K.S. SIDHU, J— The appellant, Surajmal, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar for the offence of murder of his wife Bhuri and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or, in default, for the rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on February 12, 1981, Suresh Kumar (PW 5) a Forest Guard, saw the dead body of a woman, lying manacled in the bushes, with a knife stuck into the abdomen still in that very position at that time. Most of the skin and muscles had been eaten away by animals and birds. A diary and a pair of black shoes were also lying there. Leaving two of his colleagues behind to guard the spot, Suresh Kumar went to the police station concerned and made a written report(Ex, Pi) there, Vijay Bahadur Singh (PW 16) the Station House Officer, Kotwali, Jhalawar, went to the spot, prepared its rough sketch (Ex. P 2) held inquest proceedings (Ex. P 6 and Ex. P7) took into possession the clothings, ornaments shoes vide memo Ex. P8 removed the Knife Ex. 4 from the dead body and sealed it vide memo Ex P9 and also retrieved the diary, Ex. 5 from near the dead body and prepared memo Ex. P11 about it. From the clothings etc. recovered from there, the dead body was identified to be that of Bhuri wife of the accused appellant. The accused appellant was arrested on February 24, 1981. It is alleged that some blood stained clothes were recovered by the police on February 20, 1981 in consequence of the information supplied by the accused. 3. On further investigation the police claim to have discovered that the knife Ex. 5 had been purchased by the accused from Abdul Majid (PW 10) sometime prior to the occurrence. The diary Ex. 5 according to the police, belongs to the accused who caused certain entries regarding sales etc. of sheep and goat to be made therein by Sita Ram (PW. 5). It is alleged that the accused was last seen with Bhuri a day or two prior to the day on which the crime was committed. 4. The prosecution examined Mst. 5 according to the police, belongs to the accused who caused certain entries regarding sales etc. of sheep and goat to be made therein by Sita Ram (PW. 5). It is alleged that the accused was last seen with Bhuri a day or two prior to the day on which the crime was committed. 4. The prosecution examined Mst. Jhamku, Shivlal, Hazarilal, Suresh Kumar, Sitaram, Shrilal, Jamunalal,Birdhulal, Ghesalal, Bhanwar Singh, Chatter Singh, Hooralal, Kishanlal, Abdul Wahib, Abdul Majid, Vijay Bahadursingh & Nathulal Champawat as witnesses in support of its case. PW Jhumki is a sister of the accused. She testified that the accused and Bhuri had taken her from village Parbati to village Kholi and given her in naata there to Shivlal. Jhumki deposed that she had not seen Bhuri after she left village Kholi in the company of the accused Shivlal, the naata husband of Jhumki corroborated her evidence. Hazarilal, the first husband of Jhumki, gave here say evidence regarding the alleged taking away of Bhuri by the accused from village Khuri to village Parbati. His deposition must be ignored as irrelevant. Suresh Kumar testified that he had seen a manacled dead body of a woman lying in the bushes on February 12, 1981 and that he had reported this fact to the police the same day. 5. Sita Ram (PW 5) testified that he had been writing diary Ex. 5 for the accused and that the diary belongs to the accused. 6. Shrilal (PW 6) stated that the accused left the village in the company of his wife Bhuri, and sister Jhumki 4 or 5 days before the obsequies regarding the death of the accuseds mother were scheduled to take place and that he did not return to the village on the date the obsequies were performed. He returned nearly 15 or 16 days later. 7. PWS. Jamna Lal and Birdhi Lals evidence has also to be ignored because they admitted in cross-examination that what they had said in examina-tion-in chief about Bhuri going away from Khori in the company of the accused and about the clothes that Bhuri has been wearing at that time was based on the information which they had gathered from other villagers. 8. PW Ghisa Lal did not support the prosecution case regarding the alleged recovery of a bag of the accused containing the clothings at his instances. 8. PW Ghisa Lal did not support the prosecution case regarding the alleged recovery of a bag of the accused containing the clothings at his instances. He was declared hostile at the request of the Public Prosecutor. 9. PWS. Bhanwar Singh and Chatter Singh are police officials who, gave formal evidence relating to the custody of some articles connected with this case. 10. Hira Lal (PW. 12) re-called that the accused had spent a night with him at his house in village Malipur and that a young girl was with him that night. He denied that the accused was carrying a bag at that time. 11. Abdul Majid (PW. 15) deposed that he had sold the knife Ex. 6 to the accused, who comes to his shop in a village fair and purchased it for Rs. 25/-. He admitted that the accused was not known to him earlier and that he had not seen him before that transaction at his shop in the village fair. 12. In his statement under Sec 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations, made against him and pleaded that the witnesses had given false evidence. He did not produce any evidence in defence. 13. Relying mainly on the circumstances to the effect that the accused had left his village in the company of his wife and had returned to the village alone after 15 or 16 days, that the diary Ex. 5, of the accused was recovered lying near the dead body and that the knife Ex. 4 found stuck in the dead body had been purchased by the accused from Abdul Majid, a few days before the occurrence, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence of murder of his wife Bhuri, and convicted and sentenced him under section 302 I.P.C. as aforementioned. 14. After hearing Mr. Sudarsangani, learned counsel who entered appearances amicus curiae and Public Prosecutor for the State, and going through the entire evidence on record, we find ourselves far from satisfied that the accused had killed his wife. We are constrained to note that the prosecution did not conduct this case with all the care and attention it deserved. One glaring omission in that behalf is the non-production as a witness of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mst. We are constrained to note that the prosecution did not conduct this case with all the care and attention it deserved. One glaring omission in that behalf is the non-production as a witness of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mst. Bhuri Of course the prosecution placed on the record the past mortem report, Ex. P10. This document goes improved and even otherwise it could at best be used as corroborative evidence if the doctor who prepared it had been examined as a witness and if he had given substantive evidence regarding what he found as a result of the autopsy on the dead body. In the absence of medical evidence, we cannot possibly record a definite finding that Bhuri met with homicidal death, have normally remanded the case for recording the evidence of the doctor but we are not following this course, for we do not find any satisfactory evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime of murder of Bhuri, even if we were to assume that Bhuri had met with a homicidal death. 15. The only circumstance appearing on record against the accused is that he had left the village in the company of his wife 4 or 5 days before the date fixed for the obsequies regarding the death of his mother and that he had returned to the village alone 15 or 16 days later. This creates a strong suspicion, but no better than a more suspicion, that he might have killed his wife and then made himself scarce. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution must produce further evidence of a reliable nature to show that Bhuri was killed around February 1, 1981, and that the killer was none else than the accused. 16. Now, the only other evidence produced by the prosecution consists of the alleged recovery of the diary Ex. 5, of the accused from near the dead body and the alleged purchase of knife Ex. 4 by the accused from Abdul Majid. The recovery of the Ex. 5 from near the dead body, does not necessarily show that the killer was none else than the accused. 5, of the accused from near the dead body and the alleged purchase of knife Ex. 4 by the accused from Abdul Majid. The recovery of the Ex. 5 from near the dead body, does not necessarily show that the killer was none else than the accused. Even assuming that Sita Ram has given truthful evidence that the diary belongs to the accused, its recovery from near the dead body can be explained on a reasonable hypotheses other than the guilt of the accused. After all the, deceased was the wife of the accused and as such we cannot rule out the possibility of the diary being in her possession at the time of her death in the forest. 17. We find it difficult to believe Abdul Majid that after having sold a knife to an unknown customer in a make shift market in a village fair, he was able subsequently to identify that customer to be the accused. It is significant to note that the prosecution did not arrange for a test identification parade during the investigation. In the absence of such test identification the, identification of the accused by the witness at the trial does not carry any conviction. 18. For all these reasons, we find that the charge of murder framed against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We would therefore allow this, appeal, set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit the accused. He is in Jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith.