JUDGMENT 1. 1. Reshma, wife of Bhagirath (P. W. 2) was charged in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar with having committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302, Indian PeDal Code. The case against her was that Mst. Tija, mother-in-law of the accused was often quarrelling with her and due to that taking advantage when she was sleeping alone in the night of January 26, 1972 she committed her murder by strangulation. 2. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the circumstances came to the conclusion that the accused was the person, who committed the murder of her mother-in-law, and accordingly convicted her and sentenced her to under go imprisonment for life. 3. The case for the prosecution mainly rests on the circumstances:- (1) Motive. (2) The accused was sleeping together with her mother-in-law. (3) She was found absconding from the house on the next morning. 4. So far as motive is concerned, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of Bhagirath (P. W. 2), Motiram (P. W. 1), father-in-law of the accused and the three other witnesses. Their evidence shows that the accused used to quarrel with the accused. It is clear from their evidence that it was a domestic quarrel. Bhagirath has admitted in the course of his evidence that the deoeased used to fight with him and his father. All that could be said about on this point is that the deceased was quarrelsome and her grievance was more against her s.m and husband. 5. On January 26, 1972, according to Motiram (P. W. 2), left the village and went to his daughter's house in a different village. On that evening Bhagirath who had gone to work in the field came to the house and as he was not well, slept without taking food. According to him, as his father had gone away to village, his wife slept in another room along with his mother. This story of Bhagirath cannot be true. If Tija was quarrelling with the accused, she would not have slept with Tija end of respect, as sought to be made out. A close examination of the evidence of Bhagirath shows that usually the accused was Bleeping with him. If that is so, when he was ill, she would not have left his company and gone to sleep with her mother-in-law with whom she was not on uncordial terms. A close examination of the evidence of Bhagirath shows that usually the accused was Bleeping with him. If that is so, when he was ill, she would not have left his company and gone to sleep with her mother-in-law with whom she was not on uncordial terms. As Bhagirath slept even without taking food, and did not know what happened thereafter till the morning, his version that the accused slept with Tija cannot be accepted. Therefore, there is no evidence in this case direct or indirect to hold that the accused on that day was sleeping with the deceased. 6. On the morning on January 27, Bhagirath as usual got up and found her mother lying dead. According to him the accused was not in the house. He sent word to his father through Asharam (P. W. 5). Motiram came to the village by about 3 P. M., and found his wife lying dead. Till then Bhagirath did not make any attempt to lodge complaint to the Nambardar of the village or to the police. Even after the arrival of Motiram, no attempt was made by him (Bhagirath) or his father to give a complaint. However, Motiram has stated that he went to the house of the Nambardar of the village and found that he was not in the house. He slept in the house of Nambardar, and on the next morning he went to the Police Station, Lakhuwali, situated at a distance of 6 miles from the village and lodged the complaint at 10 P. M. (Ex. P. 1). If really the accused was in the house on the previous night and was suspected of having committed the murder Motiram would not have kept quiet without lodging a complaint. First information report reached the court on January 29, 1972. It is clear from this that there was considerable delay in lodging the complaint to the police. No satisfactory explanation has been offered. First Information Report is an important piece of evidence. If there is delay, as is in this case possibility of concoction, deliberation and chances of implicating an innocent person cannot be ruled out. It is clear from this that there was considerable delay in lodging the complaint to the police. No satisfactory explanation has been offered. First Information Report is an important piece of evidence. If there is delay, as is in this case possibility of concoction, deliberation and chances of implicating an innocent person cannot be ruled out. In this case, on a close examination of the evidence of Motiram and Bhagirath, it is quite clear that till January 28, 1972 they did not know who had committed the murder of Tija, that is the reason why they took so much time to lodge the complaint. As a matter of fact Asharam. who carried the information to Motiram has said that he was not informed as to who and under what circumstances Tija was killed. These circumstances clearly indicate that after a good deal of deliberation the accused appeared to have been implicated in the case falsely. 7. So far as the story of the prosecution that the accused wag absconding, except the evidence of Bhagirath, there is no other evidence in the case. Jesaram (P. W. 4), neighbour of Motiram (P.W. 1), has not even stated that the accused was in the village on January 26, 1972 nor has he stated that the accused was absconding on the next morning. The accused has stated in her statement under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure that due to ill-treatment given to her by Tija, she had gone away to her parents house. She was brought back after the Panchayat, some days prior to the death of Tija. She left the house 6-7 days earlier to her parents house as her father was ill. This statement made by the accused appears to be a true version. 8. 'Circumstantial and Presumptive Evidence is of great importance and of deadly effect in criminal cases. In grave it often hapens that circumstantial of and presumptive evidence is the only class of evidence available, the former Is always of considerable assistance to Courts as affording a valuable aid in the acceptance or rejection of the latter. Though circumstantial evidence is also the result of human testimony and subject to the same fallibility of assertion as direct evidence still it is conceded on all hands that the danger of false testimony is considerably less in the case of the former class of evidence. Though circumstantial evidence is also the result of human testimony and subject to the same fallibility of assertion as direct evidence still it is conceded on all hands that the danger of false testimony is considerably less in the case of the former class of evidence. 'Men may lie but circumstances do not is not a mere adage, for concrete circumstances, inextricably connected with which circumstantial evidence is usually available, have the quality of exposing the fallibility of assertion in respect of them. Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence, are often capable of proving a preposition with the accuracy of mathematics. 9. In cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, in order to justify the inference of guilt the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. But before circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of a safe inference of guilt, it must exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. 10. In this case the circumstances relied upon have not been proved. On the other hand, the conduct of Bhagirath and Motiram in not taking prompt action throws some suspicion. The delay in filing the first information report in this case is fatal. Therefore, we dis-agree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge and held that the prosecution have failed to prove the case against the accused. 11. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against her and acquit her and direct that she shall be set at liberty forth-with.Appeal Allowed Appellant Acquitted. *******