SHARMA, J. - (1.)ALONE, in silence Sunil had to wend on the thorny path of life. Soon after the marriage her husband Suresh, appellant herein, started harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. When demand was not fulfilled, Sunil was ousted from her Sasural. Even in her parental house her life's race was obstructed and she was throttled to death. Appellant was indicted for having committed murder of Sunil before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No. 1, Jhunjhunu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated November 25, 2002 convicted and sentenced him as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for five months. U/s. 498a IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)IT is the prosecution case that on September 18, 1995 informant Bhoma Ram (Pw. 5) submitted a written report (Ex. P-5) at Police Station Bisau District Jhunjhunu stating therein that his daughter Sunil was married to Suresh on May 14, 1995. Immediately after the marriage the in-laws of Sunil, started harassing her for the demand of sum of Rs. 25,000/-, machine, cooler etc. On September 16, 1995 Suresh came to village Shivdayalpura and had a quarrel for demand of dowry and in the night of September 17, 1995 he killed Sunil and ran away. On the next day morning when Sunil's mother went to the room of Sunil she found her lying dead. On that report, case under sections 498a, 304b and 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhunjhunu. Charges under sections 302 and 498a IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.
We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the material on record.

There is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of Supreme Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.

Having regard to these principles enunciated with regard to the proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence we shall now examine the various circumstances said to be appearing against the appellant. (i) Death of Sunil was homicidal in nature. (ii) A day before death of Sunil the appellant Suresh had a quarrel with her parents in connection with demand of dowry and this was the motive behind the crime. (iii) In the night of 17th the appellant and Sunil were together in the house of Sunil and appellant was seen wandering on the roof and smoking cigarettes. (iv) The appellant silently escaped from the house in the mid night and he was seen going out of the house of Sunil by the witnesses. Homicidal Death :

Death of Sunil was concededly homicidal in nature. Vide postmortem report (Ex. P-8) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- One thumb marked 3 finger tips marks in form of bruise are situated on both side of wind pipe placed obliquely down wards and outwards thumb mark is slightly wider and higher than finger tips marks. These bruises are dise shaped 1 to 2 cm diameter and brownish. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sundariya (Pw. 8), who performed autopsy on the dead body, being the member of Medical Board, opined that cause of death was asphyxia and various congestion due to throttling. Motive:

(3.)BHOMA Ram (Pw. 5) in his deposition stated that his daughter Sunil was married to Suresh on May 14, 1995. He was residing in Jhunjhunu for last 15-16 years and indulged in the business of selling milk. Ramavtar and Anchi were his neighbour. Since they were maternal uncle and aunt of Suresh, they took keen interest in performing marriage of Sunil with Suresh. Sunil's younger sister Sunita was also married to Ranjeet, younger brother of Suresh. Soon after the marriage Sunil was harassed in connection with the demand for dowry. She remained in the house of her in- laws for eight days. During that period she was not properly behaved by Suresh. On her return to Peehar, BHOMA Ram kept her with him and got her admitted in School Niradhnu. After three months of the marriage, Suresh made attempt to meet Sunil in the school, but he was not allowed. One day when Sunil was returning from school Suresh threatened her to kill if demanded articles were not given to him. Suresh, his mother Dhudi, Anchi and Ramavtar thereafter came to his house in presence of Harphool and Pyare Lal and demanded dowry articles. On 17th Suresh came to his house and had a quarrel with him. Suresh remained in his house alone with Sunil and escaped silently in the mid night. In the morning Rukmani (Pw. 3), mother of Sunil, found her lying dead. BHOMA Ram was subjected to searching cross examination but his testimony could not be shattered. Testimony of BHOMA Ram gets corroboration from the statement of Rukmani (Pw. 3) and Santosh (Pw. 2 ).
The prosecution is thus able to establish that appellant had a quarrel with Bhoma Ram, father of deceased, in connection with demand of dowry just before the incident and he was present in the house of Bhoma Ram on the night of 17th and remained alone in Chaubara with the deceased. Sunil was last seen alive with appellant :

Jaideo Singh (Pw. 10) in his deposition stated that in the night of September 17, 1995 he stayed at the house of Mam Chand. In the night of September 17, 1995 around 10-11 while he (Jaideo) and Mam Chand were sitting in the house of Mam Chand, they saw Suresh wandering on the roof of the house of Bhoma Ram. He was smoking cigarettes. After sometime Suresh and Sunil entered the room. There was light of lantern on the roof. Around 2-3 AM in the mid night while dogs started barking, they saw one person going out of the house of Bhoma Ram. He and Mam Chand then followed the person and found that it was Suresh. Testimony of Jaidev Singh gets corroboration from the evidence of Mam Chand (Pw. 11 ).