JUDGMENT M. Murtaza Husain, J. 1. THE three appellants, namely, Ashok Kumar, Rajendra Lal and Smt. Sudha have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC on 22-12 - 1976 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for that offence. 2. THE undisputed facts of the case under appeal are that J. P. Srivastava complainant (PW 2) and Rajendra Lal appellant belong to two educated and respectable Srivastava Kayastha families of Varanasi. THE complainant retired as Lecturer from the Railway College, Moghal Sarai whereas Rajendra Lal appellant retired as Head of the Economics Department of Harish Chandra Degree College, Varanasi. Sushil Kumar (PW 5) is complainant's son. Ashok appellant is the only son of Rajendra Lal appellant. At the time of occurrence he was posted as an Asstt. Engineer at Lucknow and was residing as tenant in a portion of the first floor of house no. 597/17-K in Mohalla Om Nagar. This house belongs to Prabhat Kumar and Rajendra Kumar P. Ws. Smt. Sudha appellant is the widowed daughter of Rajendra Lal appellant. She is a teacher at an Intermediate College of Varanasi. Smt. Meera deceased was the daughter of J. P. Srivastava complainant. She was a beautiful girl. On 13-5-73 she was married to Ashok appellant who was then posted at Allahabad. Meera was a student of M. A. at Varanasi University when her marriage took place. After her marriage Meera stayed with Ashok at Allahabad and also at Lucknow when he came here on transfer in the beginning of 1974. On 13-7-74 Ashok took Meera to his parents at Varanasi. He returned back to Lucknow on 18-7-74 leaving Meera at Varanasi. In the morning of 20-7-74 Meera came to Lucknow with her brother Sushil who went back to Varanasi the same day leaving Meera with her husband. At about 4.30 p.m. that day Rajendra Lal and Sudha appellants also came to Ashok's house and stayed there. In the same night (i.e., in the night of 20/21-7-74) at about 2.45 a. m. Meera, somehow or the other, received extensive burns at Ashok's house. The three appellants raised alarm whereby Prabhat Kumar (PW 1) and others were attracted and saw Meera burning. Prabhat rushed to the fire brigade station at Alambagh and brought a unit headed by Ram Raj Misra (PW 3). The three appellants raised alarm whereby Prabhat Kumar (PW 1) and others were attracted and saw Meera burning. Prabhat rushed to the fire brigade station at Alambagh and brought a unit headed by Ram Raj Misra (PW 3). Meera was rushed in precarious condition to the Civil Dispensary at Hazratganj. The three appellants were accompanying her. Meera could not be admitted in that dispensary as no bed was available there. She was then taken to Balrampur Hospital where she was declared dead. 3. RAJENDRA Lal appellant lodged report (Ex. kha-1) at P. S. Alambagh at 6.15 a.m. the same morning informing the Police about Meera's death through burning. It was not detailed in this report that how Meera was burnt. S. 1. Irshad Husain held inquest of Meera's dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. Dr. R. K. Agarwal (P. W. 9) conducted autopsy at 3.10 p.m. on 22-7-74. He found second degree burns on the scalp and third degree burns all over the body of the deceased. The head of the deceased was emitting kerosene oil smell and tongue was protruded. Upon internal examination membranes, brain, pleura, larynx, both the lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were found congested. Soot particles were present in larynx, trachea and bronchi. Stomach and small intestines were empty though there was faecal matter in large intestines. The deceased was carrying a pregnancy of about six months and there were foetus of twins in her womb. Dr. Agarwal opined that Meera had died due to shock as a result of extensive burns at about 3 o'clock in the night of 20/21-7-74. 4. THE police did not suspect any foul play in the matter till the afternoon of 21-7-74 when J. P. Srivastava complainant, after receiving telephonic message at Varanasi about the burning of his daughter, rushed to Lucknow by a motor-taxi. He went to Ashok's residence where some persons told him that Meera was burnt to death by the appellants. THE complainant lodged a report about commission of Meera's murder by the appellants at P. S. Alambagh at 7 p. m. on 21-7-74 and on its basis a case was registered against the appellants. The prosecution case, as contained in complainant's report and elucidated at the trial, is that in the marriage of his eider daughter the complainant had spent about Rs. 10,000 on the occasion of Tilak and about Rs. 7000 or Rs. The prosecution case, as contained in complainant's report and elucidated at the trial, is that in the marriage of his eider daughter the complainant had spent about Rs. 10,000 on the occasion of Tilak and about Rs. 7000 or Rs. 8000 on the occasion of marriage. When Rajendra Lal negotiated Ashok's marriage with Meera no particular amount of dowry was settled but Rajendra Lal was under the impression that the complainant would spend the same amount in Tilak and marriage of Meera which was spent by him in his elder daughter's marriage. Tilak ceremony of Meera's wedding took place on 10-5-73. The complainant paid Rs. 4000 in cash and clothes worth Rs. 2000. The total expenditure incurred by him on that occasion was short by about Rs. 4000 in comparison to the amount spent by him in the Tilak of his elder daughter. Rajendra Lal bitterly felt that shortage and was even prepared to withdraw the proposal of marriage but he did not take that step as Meera was an extremely beautiful girl. When marriage of Meera took place on 13 - 5-73 the complainant gave a refrigerator worth Rs. 2800 and a radiogram worth Rs. 1500 besides incurring other routine expenditure, but Rajendra Lal could not forget the above noted deficiency of Rs. 4000. He and Sudha started taunting Meera for inadequacy of dowry and when she defended her father they began to maltreat her. They even prevailed upon Ashok to join [hands with them and he too started maltreating Meera. 5. WHEN Ashok alone came back from Varanasi on 18-7-74 Meera entreated Rajendra Lal to send her to Lucknow, but he did not agree and plainly told that Meera will have to rot at his house. In the night intervening 18/19-7-74 Rajendra Lal and Sudha manhandled Meera. WHEN Meera left for Lucknow with Sushil in the night of 19/20 -7-74 Rajendra Lal and Sudha also followed her. In the evening of 20-7-74 all the three appellants beat Meera with kicks and fists at Ashok's house. At about 2.45 o'clock in the same night they burnt her to death through sprinkling kerosene oil upon her. 6. S. 1., T. N. Lal (PW 7) investigated the case which was registered on the basis of complainant's report. At the close of investigation the C. I. D. also handled it and ultimately the appellants were charge-sheeted. At about 2.45 o'clock in the same night they burnt her to death through sprinkling kerosene oil upon her. 6. S. 1., T. N. Lal (PW 7) investigated the case which was registered on the basis of complainant's report. At the close of investigation the C. I. D. also handled it and ultimately the appellants were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. They denied the existence of any dispute amongst the parties regarding shortage in Meera's dowry. They also denied the prosecution allegation of taunting, torturing or maltreating Meera. Their case is that when they woke up at about 2.45 o'clock in the night Meera was burning in flames. They attempted to save her but she could not be saved. The fire brigade was sent for at their initiative and they themselves took her to Civil Dispensary and Balrampur Hospital. They also sent telephonic message and a telegram to She complainant about the burning of Meera. It was suggested by them that Meera's death was either accidental or suicidal and the complainant, in collusion with a Circle Officer of Police, namely, Sri V. P. Singh and others, had got the present case concocted against the appellants. No oral evidence was led by the appellants in their defence. Besides formal witnesses, the prosecution examined five witnesses of fact in the trial court. They are Prabhat Kumar PW 1, J. P. Srivastava PW 2, Ram Raj Misra PW 3, Rajendra Kumar PW 4 and Sushil Kumar PW 5. Ram Raj Misra PW 3 simply stated about the condition on the spot when he had reached there. The learned Sessions Judge believed those witnesses and relying upon their testimony and the circumstances borne out by the material on record, found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. IT has been remarked above that the appellants do not dispute that Meera had received extensive burns at about 2.45 o'clock in the night of 20/21- 7--74 at Ashok's house in the presence of the three appellants and died of those burns while being taken to Balrampur Hospital. We are, therefore, not entering into the details of the prosecution evidence about the factum, time and vanue of Meera's burning and her consequent death. That undisputed death of Meera could be homicidal, accidental or suicidal. We are, therefore, not entering into the details of the prosecution evidence about the factum, time and vanue of Meera's burning and her consequent death. That undisputed death of Meera could be homicidal, accidental or suicidal. The posecution having come to court with a definite theory of Meera's murder having been committed by the appellants, we have to see whether or not the prosecution has been able to make out its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. PRABHAT and Rajendra P. Ws. who are real brothers, have been examined by the prosecution to afford, direct testimony of the fact that the: appellants had burnt and killed Meera.. They reside in a portion of the ground floor of the same house in a portion of the first floor of which house the occurrence took place. Their arrival at the scene of occurrence, when Meera was burning, is quite probable because the appellants were raising hue and cry at that time and those two witnesses could be attracted thereby. Even in Rajendra Lal's FlR (Ex. kha-1) it is mentioned that the house owner and others reached the place of occurrence when Meera was burning. These two witnesses are thus probable witnesses of the occurrence but none of them stated that he had seen appellants burning Meera. PRABHAT has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence Meera was burning but he could not say that how she had caught fire. He undoubtedly stated that the appellants were not making any effort to extinguish fire but that fact cannot lead us to the only inference that the appellants had burnt Meera. PRABHAT himself admits that he too made no effort to extinguish fire. It is quite possible that by the time appellants woke up and PRABHAT reached the place of occurrence the fire had become so much out of control that no person could make any effort to extinguish it. Rajendra claims to have reached the scene of occurrence when Prabhat was coming downstairs. He says that he saw the three appellants chatting amongst themselves in the verandah of Ashok's house. He alleges to have taken position at a place from where he could not be visible to the appellants. Rajendra claims to have reached the scene of occurrence when Prabhat was coming downstairs. He says that he saw the three appellants chatting amongst themselves in the verandah of Ashok's house. He alleges to have taken position at a place from where he could not be visible to the appellants. He has added that the three appellants dragged away Meera to the smaller side- room where they pressed her and again brought her to the place where the witness had originally seen her burning. He further stated that when the appellants took Meera into the side room, her tongue was not protruding nor her Sari was wrapped around her neck, but when the appellants brought her back in the bigger room her tongue was protruding out and two or three folds of Sari were around her neck. The witness thereby attempted to prove that Meera was strangulated also by the appellants. These facts were not stated by Rajendra before the Investigating Officer. If Meera was so extensively burnt by the appellants there was hardly any necessity for them to strangulate her. When, on his own showing, Rajendra was not visible to the appellants, they, if they at all intended to strangulate Meera, could strangulate her at the place where she was burning. There was no reason for them to take her dragging into the smaller room and to bring her back to the bigger room where she was burnt. 9. PRABHAT and Rajendra were not named as witnesses of the occurrence by the complainant in his F. I. R. The complainant admits that before lodging F. I. R. he had gone to Om Nagar and had a talk with PRABHAT and others about the occurrence. PRABHAT has also admitted that he had a talk with the complainant and his son when they had come to Om Nagar. Rajendra has also stated that he had a talk with the complainant and his son when they had come by a taxi. PRABHAT has also admitted that he had a talk with the complainant and his son when they had come to Om Nagar. Rajendra has also stated that he had a talk with the complainant and his son when they had come by a taxi. If these witnesses had seen anything which indicated that the appellants had burnt or strangulated Meera they ought to have conveyed it to the complainant and he could not omit to mention it and also the names of Rajendra and PRABHAT in the F. I. R. The absence of the names of those witnesses from the F. I. R. speaks that they had not seen Meera being burnt or strangulated and they have been, somehow or the other, prevailed upon to state about those facts in the witness box. 10. IT has been admitted by Prabhat that he is the original resident of Qadirabad in the district of Varanasi. Village Ghauspur adjoins Qadirabad. A niece of J. P. Srivastava complainant is married to one Bansidhar of Ghauspur. This Bansidhar is on friendly and visiting terms with the father of Prabhat and Rajendra PWs. Vijay Pratap Singh, who was posted at Lucknow as an Inspector of Police at the time of occurrence, is a pattidar of these witnesses. The complainant admits to have approached Vijai Pratap Singh for help in the prosecution of the present case and he had asked the Investigating Officer to take interest therein. IT appears that the prosecution could get hold of Prabhat and Rajendra PWs, on account of their associations with Bansidhar and Vijai Pratap Singh, for falsely supporting its case of burning and strangulation of Meera by the appellants. Prabhat has admitted that one Sri Gupta had also reached the place of occurrence when Meera was burning. He was an independent witness but he has not been examined. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Prabhat and Rajendra are got up witnesses and their statements about the alleged burning and strangulation of Meera cannot be believed. Coming to the circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has referred to a large number of circumstances in his judgment which, in his opinion, established that the appellant had burnt Meera. The first and most important circumstances relied upon by him is that the accused were irritated on account of shortage of Rs. Coming to the circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has referred to a large number of circumstances in his judgment which, in his opinion, established that the appellant had burnt Meera. The first and most important circumstances relied upon by him is that the accused were irritated on account of shortage of Rs. 4000 in the amount of dowry paid by the complainant on the occasion of Meera's marriage. On that account they used to taunt, torture and beat her and she was also given a beating by the appellants at about 8 p. m. on 20 -7-74 at Ashok's house. 11. THE prosecution evidence in support of this circumstance comprises of the statements of Prabhat (PW 1), J. P. Srivastava (PW 2), Rajendra (PW 4), and Sushil (PW 5). Prabhat and Rajendra PWs have stated that Ashok used to rebuke and beat Meera and also taunted her that nothing was paid as dowry by her parents. THEy have also stated that the three appellants had beaten Meera at about 8 p. m. on 20-8 -74. We have already pointed out that they are not independent and truthful witnesses. Implicit reliance cannot, therefore, be placed upon their testimony. 12. J. P. Srivastava (PW 2) and his son Sushil (PW 5) have stated that due to shortage in money paid at Meera's Tilak the appellants were very much annoyed and they used to taunt and torture Meera. The complainant has further stated that in the night of 18/19-7-74 Rajendra Lal and Sudha appellants had beaten Meera at their Varanasi residence. He was not present at that time and his statement about that beating is nothing but hearsav. Both the complainant and his son are highly interested witnesses. Even if the prosecution case about the alleged motive is not accepted the fact remains that Meera was not pulling on well with her in-laws. The complainant admits that when Meera left Varanasi for Lucknow on 20-7-74 she wanted to have a frank talk with Ashok. She had told her father that if she found the attitude of Ashok to be the same which was of his parents and sister she would immediately come back to her father and would never go back to Ashok. Apparently, therefore, there was something in the conduct of the in-laws of Meera which had made her disgusted. She had told her father that if she found the attitude of Ashok to be the same which was of his parents and sister she would immediately come back to her father and would never go back to Ashok. Apparently, therefore, there was something in the conduct of the in-laws of Meera which had made her disgusted. If she had committed suicide, out of frustration, the complainant could hold the appellants responsible for his daughter's death and could implicate them for her murder. After having concocted a case of murder he and his son, Sushil, were found to support the prosecution case irrespective of its falsity. Thus none of the four witnesses who have stated about the alleged shortage of Rs. 4000 in dowry and about taunting, torturing and assaulting Meera by the appellants can be said to be wholly independent. It is significant to note that there is not a word in the F. I. R. lodged by the complainant to suggest that the appellants were irritated on account of any shortage in dowry. All that is mentioned in it is that the accused used to taunt Meera in different ways. A girl can get taunts from her in-laws for so many reasons and not necessarily on account of shortage in dowry. If the temperament or manners of the deceased were not liked by her in-laws or she was unable to adjust herself with her husband and in-laws they could taunt her. The absence of the fact of shortage in dowry from the F. I. R. indicates that it is an afterthought affair. It is also noteworthy that in the normal course Rajendra Lal could feel the pinch of shortage in dowry, if any. When he had put up with it for about 14 months, there was no reason for him to commit Meera's murder. It is clear from the statement of the Investigating Officer that Ashok's mother is also alive. She was a witness of the list of Ashok's property which was prepared when the same was attached in proceedings u/Ss. 82 and 83 CrPC (new). She could taunt Meera for shortage in dowry, if any, but she does not figure anywhere in the Prosecution case. Sudha appellant who is herself a widow, had obviously nothing to do with the dowry paid at Meera's marriage. 82 and 83 CrPC (new). She could taunt Meera for shortage in dowry, if any, but she does not figure anywhere in the Prosecution case. Sudha appellant who is herself a widow, had obviously nothing to do with the dowry paid at Meera's marriage. She had no reason to join hands with Rajendra Lal in committing Meera's murder. Ashok is employed as Assistant Engineer since before his marriage and is quite well off. He had got a beautiful and educated wife in Meera. He had lived with her for about fourteen months. Meera was pregnant at the time of occurrence and was carrying twins. It is difficult to believe that for a shortage of Rs. 4000, if any, in the dowry paid at Meera's marriage Ashok would kill her. 13. THE story of the alleged beating of Meera by the appellants also does not stand to reason. Sushil PW 5 has admitted that Meera was being treated by the appellants at Varanasi through one Dr. Usha Gupta. Rajendra Lal and members of his family did not like Meera to undertake journey up to Lucknow by rail, as the medical advice was that she should not undertake that journey on account of advanced pregnancy. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the appellants, who are educated persons and command social status, would beat Meera in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses. 14. IT has been admitted by Prabhat and Rajendra that Meera used to narrate her worries to their sister Lachhmi. The complainant has admitted that on 19-7-74 Meera had met her old friend and class fellow Km. Madhu at Varanasi before leaving for Lucknow. She is expected to have opened her mind and lightened the burden of her heart before Km. Madhu. IT has been admitted by Rajendra Kumar that just below Ashok's residence some other [gentleman was residing as a tenant. If Rajendra and Prabhat could be attracted to Ashok's house by the alleged beating of Meera, there appears to be no reason why that gentleman was not attracted and could not be available to the prosecution to support its case. In the absence of all that evidence, we arc not prepared to believe the statements of Prabhat and Rajendra about the alleged beating of Meera by Ashok and other appellants. In the absence of all that evidence, we arc not prepared to believe the statements of Prabhat and Rajendra about the alleged beating of Meera by Ashok and other appellants. We are also not prepared to rely upon the statements of J. P. Srivastava and Sushil PWs about the alleged motive for the appellants; to kill Meera. Assuming for the sake of argument that the alleged motive did exist and the appellants used to taunt and torture Meera in the manner suggested by the prosecution, then that fact could also motivate Meera to commit suicide. Motive is at best a piece of circumstantial evidence, and it has to be appreciated according to the well established law of appreciating circumstantial evidence. That law is that (i) the circumstances from which the inference of guilt of the accused is to be drawn, have to be fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond any shadow of doubt, (ii) the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and (iii) the circumstances; taken collectively should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against the accused. We have already remarked above that the evidence led by the prosecution for proving the alleged motive is not of unimpeachable character. Independent and better available evidence has been withheld. In any case, the alleged motive is not a circumstance of determinative tendency because it is equally compatible with the theory of suicide. 15. THE next circumstance relied upon by the trial Judge is that Rajendra Lal and Sudha appellants had come to Lucknow from Varanasi in the afternoon of 20-7-74 following Meera and had wrongly asserted that they had come one day earlier. THE suggestion of those two appellants is that they had come to Lucknow one day earlier and had. stayed elsewhere as Ashok was out. When they learnt about his arrival they came to his house in the afternoon. THEre is nothing on record to belie the suggestion of Rajendra Lal and Sudha about coming to Lucknow on 19-7-74 nd staying somewhere else, it can therefore not be held that their suggestion is false. 16. IT has been admitted by Sushil PW that inspite of medical advice to the contrary Meera wanted delivery of her child to take place at Lucknow. 16. IT has been admitted by Sushil PW that inspite of medical advice to the contrary Meera wanted delivery of her child to take place at Lucknow. The complainant has admitted that Meera had come to Lucknow along with Sushil at her own initiative. When Rajendra Lal and Sudha learnt about Meera's abrupt departure they could rush to Lucknow in order to take her back to Varanasi. Even if they came to Lucknow in the afternoon of 20-7-74 it is not a circumstance compatible only with their guilt. IT may be that because Meera wanted to stay with her husband and desired that delivery of child should take place at Lucknow, to which her in-laws were not agreeable, she had come to Lucknow in order to have her own way. When she saw that Rajendra Lal and Sudha had reached Lucknow for taking her back to Varanasi and she realised that her husband Ashok was also siding them, she, in her obstinacy, abruptly planned to commit suicide. Thus the arrival of Rajendra Lal and Sudha at Lucknow in the afternoon of 20 7-74 is not a circumstance which may unerringly lead to the conclusion of appellants' guilt. The other circumstances taken into consideration by the trial Judge for accepting the theory of Meera's murder are as follows : - (1) The three appellants alone were inside the house of occurrence when Meera was burnt. (2) Sudha and Ashok were inside the room where Meera was found burning. (3) Meera was seen lying in between the two rooms which were in Ashok's possession. (4) The appellants took no steps to extinguish fire as no injuries were found on their person. (5) The time of occurrence is an odd one. (6) No Angithi or stove was found inside the room of occurrence. (7) There was an empty kerosene oil tin at the place of occurrence. (8) Head of Meera's dead body was emitting kerosene oil smell. (9) A large number of partly burnt clothes, which were highly inflammable, were found by the investigating officer inside the room of occurrence. (10) Stomach of the deceased was empty. (11) Tongue of the deceased was protruding. (12) The deceased was pregnant. (13) Prabhat and Rajendra P.Ws. were admittedly present at the time of occurrence. (14) The prosecution witnesses had no reason to tell lies. (15) The complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. (10) Stomach of the deceased was empty. (11) Tongue of the deceased was protruding. (12) The deceased was pregnant. (13) Prabhat and Rajendra P.Ws. were admittedly present at the time of occurrence. (14) The prosecution witnesses had no reason to tell lies. (15) The complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. (16) The accused falsely denied the alleged torturing of Meera and made uncertain and vague suggestions at different stages about the manner in which Meera caught fire, and (17) Absconding of Ashok after the occurrence. 17. WE have examined the above circumstances and considered their individual and collective worth. The appellants admit their presence at Ashok's house at the time of occurrence. That house comprises of only two contiguous and internally connected rooms with a small gallery and verandah attached to those rooms. The occurrence having taken place at about 2.45 o'clock in the night it would not be unreasonable to expect that the appellants were sleeping at different places inside that small accommodation when Meera caught fire. They could be there even if Meera had committed suicide. Their presence inside the house or the burning of Meera in this room or that cannot necessarily prove the appellants to be her murderers. 18. THE present case is not one where; a murder has been quietly committed inside a house and the inmates present at that time keep mum, do not inform the police or anybody, and attempt to stealthily dispose off the dead body. Here the appellants started raising alarm as soon as they got up and saw Meera burning. THEy opened the main door of the house to facilitate the entry of neighbours in order to help them. Prabhat P.W. has stated that when he saw Meera burning she was raising feeble voice. If the appellants had burnt her they could not allow others to come when Meera was still alive as she could name the appellants as her murderers before them. THE appellants themselves sent for the fire brigade unit. THEy took Meera on the fire brigade vehicle to the Civil Dispensary and Balrampur Hospital when she was still alive. If they were her murderers they could not dare to take her to any doctor when she was still alive because she could name them as murderers before the doctor. THE appellants themselves sent for the fire brigade unit. THEy took Meera on the fire brigade vehicle to the Civil Dispensary and Balrampur Hospital when she was still alive. If they were her murderers they could not dare to take her to any doctor when she was still alive because she could name them as murderers before the doctor. As soon as Meera died Rajendra Lal informed the police about it through a first information report (Ex. Kha-1). THE appellants also informed J. P. Srivastava complainant at Varanasi through phone and telegram. Sushil has admitted that telegram about Meera's burning was sent by Ashok. In the face of all this conduct of the appellants their presence inside the house or room of occurrence and the burning of Meera in between the two rooms of the house cannot lead us to the inference that the appellants had burnt her Prabhat P. W. has stated that appellants were not taking any steps to extinguish the fire when he reached there. It has been remarked above that Prabhat himself had also not taken any steps in that behalf. The investigating officer has not shown any water tap or reservoir inside the house in the site plan prepared by him. In the inventary of property, Exhibit ka-12, prepared by him no pitchers or containers for storing water are shown. It is, therefore, futile to argue that the appellants did not throw water upon Meera to extinguish fire. The appellants have suggested that they had covered Meera by a Gadda. The prosecution admits the presence of a burning Gadda at the place of occurrence. It has also bee suggested by the appellants that in 1 attempt to extinguish fire Ashok had burnt his paijamah. A burnt paijama is mentioned in inventory Ex. ka-12. It can, therefore, not be said that the appellants took no possible steps to extinguish fire. The raising of alarm by them to attract the neighbours was a clear attempt in that behalf. Ram Raj Misra (P. W. 3) reached the place of occurrence when fire was already extinguished. He has, however, stated that he saw the appellant loitering about carelessly. This fact was not mentioned by him in his diary, nor he stated about it before the investigating officer. We can, therefore, not believe him on the point. Ram Raj Misra (P. W. 3) reached the place of occurrence when fire was already extinguished. He has, however, stated that he saw the appellant loitering about carelessly. This fact was not mentioned by him in his diary, nor he stated about it before the investigating officer. We can, therefore, not believe him on the point. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the appellants made no attempt to extinguish fire it; may be due to the fact that they woke; up only when the room was illuminated by the rising flames in which Meera had engulfed herself through commission of suicide and by the time the appellants got up it had become so late that they could not do anything but to raise alarm in order to attract others for help. if the appellants had really committed Meera's murder they must have sprinkled kerosene oil on her when one or two of them were catching hold of her Fire must have also been applied to hear when one or two appellants were catching her. The victim ought to have struggled when kerosene oil was sprinkled and burning match stick was applied. In that process some oil drops ought to have fallen on appellants also. They should also have received some burns if they were catching hold of the deceased when she was burning or being burnt. No prosecution witness says that he saw any burns upon the body of any appellant or found any of them emitting kerosene oil smell. All this indicates that in fact the appellants had not burnt Meera, that most probably she had committed suicide, and, that the appellants could not extinguish fire as it had become out of control by the time they got up. 19. THE time of occurrence, the absence of an Angithi or stove from the room of occurrence, the existence of empty kerosene oil tin in that room, and the smell of that oil coming out of Meera's head are circumstances which indicate that Meera had not caught fire through an accident because it is highly improbable that she was handling any Angithi or stove at about 2.45 o'clock in the night. It can be reasonably inferred from the above circumstances that she was burnt after pouring kerosene oil from a tin on her head. It can be reasonably inferred from the above circumstances that she was burnt after pouring kerosene oil from a tin on her head. Had the appellants poured kerosene oil and burnt Meera they also ought to have received kerosene oil drops and burns. THE reasonable inference from the above circumstances would be that Meera had herself poured kerosene oil and burnt herself in her bid to commit suicide. 20. THE inventory, Ex. ka-12, prepared by the investigating officer shows that a large number of partly burnt clothes, which could add fuel to the fire, were recovered from the room where Meera was burnt. THEre is nothing on record to show that the appellants had used those clothes for burning Meera. THE existence of those clothes inside the room of occurrence is quite compatible with the theory of commission of suicide by Meera. If she had made up her mind to finish her life through burning she could collect a large number of clothes for preparing a pyre in order to burn herself after pouring kerosene oil. Dr. R. K. Agrawal found the stomach of the deceased empty. He has stated that Meera had taken food six or seven hours prior to her death. If the appellants had planned to commit her murder they are not expected to have divulged their plan to her. If she was really murdered she ought to have taken her dinner at the usual time. Her failure to take dinner indicates that she was brooding and contemplating to commit suicide at the time considered appropriate by her. 21. THE protruding tongue of Meera's dead body is a sign of strangulation but we have already remarked above that the case of strangulation was falsely set up by the prosecution. It was most probably introduced to explain as to why the deceased raised no hue and cry when she was being burnt. Dr. R. K. Agarwal has stated that tongue of a deceased person can come out for so many reason namely, thirst, air hunger and causes leading to asphyxia and gaseous abdominal distortion. THE protruded tongue of Meera is, therefore, not a sure indication of the fact that she was murdered. 22. THE pregnancy of the deceased is also not a circumstance compatible only with the theory of murder. On the other hand it goes against that theory. THE protruded tongue of Meera is, therefore, not a sure indication of the fact that she was murdered. 22. THE pregnancy of the deceased is also not a circumstance compatible only with the theory of murder. On the other hand it goes against that theory. When the appellants were getting the deceased treated at Varanasi and were keen that she should have delivery there and should not undertake journey by rail to Lucknow it is highly improbable that they would commit her murder in the alleged manner. We have already discussed above: that the statements of Prabhat, Rajendra, J. P. Srivastava and Sushil PWs are unworthy of credit. We have also referred to the circumstances under which the witnesses have come forward to support the prosecution case and the complainant had falsely implicated the appellants. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has been unduly influenced by the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstance that the; complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. 23. THE prosecution evidence of the alleged taunting and torturing of Meera by the appellants; has already been rejected by us. It can therefore not be said that the appellants; had falsely denied that accusation. Ram Raj Misra PW 3 has stated that when he had reached the place of occurrence the inmates of the house of the accused had represented that Meera had accidentally caught fire by an Angithi. That suggestion was also thrown by the defence to some of the prosecution witnesses though the theory of accidental burning of Meera was not clearly mentioned by Rajendra Lal in Ex., Kha-1. THE suggestion of accidental burning of Meera is undoubtedly false, lnspite of it we do not think that the said false suggestion can prove the appellants to be murderers of Meera when the circumstances of the case are crying hoarse that she had committed suicide. THE commission of suicide by a daughter-in-law is after all an act of shame and humiliation for her surviving inlaws. If in order to save themselves from humiliation they falsely informed others that Meera had died through accidental fire that conduct of the appellants alone cannot prove them to be the murderers of Meera. 24. THE prosecution evidence shows that Ashok had not absconded immediately after the occurrence. THE challan of dead body of the deceased (Ex. If in order to save themselves from humiliation they falsely informed others that Meera had died through accidental fire that conduct of the appellants alone cannot prove them to be the murderers of Meera. 24. THE prosecution evidence shows that Ashok had not absconded immediately after the occurrence. THE challan of dead body of the deceased (Ex. Ka-10) indicates that Rajendra Lal and Ashok had identified the dead body of Meera before Dr. Agarwal. It means that Ashok had not absconded till 22- 7-74. He later on absconded and surrendered himself before the police on 5-9-74 after having obtained a bail order from the court. This conduct of Ashok cannot necessarily prove him to be the murderer of Meera because absconding is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Generally the circumstance of absconding is considered by courts to be a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can certainly not be considered to be a determinative link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused because sometimes even honest and innocent persons avoid the police so that they do not face harassment or are not subjected to third degree methods. Thus the circumstances relied upon by the trial court cannot unmistakably lead to the conclusion that Meera was murdered by the appellants. 25. THE defence has suggested that Meera had burnt herself in the smaller side-room after bolting its door from inside when the appellants were lying asleep. THEy opened that door by striking a brick upon it when they got up and realised that Meera was burning inside. Prabhat PW was questioned about the fact whether or not the hook of the door was broken and its compensation was realised by him from Ashok but he gave an evasive reply about breaking of hook though he admitted that he had realised Rs. 30 as compensation from Ashok for the damage caused to his house through the burning of Meera therein. Even assuming that the door of smaller room was not: bolted from inside the theory of committing suicide by Meera in that room cannot be rejected because she could commit suicide therein even without bolting the door of the room when. 30 as compensation from Ashok for the damage caused to his house through the burning of Meera therein. Even assuming that the door of smaller room was not: bolted from inside the theory of committing suicide by Meera in that room cannot be rejected because she could commit suicide therein even without bolting the door of the room when. other inmates of the house were sleeping. 26. IT is clear from the statement; of J. P. Srivastava complainant that relations amongst Meera and Ashok were not very bad. She wanted to have a talk with Ashok before disassociating herself from his company. Sushil had left Meera with Ashok in the morning of 20--7 -74 and had gone back to Varanasi immediately. Had he noticed any hostility in Ashok's attitude towards Meera he could not leave her with him. IT is thus highly improbable that Ashok had joined hands with the other appellants in committing murder of his beautiful and pregnant wife. All the three appellants are well educated persons. Their ages are different. At least Rajendra Lal is sufficiently old and a seasoned person. The combination of the three appellants for committing a barbarous crime, like the one involved in the present case, is extremely improbable. If they had to commit Meera's murder they could do so in some more sophisticated manner and at some lonely place. They could not expect to go free if they murdered her through burning at Ashok's house at about 2.45 o'clock in the night when the slightest alarm raised by the victim could attract all the neighbours. The circumstance that the victim raised no alarm when kerosene oil was poured on her and she was burnt rules out the possibility of the commission of her murder by the appellants. 27. THE post-mortem examination report shows that only two bichias and two steel bangles were found on Meera's dead body. A young wife of an Engineer, who was married only 14 months back, is expected to be wearing some ornaments in her neck, ears and hands. A bust photograph of the deceased, which is on record as Ex. 1, shows that she used to wear ornaments at least in her ears. No ornaments were found upon the dead body of the deceased, nor any glass bangles were found thereon. This indicates that most probably she had kept aside her ornaments before burning herself. A bust photograph of the deceased, which is on record as Ex. 1, shows that she used to wear ornaments at least in her ears. No ornaments were found upon the dead body of the deceased, nor any glass bangles were found thereon. This indicates that most probably she had kept aside her ornaments before burning herself. It is true that inspite of being literate the deceased left no letter or writing to indicate that she was committing suicide, but it may be due to the fact that when she made up her mind to commit suicide the time at her disposal was so short that she could not afford to waste it. 28. TO sum up our observations above, we hold that the direct evidence of the occurrence led by the prosecution is unworthy of credit. The motive of the occurrence set up by the prosecution is false and after-thought. The circumstances relied upon by the trial court for coming to the conclusion that the appellants had committed Meera's murder do not unmistakably lead to the conclusion. On the other hand, the weighty circumstances borne out by the material on record indicate that Meera had committed suicide and the complainant had falsely concocted the prosecution story. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants ordered by the trial court. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed.