JUDGMENT 1. -The appellant Ronki was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302, I. P. C., for having committed the murder of his wife Mst. Lajjo on 15-12-1972 at about noon time and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by his Judgement dated 21.10.1983. 2. The prosecution case is that on 15. 12. 1972 at abut noon when the appellant was inflicting knife blows to his wife, appellants brother-in-law Birbal (P.W.l.) happened to visit the house of the appellant and he saw the appellant inflicting blows on his sister, who was lying on the ground. The appellant than scaled the wall and ran away. Immediately after the occurrence at. about 12. 30, p. m., Birbai lodged the report Ex./I at the Police Station, Rawatsar. The occurrence had taken place at Rawatsar. On his reports, case under Sec. 302, I. P. C., was registered. The prosecution case further is that after about ten minutes the accused appeared at the Police Station having blood stains on his shirt and Dhoti and also blood stains on his person. At that time he was also having a blood stained knife in.his hand. The S. H. O., Police Station, Rawatsar, Shri Vichitra Kumar (C.W.I) arrested the accused. The blood stained clothes were seized. The blood stained knife was also seized. Scrapings of blood from his person were also taken. The accused also had one pistol with him which was also seized. Thereafter, the S.H.O. proceeded to the spot and conducted the spot investigation. Autopsy of the dead Body was conducted. The deceased Mst. Lajjo had as many as 17 incised wounds, according to medical opinion she died on account of respiratory failure, hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to lungs and caused by sharp weapon. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized and scrapings from the knife, cuttings from the Dhoti and the shirt and cuttings from the clothes of the deceased, were sent for chemical examination. On Chemical and Serologist examination, it was found that the clothes of the accused and the knife seized from his custody, were stained with human blood. On Chemical and Serologist examination, it was found that the clothes of the accused and the knife seized from his custody, were stained with human blood. The accused was arrested and his blood stained clothes and knife were seized in the presence of Motbirs Ramnarain (P.W.3) and Devilal (P.W.4) After completion, of investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was ultimately tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Birbal (P.W.l), Satpal son of the accused (P.W.2), Ramnarayan (P.W.3), Devilal (P.W,4), and Dr. Bheem Singh (P.W.5). As the investigating Officer was not produced and the statement of the accused was recorded, a further opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce Vichitra Kumar, therefore. Vichitra Kumar was examined as a Court witness as C.W. 1. The statement of the accused was further recorded with reference to the statement of Vichitra Kumar. The accused in his statement came out with a version that he had gone for work in the Rawatsar Mandi and his son Satpal was at the house. At about 12.00 noon he came to know that his wife Lajjo had been murdered. Thereupon he came to the house, where he found Satpal weeping. He tried to see whether there was life in.his wife, but he found that she was dead. He started weeping and became unconscious and fell down on his,wife. Satpal then removed him and gave him water, on which he regained consciousness. He also set right the clothes of his wife. Thereafter he went to the 'Police Station. The S.H.O. did not recorded his report. After some time Birbal came at the Police Station, whose report was taken by the S.H O. The knife and the pistol were delivered by Birbal to the S.H.O. He does not know whether his clothes were stained with blood on account of fall on the dead body. At the trial Birbal and Satpal did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. At the trial Birbal and Satpal did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the circumstances that the knife and the clothes of the accused were stained with human blood and that the accused gave false explanation regarding seizure of knife by the police and that delayed explanation was offered by the accused in respect of his blood stained clothes, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Sec. 302. I.P.C. Consequently, he convicted and sentenced him for the said offence. Aggrieved with his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal through Jail. 3. We have heard Shri S.R. Singhi, Amicus Curiae, assisted by Shri Suresh Kumbhat, and Shri M. C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. 4. As already stated above, the learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction of the appellant on the following circumstances:- (1) that the shirt and Dhoti of the appellant were found stained with human blood and the knife Ex. 1 was also found stained with blood; (2) that the accused denied the proved circumstance of seizure of knife Ex. 1 from his possession; and (3) that the explanation offered in respect of blood stained clothes was not offered at the earliest opportunity. 5. A question arises whether on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant was rightly found guilty of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. ? 6. We may state that neither there is any evidence of motive, nor there is any ocular evidence on record. Birbal, who claimed himself to be the eye witness, has not supported the prosecution. Rather he states that the appellant was already there at the Police Station when he visited the Police Station and according to him he saw the knife lying at the Police Station. It appears that being a near relative of the appellant, he has not supported the prosecution. The different documents, which have been prepared by the police during investigation, bears his signature, but he has simply denied their contents, although he has admitted his signatures on them. It appears that being a near relative of the appellant, he has not supported the prosecution. The different documents, which have been prepared by the police during investigation, bears his signature, but he has simply denied their contents, although he has admitted his signatures on them. However from the evidence of Motbirs Ram Narain and Devilal and from the statement of Vichitra Kumar, S.H.O., it is amply proved that Birbal had already visited the Police Station and had already lodged the report and after about ten minutes the accused appeared at the Police Station and his shirt and Dhoti at that time were stained with blood and he was also having a knife with him, which was also stained with blood and these clothes and the knife were seized at that time and were packed and sealed. It is further proved from the Chemical and Serological examination that these articles were stained with human blood. The circumstance of blood stained articles, found on the person of the accused, is to be considered in the light of the explanation given by the appellant. It is true that the appellant did not give any explanation before the committing court or at the time when charge was read over to him and for the first time he came with that explanation or version when his statement under Sec. 342, Cr. P.C.. was recorded. As per his explanation, he fell on the dead body and he also took care of his wife and set her clothes right, so it is in that process, according to him, he might have sustained the stains of blood on his clothes. As regards the knife, his statement is that he did not produce the knife at the Police Station. It was Birbal, who produced that knife at the Police Station. So far as the explanation or statement with regard to the knife is concerned, that cannot be taken to be true, as, even Birbal has not supported that version. According to Birbal, the knife was seen by him lying at the Police Station. In this regard we have already found the evidence of the Motbirs and of the S.H.O. credible. So the version of the appellant with respect to knife, appears to be false. According to Birbal, the knife was seen by him lying at the Police Station. In this regard we have already found the evidence of the Motbirs and of the S.H.O. credible. So the version of the appellant with respect to knife, appears to be false. Still the question arises on the basis of this false version relating to knife and on the basis of delayed explanation with regard to stains of blood on his clothes, that whether the accused can be held guilty of the offence of murder. 7. Mr. S. R. Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that recovery of blood stained articles is only a corroborative piece of evidence. This by itself is insufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence of murder ; Reliance was placed by him on a decision of this Court in State v. Sardar Singh (1969 R.L.W, 69). He also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reference to by the learned trial Judge, namely, Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. The State of Gujarat ( AIR 1972 S.C. 922 ). He urged that Khatri Hemraj Amulakhs case is a case nearer to the present case. That was also a case of murder of wife. One of the circumstance against the accused was blood on his clothes and that he was seen running towards the police station with those clothes on. The accused in . that case offered an explanation under Sec. 342, Cr,P.C, that after closing the shop when he went to his house, he found his wife to have been murdered and in order to see whether she was alive or dead, he tried to make her sit and at that time his clothes and person were stained with blood. It was observed that there was nothing unnatural or improbable in the above conduct of the accused. The explanation offered by the accused, was found to be plausible, although it does not appear from the Report as to whether the accused had offered that explanation at any earlier stage of the case. Mr. Singhi submitted that this circumstance of clothes having stained with blood is consistent with the explanation of the accused and simply because the explanation has been given at the stage of the statement of the accused under Sec. 342, Cr.P.C., it does not loses its value. Mr. Singhi submitted that this circumstance of clothes having stained with blood is consistent with the explanation of the accused and simply because the explanation has been given at the stage of the statement of the accused under Sec. 342, Cr.P.C., it does not loses its value. Had he not given any explanation, this circumstance of blood stained clothes, would not have in any way advanced the prosecution case. In the absence of any other evidence, simply on the basis of blood stained clothes, the appellant could not have been found guilty of the offence of murder. In the presence of the explanation, all the more, the circumstance of blood stained clothes cannot go against the accused. Non-explanation cannot be placed on better &footing than the explanation offered by the appellant and so far as the denial of recovery of knife is concerned, that circumstance by itself would be insufficient for holding the appellant guilty. Although it is proved that the knife was recovered from the possession of the accused, which was stained with blood, but this circumstance has to be considered in the light of the explanation offered by the accused with regard to the incident and it appears that he came to the police station along with the knife. Appearance of the appellant having stains of human blood on his clothes along with human blood stained knife, is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty, These circumstances should be considered in the light of the explanation offered by him and it may be that after having found his wife murdered, he proceeded to the police station to make report in the above condition, The above circumstances, there, are not conclusive and clinching for establishing the guilt against the accused. Thus, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. In the above view, the conviction and the sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant are set aside and he if acquitted of the offence for which he has been charged. He is already on, bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are discharged.Appeal allowed. *******