Page 1

1

 REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2007

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH  … APPELLANT

VERUS JAI CHAND            … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal is preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh  

against the judgment dated 16th  November, 2004   in Criminal  

Appeal No. 392 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the Division  

Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla, acquitted  

the accused­respondent by allowing the appeal   and set aside  

the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 498­A  

IPC with sentence thereunder,   passed by the Sessions Judge,  

Hamirpur, HP on 13th June, 2002.

2. The  respondent(herein) Jai  Chand,  along  with  two others  

were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 (r/w  

Section 34)IPC and Section 498­A IPC.  Learned Sessions Judge,  

Hamirpur   found Jai Chand, accused no. 1 to be guilty under

Page 2

2

Section 302 and 498­A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo  

Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/­,  in default  

of payment of fine,  to undergo imprisonment for one year.  No  

separate sentence under Section 498­A IPC was imposed upon the  

accused.   The two other accused, namely, Prem Chand and Smt.  

Nimmo Devi were acquitted.

3. The record reveals that accused no. 1, Jai chand  

(respondent herein) and accused no. 2, Prem Chand are real  

brothers whereas accused no.3, Nimmo Devi is their sister­in­

law (Bhabhi), the wife of their  elder brother, Prakash Chand.  

4. The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial may  

briefly be stated as follows:

Smt. Vidya Devi (since deceased) was wife of Jai Chand,  

accused no. 1(respondent herein).  She was married to Jai Chand  

in the year 1996.   On 13th  July, 2001, Smt. Vidhya Devi was  

brought to District Hospital, Hamirpur in serious condition by  

accused no. 1 for medical treatment.   The Medical Officer on  

duty had informed the police, Police Station at Sadar vide  

Rapat No. 3 dated 13th July, 2001(Ex.PW­8/A) that one woman was  

brought to the hospital for medical treatment  under suspicious  

circumstances.  On  the said information, Sansar Chand (PW­8),  

Inspector/S.H.O.  accompanied by other police officials went to

Page 3

3

the hospital where he found the dead body of Vidya Devi lying  

in the Varanda. Roshan Lal, (PW­1), father of the deceased  was  

standing near the dead body.   He made statement (Ex.PW­1/A)  

that his son­in­law, Jai Chand(accused No.1) is a habitual  

drunkard and under the influence of liquor, he was in the habit  

of beating and treating his daughter with cruelty.  Prem Chand  

(accused no.2) and Smt. Nimmo  Devi (accused no.3) also used to  

taunt and abuse the deceased. Two years ago, accused no. 1,  

left the deceased at her parents’ house.   PW­1 pacified his  

daughter that all this happens in joint families and sent her  

back to matrimonial house.  In these circumstances, Vidhya Devi  

committed suicide due to mal­treatment and torture by all the  

accused persons.   On 13th  July, 2001 at about 8.30A.M. one  

Kashmir Singh, resident of   his Village Kot,   informed PW­1  

that his daughter Vidhya Devi had been brought to the hospital  

at Hamirpur where she expired.   PW­1 alongwith his son, Ajit  

Singh(PW­2) went to the hospital and found Vidhya Devi dead.  

PW­1 had noticed injuries on her person. The statement of PW­1  

(Ex.PW.1/A) was forwarded by PW­8 (vide Ex.PW­8/A) to the  

Police Station for registration of the case.  First Information  

Report (Ex.PW­6/A) was recorded by PHC Ramesh Chand( PW­6) P.S.  

Sadar Hamairpur, H.P..   Investigation was conducted initially

Page 4

4

by PW­8.   He prepared inquest reports (Ex.PW­2/A) and Ex.PW­

2/B).   He wrote an application (Ex.PW­8/B) to the   Senior  

Medical officer, Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for conducting the  

post­mortem to the dead body of the deceased.   Photographs  

(Ex.P­9 to Ex.P­14) of the dead body were also taken.   Jai  

Chand (accused no. 1) was present in the hospital and he handed  

over ‘dupattas’ (Ex.P­2),‘shirt’ (Ex.P­3) and ‘Salwar’ (P­6) of  

the deceased to PW­8 which were taken into possession vide  

memos; (Ex.PW­2/C and PW­2/D) respectively. Thereafter, PW­8  

handed over the file for investigation to Hari Ram (PW­9).  PW­

9 collected the post­mortem repot(Ex.PW­10/A).  On the basis of  

the report, the case was converted from Section 306 IPC to  

under Section 302 IPC.

5. Jai Chand, accused no. 1 made   the alleged disclosure  

statement (Ex.PW­5/A) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to  

the effect that he alongwith co­accused had hanged the deceased  

with ‘Barli’ (a wooden kari placed horizontally on the walls of  

the room).   To the same effect, disclosure statements  

(Ex.PW.5/B and Ex.PW­5/D) were made by accused no. 3. Jai  

Chand, accused no. 1 also got recovered one iron bucket  (Ex.P­

7)  which  was  taken  into possession  vide disclosure  memo(PW­

5/C). PW­9 prepared the site map(Ex. PW­9/A) depicting the

Page 5

5

place where the accused person had put the face of the deceased  

in the bucket filled with water and pointed the place where  

her body was tied with ‘barli’ by accused persons.   

6. As per, the disclosure statement of Jai Chand, (accused no.  

1)  and Nimmo Devi (accused no. 3),  on the intervening  night  

of 12th/13th  July, 2001, Vidhya Devi came out of the room and  

went to a place where the cattle were used to be kept.   Her  

husband, Jai Chand, accused no. 1 also followed her and asked  

his wife to go to bed but she did not respond  thereto.  Both  

of them entered into verbal fight.  Accused no. 1 at that time  

dipped the head of the deceased in the bucket full of water  

lying there. As a result thereof, she felt suffocated and the  

water entered into her mouth as well as in stomach.   Accused  

no. 1 then lifted her from that place and laid her on the cot.  

Accused no. 1 called accused nos. 2 and 3.   Accused no. 3  

caught hold of arms of the deceased whereas accused no. 2  

caught hold of her legs. Accused no. 1 throttled the deceased  

with hands and caused her death.   On finding no movement in  

her body,  all the accused hanged the deceased  with dupattas  

and thereafter laid the dead body of the deceased  Vidhya Devi  

on a cot.  On the following morning,  Jai Chand, accused no. 1  

told his mother that   his wife had become unconscious during

Page 6

6

the night and now she is not speaking anything.    Jai Chand,  

accused no. 1 then took her wife to the courtyard and laid her  

body on a cot lying there.    The residents of the village were  

informed about the death of Vidhya Devi.  One Smt. Damodri Devi  

brought some milk from her house but the deceased could not  

inhale the same. Thereafter, accused no. 1 accompanied   by  

Kartar Singh and Deepak Kumar brought the deceased on the cot  

to the road side.  Prakash Chand, brother of accused no.1 who  

had gone to call the doctor, had brought the taxi and the  

deceased was thus taken to the Zonal Hospital,  Hamirpur where  

she was declared dead.  The body of the deceased was sent for  

post mortem. PW­10, Dr. K. C. Chopra submitted post mortem  

report (Ex.PW­10/A).   The stomach contents including viscera  

etc. preserved by the team of doctors has been got analysed and  

as per report Ext. PW­8/B, neither the contents of any poison  

nor intoxicant could be detected on analysis thereof.  Thus, no  

case of poisoning was found.

7.  On receipt of post mortem report (Ex.PW­10/A) and report  

of the Chemical Examiner(Ex.PW­8/D),   it was found that the  

deceased had not committed suicide but she was killed by the  

accused no. 1 by dipping her face into  a bucket of water and  

strangulating her.    All the three accused were sent for trial

Page 7

7

for the office under Section  302 read with Section 34 IPC and  

498­A IPC.

8. PW­10, Dr. K. C. Chopra, Medical officer, Zonal Hospital,  

Hamirpur, H.P., in his statement stated that he alongwith Dr.  

K.S. Dogra conducted post mortem of the dead body of Smt.  

Vidhya Devi, wife of Jai Chand and observed as follows:

“EXTERNAL APPEARANCE:

Dead body was lying in supine with face in the  centre (there was no turning of face to either side).  White leathorty foam seen at both nostrils which was  more on pressing the epigastriun.  No sticky saliva  was present on the angle of the mouth.  No postmortem  staining was present over the back and legs.   No  petechcial haemorrages seen over the chest or legs.  Two contusions 3x2 cm present on the left upper arm,  reddish blue in colour.  No stretching and elongation  of neck, head inclined to neither side.

LIGATURE MARK

There was 10 cm long ligature mark of dark brown  colour extending from left sternocleide mastoid to  the right sternocleide mastoid below cricoids  cartilage, reddish brown in colour, abrasion to be on  the right side.   Ligature mark encircles the neck  only on front side.  No encircling of the neck on the  back and away from sternecleid mastoid.   There was  ligature of 1.5 cm wide or less than it at places  (ligature used was not presented by the police at the  time of postmortem examination).  It was not with the  body either.   No abrasion/brusises on the mouth,  nose, cheeks, forehead.  Lips were blue.  Tongue was  in drawn, plinching of teeth, on opening base of  tongue swollen. No injury to tough, clinching of  hands present.

Page 8

8

DISSECTION OF NECK

On dissection, there was extra vasation of blood  into sub­subcutanous tissue under ligature mark on  right side present.  Platysma and right sternocloide  mastoid muscle lacerated.  No laceration of sheath of  carotid artries.   No fracture of hyoid bone or  thyroid cartilage.   Epiglottis not cyanosed Trachea  and larynx were congested and have forthy mucous.  First 2­3 rings of trachea fractured.

ABDOMEN:

Walls and peritoneum were normal. Mouth Pharynx  and oasophagus had whitish fluid.   Stomach was  containing 500 cc of fluid mixed with mucous and  small sticky material.   Small Intestine was  containing semi­digested food but no fluid are  present.   Faecal matters were present in large  intestine.  Liver was normal,  it was dark in colour,  on cutting dark fluid came out.  The spleen was dark  in colour and was congested.   Kidney was normal in  size and was congested.   The bladder was empty.  Organ of generation was normal.   There was no  evidence of rape or any injury.

CRANIUM SPINAL CORD

There was no fracture of skullbone.   Brain was  congested and also the membrane.

THORAX:

Walls, ribs, cartilages and pleurae were normal.  Larynx and trachea was congested and  contained white  fluid, no sand or mud seen, no food particles  present. Right and left lung were distended, pale  grey, indented by the ribs, heavy cedemataous,  spongy, pite on pressure.   On pressing, frothy  whitish fluids came through bronchials.   Heart was  normal, left side was empty and the right was full.  No fracture/dislocation of bones were found.  

9. Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10) also stated their opinion as to  

cause of death of the deceased.  The same is quoted hereunder:

Page 9

9

“In our opinion deceased died due to asphyxia  caused by drowning and strangulation.  The probable  time between injury and death was immediate and  between death and postmortem within 24 hours.

x x x x x x x x x   

 In our opinion as mentioned in Ex.PW­10/A  strangulation in this case was not caused by  suspending the body.   The chances of dupatta as  ligature mark in the case were minimum,  i.e. dupatta  like Ex P­2 and P­3.  Drowning and strangulation are  possible in this case while putting the face/mouth of  deceased in bucket Ex­P­8 filled with water and with  pressure being applied.”

10. Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10)   further stated that the post  

mortem report was written by Dr. K.S. Dogra (PW­8) and was  

signed by both  of them.  

11. The accused no. 1 (respondent herein) made a plain denial  

of the prosecution case. In statement under Section 313  

Cr.P.C., accused no. 1(respondent herein) alleged that  

witnesses have falsely deposed against him being relative of  

the deceased and due to enmity with him.  In reply to question  

no. 26, the accused no. 1 stated as follows:

“Q.26 Anything else you want to say?

Ans. The deceased had illicit relations with my  nephew Banku Ram, S/o Shri Rohli Ram.   On one  occasion when I came on leave to the house, came  across few love letters written by said Banku Ram to  the deceased; on this I inquired from her about such  relations and asked her to discontinue such  relations.   On this she went to the house of her  parents and stayed there for about 3 months and when  brought to my house by her parents, she used to

Page 10

10

remain depressed. She has, thus committed suicide  due to her own problems and not on account of the  alleged torturing attributed to him. I am thus  innocent and implicated falsely in this case.   It  is, however, submitted that those letters were burnt  by me with the idea to maintain cordial relations  with the deceased and also to forget whatever as  happed in the past.”

12. The Trial Court considered the version of Kartar Chand (PW­

3) posted as Primary Education Teacher in Government High  

School, Barhi,  an independent witness, Post Mortem Report (PW­

10/A), statement of  Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10), report and  the  

testimony of PW­1 and PW­2 and held that “the circumstances  

reveal that the deceased has been done away to death by the  

said accused and none else”....”The circumstances appearing in  

the prosecution evidence are conclusive in nature and leads to  

the only conclusion that it is accused no.1 who has caused the  

death to the deceased.”

13. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the evidence  

of the prosecution witnesses for the reasons which may be  

summed up as below:

(1) Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10) had no experience as a  

forensic expert, therefore, his evidence cannot be  

read under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

(2) The Division Bench appreciated the medical  

evidence itself and held that there was no sign of  

injuries suggestive of resistance on the part of

Page 11

11

the deceased to establish that the face of the  

deceased was forcibly thrust into iron bucket  

filled in with water.   Only 500cc of fluid mixed  

with mucous and small sticky material was found in  

the stomach.   The hairs of the deceased was not  

found wet.  Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10)  found marks of  

injuries on the neck of the deceased but in his  

cross examination he stated that if the force was  

applied, in that event, the bucket which was used  

as ligature could touch both the ears.   But no  

injuries were found on the ears of the deceased or  

on any part of  her mouth or head.  

(3) The conduct of Jai Chand, accused no.1  would  

go to show that he tried very hard to save the life  

of his wife by taking her to the Zonal Hospital,  

Hamirpur for medical treatment.    Had Smt. Vidhya  

Devi been killed by her husband,   he would   not  

have dare to take  the dead body of the deceased to  

the hospital to get the   medical opinion against  

himself.

14. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant­State submitted  

that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the medical evidence  

which clearly established that it was not a case of suicide but  

a case of homicide which ultimately   has been caused by the  

husband of the deceased.   The High Court also failed to notice  

the statement of Jai Chand, accused no. 1 (respondent herein),  

husband of the deceased under Section 313 which is self  

explanatory that he had been keeping a hatred attitude towards

Page 12

12

his wife due to her illicit relation with his nephew and which  

resulted in motive and intention to kill her during night.  

This statement coupled with other circumstantial evidence leave  

no doubt that the accused no.1 cannot escape himself from the  

commission of offence.   Further according to the appellant as  

deceased Vidhya Devi was staying with the respondent and died  

unnatural death,   it was for Jai Chand (respondent) being  

husband to explain the circumstances under which she died.  

Learned counsel also contended that the High Court failed to  

appreciate that although there is no direct evidence, chain of  

circumstances appeared on record is so complete to fetch  

conviction to the husband of the deceased if not to all the  

accused.   It is on the basis of disclosure statement of  

accused no.1 a bucket which is most relevant evidence relating  

to the medical evidence is recovered, which is sufficient to  

convict the respondent.

15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent  

referred to the findings of the Division Bench of the High  

Court in support of the respondent.   

16. The principal contention  raised in support of the appeal  

filed on behalf of the State is that the medical evidence  

available on record completely supports the prosecution case.

Page 13

13

Let us, therefore, have a look at medical evidence available on  

record. Post­Mortem Report(PW­10/A) has already been noticed  

above. The plea raised  by accused no. 1(respondent herein) was  

that the deceased died due to suicidal hanging cannot be  

accepted for the reason that her body was not found stretched.  

If she had strangulated herself, her body should have been  

stretched and the fracture of hyoid bones and thyroid  

cartilages should have been there. Post mortem Report clearly  

shows that there is no such fracture and the testimony of Dr.  

K.C. Chopra( PW­10) supports the same. In a death case, by way  

of hanging,   the tongue of the deceased should not have been  

indrawn as has been noticed  in the post mortem report(Ex.PW­

10/A), but the same should have been out of the mouth.  There  

being the evidence of 2­3 rings of trachea fractured, trachea,  

larynx, spleen and kidney being congested is also suggestive of  

the fact that it was not a suicidal death, but a homicidal one.  

The team of doctors after observing so, during the examination,  

have come to the conclusion that the cause of death was  

Asphyxia caused by drowning and strangulation.   The probable  

time between injury and death had been recorded minimum.  The  

death   by way of drowning and strangulation can be caused  

instantaneously.  Admittedly, it is not the case of either of

Page 14

14

the parties that the death is caused by way of   poisoning,  

however, in order to rule out the possibility in this behalf  

also,   the   stomach contents including viscera etc. preserved  

by the team of doctors got analysed and as per report (Ex.PW­

8/D),   neither the contents of any poison nor any intoxicant  

could be detected on analysis thereof.   

17. Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW­10)  is  specific while deposing in his  

examination­in­chief that strangulation in this case has not  

been found to be caused by suspending the body.  He also ruled  

out the chances of dupattas (Ex.P­2 and P­3) being the ligature  

used for strangulation by the deceased and to the contrary, he  

specifically stated that drowning and strangulation are  

possible in this case by dipping the face/mouth of the deceased  

into the bucket (Ex.P­8) filled with water and   by applying  

force in pressing her mouth therein.    

18. Much stress was made by learned counsel appearing   on  

behalf of the respondent that there is no possibility of the  

ears touching the top of bucket, even if mouth of anyone is  

dipped therein and pressed with force.  An effort was thus been  

made to discard the testimony of PW­10.  However, in our view,  

it is not so relevant as to whether   the bucket used as a  

ligature was  touching the ears or not.  

Page 15

15

19. It is true that post­mortem report(PW­10/A) is not a  

substantive piece of evidence.  But the evidence of such doctor  

cannot be insignificant.  This Court in State of Haryana v. Ram  

Singh, (2002)2 SCC 426 held  as under:   

“1. While it is true that the post­mortem report by  itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but  the evidence of the doctor conducting the post­mortem  can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The  significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis­ à­vis the injuries appearing on the body of the  deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefor  and it would then be the prosecutor’s duty and  obligation to have the corroborative evidence  available on record from the other prosecution  witnesses.”

20.In the  present case, the post­mortem was conducted by   a  

team of doctors, namely, Dr. K.C. Chopra  and K.S. Dogra.  In  

cross­examination, no suggestion was made on behalf of the  

defence that they were not competent or that  Dr. K.C. Chopra  

and Dr. K.S. Dogra have not expertised to perform post mortem  

of a body. The viscera test was done by forensic expert (PW­8),  

who submitted the report.  

21. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that Dr. K.C.  

Chopra (PW­10) conducted the post mortem and the forensic  

expert (PW­8) conducted the viscera test. The High Court  

proceeded on erroneous premise to hold that  “Dr. K.C. Choopra  

might have acquired  some experience as Medical Officer but he

Page 16

16

is not a forensic expert to give the level of an expert witness  

examined in the Court.”  

22. The High Court was thus, clearly in error, in formulating  

its own opinion based on conjectural premises and deciding the  

case on the basis of that, discarding the opinion of the  

medical experts regarding the nature of the injury and cause of  

death. The conclusions are not sustainable otherwise also .

23. It is true that PW­1, father of the deceased, PW­2, brother  

of the deceased and PW­5 Prem Chand   belong to the same  

village. However   they being related to each other and being  

residents of the same place is not fatal to the prosecution  

case, because they have deposed about the facts which are not  

in controversy save and except that the deceased was being  

tortured by the accused persons. However, the present case is  

not a case of suicidal death of the deceased on being fed­up  

with the torture of the accused persons, but a case of  

homicidal death  and  as such, the version of PWs. 1 and 2 in  

this behalf is not so material.   

24. The recovery of bucket(Ex.P­8) has been proved  as the same  

has been produced by accused no. 1(respondent herein) himself  

before the police as recorded in memo (Ex.PW­5/C) recorded at  

his instance in the presence of  Prem Chand (PW­5)  and Pyare

Page 17

17

Lal. As a matter of fact, the bucket was lying in the courtyard  

where it is identified by accused no. 1(respondent herein) and  

thereafter, was taken into possession by the police.   The  

reference in this behalf can be made to the statement of Prem  

Chand(PW­5) who stated that accused no. 1 had shown the bucket  

to the   police which was sealed in a parcel and thereafter  

taken into possession vide recovery memo  ((Ex.PW­5/C).   Not  

only this, he even identified   the bucket(Ex.P­8) to be the  

same.    The recovery of  an incriminating article from a place  

which is open and accessible to others, alone cannot vitiate  

such recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.  

Thus,  the present is the case where there is no difficulty in  

holding that the bucket(Ex.P­8) is the same which was used by  

the respondent(herein) for drowning and strangulating his wife,  

Vidhya Devi.

25. Kartar Chand(PW­3) is an independent witness.   In his  

testimony, he deposed that on his way to school  on 13th July,  

2001 from his village, when he reached Village Ulehra, (native  

place of the accused) around 7.15 A.M., he met   accused no.  

1(respondent) and Deepak carrying the deceased on the cot  to  

the road side for  carrying her to the hospital and it was the  

accused no. 1(respondent herein) who told   Kartar Chand(PW­3)

Page 18

18

that  as she was ill, hence being taken to the hospital.  The  

accused no. 1 has thus, misrepresented the  factual position to  

PW­3 which shows guilty intention on his part.   No doubt, in  

reply to question no. 11,  he denied having represented  so to  

Kartar Chand(PW­3) and   as per his version, the said witness  

was told that  deceased had strangulated herself,  but there is  

no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW­3, as a matter of  

fact, PW­3 is an independent witness.   Reply to question no.  

11 shows that accused no. 1 also accepted that  PW­3 met him on  

the spot in the early morning.   Therefore, it cannot be said  

that the PW­3 was   interested   in the case of either of the  

parties.   Not only this, as per version of PW­3, the deceased  

at that time was silent and there was no movement in her  body,  

meaning thereby that she was already dead in the house itself  

and in order to mislead the village folks and to create  

evidence  that he made efforts to save his wife’s life he took  

her dead body to the hospital.  Such conduct on his part amply  

demonstrates that it is the accused no. 1 (respondent herein)  

alone who caused the death of his wife, Vidhya Devi.

26. Post mortem report(PW­10/A) prepared   by Dr. K.C.  

Chopra(PW­10) shows that there was ligature mark on the neck of  

the deceased.  The opinion of the doctor is clear and definite

Page 19

19

that the ligature mark of 10cm long and 1.5 cm. wide in  

horizontal position cannot be caused by hanging but could have  

been caused by strangulation.   Medical evidence,   therefore,  

completely falsify the   case of   accused no. 1(respondent  

herein).   The conduct of the accused no. 1 was   also not  

natural.  When he found his wife hanging, he neither made hue  

and cry  nor called the villagers nearby.  He along with others  

brought down the body of the deceased.   He, even thereafter,  

did not report the matter immediately on his own to police.

27. The act of bringing his wife, Vidhya Devi to the hospital  

cannot absolve the guilt of accused no. 1(respondent herein) of  

an offence committed by him. He was the best person who could  

have explained the reasons for the horizontal ligature mark of  

10 cm. x 1.5cm.  on the neck  of the deceased and as to why he  

did not inform the matter to the villagers before bringing down  

the body of the deceased.

28. Therefore, we find  that all the findings by the Division  

Bench of the High Court,   rejecting the evidence of Dr. K.C.  

Chopra (PW­10) and other material witnesses including Kartar  

Chand (PW­3)  and  Prem Chand (PW­5) are clearly unsustainable,  

whereas those given by the Trial Court  accepting the evidence  

of these witnesses were weighty  and sound.  

Page 20

20

29. Hence, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order  

of acquittal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of  

Himachal Pradesh   on 16th  November, 2004 and convict the  

accused­respondent under Section 302 IPC for the murder of  his  

wife, Vidhya Devi and sentence him to imprisonment for life.  

We, thereby restore the order of conviction passed against the  

accused­respondent by the Trial Court.  The accused­respondent  

shall surrender immediately to serve out the remainder of the  

sentence.

…………………………………………………………………………J.     (A.K. PATNAIK)

…………………………………………………………………………J.                    (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 3,2013