Smt. Pushpalata Shrivas has been subjected to criminal 17 homicide. A person of normal intelligence can imagine that the injuries inflicted on the sensitive parts of the deceased's body are likely to cause her death. This also proves that the deceased Smt. Pushpalata Shrivas has been subjected to criminal homicide, which falls under the category of murder. 33. Investigating OfÏcer J.P. Shukla (PW-9) deposed is that on 12/11/2020, he had taken accused Vijay Shrivas in custody and recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P-5) in front of witnesses Rajesh Sharma (PW-2) and Ramkumar (PW-1), wherein accused had told that he had thrown the scissors used in the incident and the mobile phone of the deceased in the water of Muktidham pond in Podibahar. Thereafter, in presence of witnesses Rajesh Sharma (PW-2) and Ramkumar (PW-01), accused Vijay Shrivas, I.O. and his colleagues searched the Muktidham pond, but on searching the said pond, the iron scissors and mobile phone were not found from the place mentioned by the accused. He further deposed that on 12/11/2020, he seized a half- sleeved red-white, black checkered T-shirt and a blue coloured jeans pant having blood-like stains, in front of witnesses Rajesh Sharma and Ramkumar, when the accused Vijay Shrivas produced them after removing them from his body, and prepared the seizure memo (Ex.P-7). He had sealed the seized clothes of the deceased and the clothes of the accused and sent them to the Superintendent of Police, Korba for chemical test. Through this, the draft of Ex.P.21 was prepared and sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur and the chemical test report of the above mentioned items has been received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur (Ex.P-23). According to the 18 chemical test report (Ex.P-23), blood was found in the gown and underwear of the deceased, which was human blood. Blood was found in the clothes of the accused, but due to the blood stains disintegrating, it could not be made clear whether the blood stains were human blood. 34. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 35. In this regard, the findings of the trial Court is that the deceased is the wife of the accused/appellant and from the statements of Ramkumar Shrivas (PW-1), Rajesh Sharma (PW-2), Dhanraj Shrivas (PW-3), Smt. Shyama Bai Prajapati (PW-4) and Investigating OfÏcer J.P. Shukla (PW- 9), it has come to knowledge that the married life of accused and deceased was not going well, there were frequent fights between them. Further, the incident had taken place inside the house and at that time, the deceased and the accused/appellant were at home where the deceased was killed by the accused/appellant and in his memorandum statement (Ex.P/5), the accused/appellant has also admitted that he had thrown the scissors used in the incident and the mobile phone of the deceased in the water of Muktidham pond in Podibahar. Also, Dr. H.P. Singh (PW-3), who has conducted the postmortem has opined that the nature of death is homicidal which amply reveal that such an incident of murder had taken place. Thus, there is unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences against the accused appellant, which clearly indicate the guilt of accused/appellant. 36. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial 19 Court would show that the prosecution has established that, 1. Death of deceased was homicidal in nature; 2. On the date of offence, the appellant and the deceased were in the same house; and 3. It is the appellant who has murdered his wife by inflicting many injuries on her person. 37. Considering the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses as well as the circumstances and further the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found at her home and deceased and accused/appellant were living together amply shows the incident of murder and thus, the incriminating circumstances proves the involvement of accused/appellant and the accused/appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and in his memorandum statement (Ex.P/8), he had accepted that he had hidden the stick and the bow in the bushes outside the house and in the Ghorana Tatri and that he had also hidden the shovel in the bushes. Also, from the statements of statements of Jawahar Pando (PW- 12), Shankar Lal (PW-01), Ganga Ram (PW-2), it has come to knowledge that the accused often used to quarrel and beat the deceased. Also, Dr. Amulya Kaushil (PW-6), who has conducted the postmortem has opined that the nature of death is homicidal which amply reveal that such an incident of murder had taken place. Thus, there is unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences against the accused appellant, which clearly indicate the guilt of accused/appellant and the circumstances clearly indicate that it was the appellant alone who had committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial 20 Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 38. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 39. It is stated in the appeal that the appellant is in jail since 12.11.2020, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 40. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet