JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri C. S. Sauhta, Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts at Nahan, convicting the appellant under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 and for five years under Section 201. 2. The appellant with his wife Sumitra (deceased) was living in village Pardunni, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. On 3rd May, 1979 at about 2 A. M. (midnight) Ram Lai (P. W. 9) was sleeping at his house when Sita Ram (P. W. 4), brother of the appellant, woke him up. Sita Ram asked Ram Lai to accompany him to the well since the appellant as well as his wife Sumitra were at the well. On coming to the well Ram Lai found the appellant as well as his wife Sumitra inside the well. The appellant was shouting that his wife be taken out quickly otherwise she will die. Ram Lai (P. W. 9) told the appellant that since his wife was very heavy he would call other persons. He called Dina Ram and sent for others. A pihri was lowered in the well and Sumitra, who was hanging in the well with a rope tied round her neck, was taken out. After taking out Sumitra an effort was made to take out water from her stomach but no water came out. When the appellant was questioned about the incident he told them that at night he had asked Sumitra to serve meals but she did not serve the meals and there was an altercation between them. 3. Dina Ram was asked by the mother of the appellant to inform the relations of the deceased that she had died due to stomach-ache. Ram Dass (P. W. 1). brother of the deceased, was given the message by Dina Ram. Ram Dass came to Pardunni and examined the face of the deceased. He noticed a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and some abrasions. He told every one present there that he suspected a foul play and they should not cremate the dead body. He then left the village for police station Paonta Sahib which was about 15 kilometres away. On the way at Dhaulakuan he met Sub-Inspector Kedar Singh to whom he narrated the incident. He told every one present there that he suspected a foul play and they should not cremate the dead body. He then left the village for police station Paonta Sahib which was about 15 kilometres away. On the way at Dhaulakuan he met Sub-Inspector Kedar Singh to whom he narrated the incident. His statement was recorded and it was sent to the police station while the Sub-Inspector along with Ram Dass came back to the village. At the village the dead body was photographed and an inquest was held. Thereafter the dead body was sent to Dr. K. Shant Kumar (P. W. 20) for postmortem examination. The doctor found a ligature mark on the right side of the neck as well as marks of two fingers. The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased was strangulated to death and attempts were made to throttle her. He had found larynx and trechea "fractured with echymossed blood seen". 4. The investigations revealed that the appellant had married the deceased about 12 or 14 years ago. They had five children. The appellant had fallen into the habit of drinking liquor with the result that he was always falling short of money. One of the results was strained relations between the couple. Sometimes the appellant would beat his wife. In 1977 the appellant had given a beating to his wife and turned her out with the children. The wife had to go back to her parents house and live there. Thereafter attempts of reconciliation were made and a Panchayat was held in the village of the wifes parents where the appellant undertook to treat his wife well. It was on this undertaking that the wile with the children returned to the house of the appellant. 5. It was also found that on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd May, 1979 singing and dancing took place in a nearby house of the appellants brother on account of marriage. The deceased had taken part in the gidda and came back to the house at about mid-night. The appellant asked her to serve the meals. The wife served him the chapatis but there was no vegetable to go with them. The husband lost his temper and threw the thali at her. He also gave her a slap. The deceased had taken part in the gidda and came back to the house at about mid-night. The appellant asked her to serve the meals. The wife served him the chapatis but there was no vegetable to go with them. The husband lost his temper and threw the thali at her. He also gave her a slap. Thereafter the wife was found hanging in the well with a rope round her neck while the other end of the rope was tied to one of the ballis which were lying across the well. 6. The defence of the appellant as disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is this. He does not deny their relations being strained a bit, and explains that it was due to the fact that his sister was married to Ram Dass, brother of the deceased, who used to beat her off and on. He denies having given a beating to Sumitra in 1977 and turning her and the children out of his house. But he admits that the wife and the children did go to the house of her parents in 1977 and there was a Panchayat. He explains that since the wife and the children wanted to file a claim for maintenance which he could not pay because of his poverty, he had brought them back. He denies being addicted to liquor but admits taking liquor sometimes. He also denies telling any one that the wife had died because of drowning or of istomach-ache. According to him the gidda lasted till 11 or 11.30 P. M. and when the wife returned to the house he demanded meals. He admits that there was an altercation because she had not cooked vegetables and he reprimanded her for preparing chapatis only. He denies giving any beating to the wife at that time. He explains the incident thus: "After our quarrel over the meals on the night of occurrence the deceased had taken her cot outside the compound and slept there with the child. I had slept inside the room. After sometime, say after about an hour, my child started crying whereupon I called the deceased but there was no response. On my calls my mother, my brother and sister had also come out. On seeing the compound the deceased was not there. I had slept inside the room. After sometime, say after about an hour, my child started crying whereupon I called the deceased but there was no response. On my calls my mother, my brother and sister had also come out. On seeing the compound the deceased was not there. Then I took torch from my house with the idea that the deceased may have gone to the house of Ram Lal. We all headed towards the house of Ram Lal. While going to the house of Ram Lal while passing over the well I saw a rope tied in two ballies. The rope Ex. P-3 was the same. I lit the torch into the well and saw the deceased hanging inside with the other end of the rope. On this I sent Sita Ram to call Ram Lal. Sita Ram returned after calling Ram Lal. Then I climed down the well with the same rope, asked Sita Ram to untie the upper knot, whereafter I untied the knot of the rope from the neck of the deceased. When I saw the deceased in the well she was haying some life and movements in her body. I had shouted Sita Ram to hurry up the lifting operations as Sumitra was alive at that time." 7. There is no doubt that the relations between the husband and the deceased were strained. Admittedly in 1977 a Panchayat was held at the village of the deceaseds parents where the appellant had gone to bring back the deceased and the children. Behari Lal (P. W. 3), who is President of Gram Panchayat Sainwala, had participated in the Panchayat. He deposes that the appellant had given an undertaking not to maltreat the deceased and the children and because of the undertaking the appellant was allowed to bring hack his wife and children. Dasaundi Ram (P. W. 12) who also attended the Panchayat, corroborates Behari Lal. 8. It is not disputed before us that on the fateful night the deceased had participated in the gidda in the neighbouring house. It is also not disputed that when she came back the appellant asked for meals and he was served chapatis without vegetables which resulted in altercation between the husband and the wife. But what was the time when this happened ? It is also not disputed that when she came back the appellant asked for meals and he was served chapatis without vegetables which resulted in altercation between the husband and the wife. But what was the time when this happened ? According to the appellant, as already stated, the wife returned at about 11P.M. Sita Ram (P. W. 4), brother of the appellant, places the time at about mid-night. The gidda was held at the house of Shri Sita Ram because of the marriage of his sisters son. Dina Ram (P. W. 5) tells us that he was called at about 1 or 1.30 A. M. in the night. So the time of altercation can be safely placed at about mid-night. 9. It is important to find out what happened during the altercation. This is necessary because the suggestion made by the defence is that the deceased committed suicide. In other words, the provocation resulting from the altercation was very much. But the provocation is a double edged sword. It can lead to the wife committing suicide as well as the husband murdering her. 10. Now according to the appellant he had only reprimanded the deceased and there was no question of any beating being given to her. However, others have a different story to tell. Ram Lai (P. W. 9) is one of the persons who was summoned at the well by Sita Ram, brother of the appellant. It may be noticed that Ram Lai did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. However, he doposes that he had questioned the appellant about the cause of incident. The appellant told him that he had returned to his house at about 9 P. M. and demanded meals from the deceased but she did not serve the meal and lost her temper. The witness deposes: "Thereafter the accused was quiet and said nothing. However, he doposes that he had questioned the appellant about the cause of incident. The appellant told him that he had returned to his house at about 9 P. M. and demanded meals from the deceased but she did not serve the meal and lost her temper. The witness deposes: "Thereafter the accused was quiet and said nothing. Nathu Ram, member, also came to the spot, inspected the spot, whereafter the accused had told me to inform his relations that his wife had died of drowning into the well.” Nathu Ram (P. W. 10), who was also declared hostile, was told by the appellant: "that on the return from gidda during the night he felt hungry and demanded meals from the deceased She expressed her inability to serve meals at that off hour on which he slapped her, whereafter she left and jumped into the well." According to Shrimati Jhatto (D. W. 2), mother of the appellant, "accused asked his wife to give him dinner, she brought chapatis in a thali for the accused, there was no vegetable. There was some altercation inter-se the accused and the deceased. The accused pushed away the thali with chapatis and went to his room for sleeping, deceased also went to her berra alongwith her child for sleeping." 11. If we believe the appellant and his mother, there was nothing much except the usual altercation. However, we see no reason to disbelieve Nathu Ram (P. W. 10) who though being hostile, still deposes that the appellant did tell him about his slapping the wife. 12. There is no evidence as to what happened between the altercation and the time when Sita Ram, brother of the appellant, summoned some persons of the village to the well. Only the appellant could tell us. His version we have already reproduced. This version appears to suggest that the wife committed suicide by hanging herself in the well. That she was found hanging in the well is not m question. But did she die of hanging? At this stage we must refer to Dr. K. Shant Kumar (P. W. 20). 13. Dr. K. Shant Kumar conducted the postmortem examination on 4th May, 1979 at 11 A M. He had noticed one black abrasion on the forehead and two finger marks on the left side of the neck with small linger abrasion. At this stage we must refer to Dr. K. Shant Kumar (P. W. 20). 13. Dr. K. Shant Kumar conducted the postmortem examination on 4th May, 1979 at 11 A M. He had noticed one black abrasion on the forehead and two finger marks on the left side of the neck with small linger abrasion. He had also noticed a black mark of ligature. "On the right side of the neck from the level of posterior boundary of the sternocleidomastoid and coming forward medially passing the midline, and fading outwards the side till the anterior border of the left sternocleidomastoid muscle. The mark is at the level of the thyroid cartilage. One abrasion at the angle of the right side of the mandible size 3/4" x 1/5". On dissection the thyroid cartilages fracture in midline on the underlying tissue and ecchymosis seen and dark fluid blood present." On examining larynx and trachea he found them fractured "with ecchymossed blood seen". According to this doctor two to ten minutes might have elapsed between injury and death of the deceased. He explained in cross-examination that by finger marks he meant tips of the finger. He admitted that be had not recorded the dimensions of these marks but the doctor was positive that: "I have opened the complete interior part of the neck and noticed on dissection an ecchymosis was noted on the seat underlying the finger marks. I had not mentioned specifically that 1 had noted ecchymosis under the seat of injury mark. This is incorrect to suggest that my notes on dissection pertains only to the thyroid cartilages." The doctor went on to depose that there was ecchymosis underneath linear abrasion on the neck. 14. The doctor was of the opinion that "in case of hanging by rope with a knot as the back of the neck and jumping down it would fracture the thyroid cartilage and trachea larynx. In such cases the ligature will not be on the back side of the neck. In the present case attempts were first made to strangulate the deceased, in the event of her resistence she was throttled by applying pressure of hands. Pressure applied was with one hand. Only two lingers were applied and thumb. There is no reference of thumb marks in my report." 15. In the present case attempts were first made to strangulate the deceased, in the event of her resistence she was throttled by applying pressure of hands. Pressure applied was with one hand. Only two lingers were applied and thumb. There is no reference of thumb marks in my report." 15. That the death did not take place due to strangulation is also evident from the statement of Dr. K. M. Gautam (D. W. 3) produced by the appellant. He retired as a senior Medical Officer Class-I from Delhi in 1977. During his service he had conducted hundreds of cases of postmortem. He went through the statement of Dr. K. Shant Kumar (P. W. 20) and opined that it could not be definitely concluded that the present case was a case of strangulation. According to him "in hanging by a rope continuous mark of ligature around the neck is necessary............In the case of an attempt to suicide with rope by jumping into the well with a knot on the back of the neck there should be a complete ligature mark around the entire front of the neck mostly. In most of such cases vertebra and spinal cord should be damaged." 16. Both the doctors thus rule out that strangulation was the cause of death. It is also ruled out that death was due to hanging. Therefore, the cause of death is throttling as opined by doctor K. Shant Kumar. It may be noticed that Dr. Gautam was not asked about his opinion on this aspect. 17. Now let us look at the conduct of the appellant. According to Behari Lal (P. W. 3) the appellant did not say anything despite repeated queries being made by him from the appellant. Behari Lal deposes that he inquired from the mother of the deceased. She told him that the wife had died because of stomach-ache. Of course the mother (D. W. 2) denies having made that statement. Dina Ram (P. W. 3) admittedly went to inform the family of the deceased in village Sainwala. The message sent by the mother of the appellant was that the deceased had died because of stomach-ache. Now Ram Lal (F.W. 9), as already stated, deposes that the appellant had told him to inform the deceaseds relations that the wife had died on account of drowning in the well. The message sent by the mother of the appellant was that the deceased had died because of stomach-ache. Now Ram Lal (F.W. 9), as already stated, deposes that the appellant had told him to inform the deceaseds relations that the wife had died on account of drowning in the well. Similarly Nathu Ram (P. W. 10) was told by the appellant that the deceased had jumped into the well. 18. The evidence thus shows that different versions at different times had been given to the persons of the locality soon after the deceased was taken out of the well. The statement of Dina Ram (P.W. 3) shows that even an effort was made to take out water from the stomach of the deceased. All this shows that the appellant and the members of his family had given out suicide by drowning as the version of the death of the deceased. Thereafter the version was changed to stomach-ache (shool). Of course the third version, which is apparent from the conduct, was that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself in the well. Now none of these is a cause of the death of the deceased. In other words false versions were given. 19. The medical evidence shows that the deceased had been throttled to death and then hung by the neck in the well to give an impression to simple village folks that she had committed suicide. That is the reason why she is taken out of the well after collecting the villagers. Even an attempt was made to take water out of her stomach when there was no necessity since her head was not in the water. The rope with which she was found hanging in the well admittedly belonged to the appellant. Now the dead cannot walk and carry rope and hang themselves. Sumitra had been last seen alive that mid-night in the house of the appellant. The explanations of the appellant have been found false. The circumstances discussed above leave no doubt that it was the appellant who had throttled her to death. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has been at pains to demonstrate that the investigation was mala fide. We find that unfortunately it appears to be so. The explanations of the appellant have been found false. The circumstances discussed above leave no doubt that it was the appellant who had throttled her to death. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has been at pains to demonstrate that the investigation was mala fide. We find that unfortunately it appears to be so. According to the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Kedar Singh (P. W. 21), he reached village Pardunni on his motor cycle at about 5.30 P. M. and took photographs of the dead body with his own cemera which he used to carry with him. After completing the inquest report, he deposes to have sent the dead body for postmortem examination at about 10 P.M. in a tractor. On his own showing constable Karam Chand, who was sent to the police station with the statement of Rain Das (P. W, 1) and for bringing back the police file and the camera, came back to the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 P. M. In other words, he had not made use of any article which was brought by constable Karam Chand. He denies recording the statement of any witness in the police station or even detaining any one at the police station for two/three days. He also denies playing a photographic trick in connection with photographs exhibits PP/1 and PP/2. 21. We will take the case of photographs first. It appears that the Investigating Officer is interested in photography. This we say because the Investigating Officer states that he was in the habit of keeping and using his own camera despite the fact that an official camera has been provided to him. Photographs exhibits PP/1 and PP/2 show the face and neck of the deceased. They purport to be the photographs of both sides of the face and neck. One of the distinguishing features in these two photographs is that whereas in Ex. PP/2 a nose pin is apparent and there is a mark visible on the mandible, in Ex. PP/1 this mark as well as the nose pin is missing. The other features of the articles lying near the head get exactly reversed in the two photographs. In order to demonstrate that the Investigating Officer has played a photographic trick the accused examined photographer Bal Krishan (D. W. I). PP/1 this mark as well as the nose pin is missing. The other features of the articles lying near the head get exactly reversed in the two photographs. In order to demonstrate that the Investigating Officer has played a photographic trick the accused examined photographer Bal Krishan (D. W. I). He opined that photograph Ex, PP/1 had been taken by reversing the negatives and by obliterating the nose pin and the mark at the mandible. He brought the necessary material in the court and in the chamber of the Judge prepared a print from negative Ex. PP/7 said to pertain to photograph Ex. PP/1. The result was photograph Ex. P-4/B which clearly shows the presence of the nose pin and the mandible mark. Now admittedly the dead body had only one nose pin. It is, therefore, beyond doubt that the Investigating Officer had deliberately concocted false evidence. It may also be noticed that the photographer who developed the exposed film and made the prints in question was never cited as a prosecution witness nor was he examined in the trial. 22. Ram Dass (P.W.I), who lodged the report, states that when he along with the Investigating Officer reached village Pardunni, constable Karam Chand was also there. It shows that this constable was not sent to the police station by the Investigating Officer. He goes on to depose that the Investigating Officer had obtained his signatures on the report in the police station also. He also states that when he went to the police station the following morning he found Behari, Ram Lai, Nathu, Sita Ram, and Dina there. This belies the Investigating Officer who denies detaining any one. 23. Sahab Singh (P. W. 2), brother of the deceased, states that they had reached Paonta Sahib at about 9 P. M. with the dead body. In other words, this would be before constable Karam Chand is alleged to have returned to village Pardunni alongwith the investigation bag etc This witness goes on to depose that the appellant as well as Sita Ram, Behari, Ram Lal, Nathu, and Dina were taken to the police station after the dead body was left in the mortuary. The witness being the brother of the deceased, his statement cannot be disbelieved. The witness being the brother of the deceased, his statement cannot be disbelieved. This shows that the appellant was at all relevant times with the Investigating Officer and the latter tells a lie when he says that the appellant was not available on 3rd May, 1979 and was arrested later on. 24. There is no doubt that the Investigating Officer had not acted fairly and seems to be out to make sure that the prosecution case does not fall. But then simply because the investigation had been unfair, should the appellant be acquitted on this simple ground? We may recapitulate that in this case we have found the appellant guilty not because of anything which has been done by the Investigating Officer. Primarily the prosecution case is based on the medical opinion and other facts practically admitted by the appellant himself. In our opinion there has been no miscarriage of justice because of the defective investigation. We find that the Supreme Court in A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration, [A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 913], ruled that any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. 25. We may at this stage also refer to the Supreme Court judgment in Inder Singh and another v. State (Delhi Administration) [A.I.R. 1978 S.C 1091.] It was observed that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline not a fetish, and a guilty man cannot get away because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes, and that judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. 26. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has been extraordinary delay in sending the F. I. R. to the Magistrate In this connection Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [A. I. R. 1976 S. G. 2423], has been cited. No doubt delay in sending F.I.R. in the circumstances of a case may adversely affect the prosecution version since it gives time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. But in the instant case no such question arises. No doubt delay in sending F.I.R. in the circumstances of a case may adversely affect the prosecution version since it gives time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. But in the instant case no such question arises. As already discussed, there is no eye witness and the whole prosecution case mainly depends on facts discussed above which could not be embellished or introduced. In the report Ram Dass (P. W. 1), brother of the deceased, only expressed his suspicion about the cause of death of the deceased- This suspicion was based on his finding marks on the mandible as well as on the neck of the deceased. Therefore, the delay, if any, does not affect the present case. 27. The result is that the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and the sentences of the appellant are upheld. Appeal dismissed.