JUDGMENT 1. - Ram Prashad preferred this Jail Appeal through Jail Authorities against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, who convicted him for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case in brief are, that on 3-2-80 at 5.20 P.M. Amar Singh (PW8) lodged an oral report at the Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur to the effect that he was working as a Chokidar on the Bhatta of village Tonga. On that Bhatta Ram Prashad Jat r/o village Gopal Ka Nagla was also working. He was a driver on the tractor of the owner of the Bhatta. Ram Prashad and his wife Mst. Vimla both lived together in one Jhuggi situated on the Bhatta. In the morning Ram Prashad had told him that his wife had gone away somewhere, and he was going to search her. At about 1-O'clock in the day when he was going to drink water at the well, he heard cries of one dog coming from one of the Jhuggis. He reached the Jhuggi and saw that Mst. Vimla was lying in the Jhuggi dead Seeing this, he went to the owner of the Bhatta, who also came on the spot. He informed the owner of the Bhatta that Ram Prashad had gone in search of his wife, but she was lying dead in the Jhuggi. He and the owner of the Bhatta came to the Jhuggi and saw a string around the neck of Mst. Vimla. 3. On this report, the police authorities started taking action u/s 174, Cr. P.C. The S.I.-Gulab Singh came to the spot, inspected the dead body of Mst. Vimla and prepared memo Ex.P.1. He also prepared the map and the Site Inspection Note of the spot where the dead body was lying, which is Ex.P.2. A report (Ex.P.3) under Section 174. Cr.P.C. was also prepared by the S.I. The dead body of Mst. Vimla was sent for post-mortem to the City Hospital. Bharatpur. The medical Jurist conducted the post-mortem on 4-2-80 at 10-30 AM and submitted his report, which is Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 is the letter sent by S.I. Gulab Singh on 3-2-80 to the Medical Jurist, Bharatpur Hospital for conducting post mortem on the dead body of M/s. Vimla. Vimla was sent for post-mortem to the City Hospital. Bharatpur. The medical Jurist conducted the post-mortem on 4-2-80 at 10-30 AM and submitted his report, which is Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 is the letter sent by S.I. Gulab Singh on 3-2-80 to the Medical Jurist, Bharatpur Hospital for conducting post mortem on the dead body of M/s. Vimla. The post-mortem report was received by the S. I. In this report the Medical Jurist has opined that the patient died of Axphyxia due to strangulation. Till the report was received by the S.I., the police was treating it to be a case of suicide, but on receipt of the opinion of the doctor on the post-mortem examination, they found that this was a case of homicidal death, because Mst. Vimla died of Axphyxia due to strangulation. Thereafter, on 7-2-80, the S I. Gulab Singh sent a report to the S.H.O. in this respect. The S.H.O. on the back of this report on 7-2-80 wrote that it was a case u/s 302, IPC, and he therefore, ordered to register the case accordingly. A regular F.I.R. was then chalked out which is Ex.P.7. From the spot, a string was recovered, which is Article 1 and its memo is Ex.P.10. The S.I. also took photos of the Jhuggis which are Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.16 and the memo of these photos is Ex.P.17. The accused was arrested on 13-2-80 and the arrest memo is Ex.P.18. After completing a usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused u/s 302, I.P.C. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge u/s 302 I.P.C. against accused Ram Prashad. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in its evidence examined 9 witnesses. The accused did not lead any evidence and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that on account of the dispute regarding his pay with the owner of the Bhatta he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. First of all the police after registering this case proceeded under Section 174. Cr.P.C., but on receipt of the post-mortem report Ex.P.4. the case was registered under Section 302, I.P.C. From the post mortem report and from the statement of the doctor Shri B.K. Sharma (PW3) Mst. Vimla died on account of Asphyxia due to strangulation. 5. First of all the police after registering this case proceeded under Section 174. Cr.P.C., but on receipt of the post-mortem report Ex.P.4. the case was registered under Section 302, I.P.C. From the post mortem report and from the statement of the doctor Shri B.K. Sharma (PW3) Mst. Vimla died on account of Asphyxia due to strangulation. So, it is clear that this is not a case of suicide but she has been murdered by strangulation. This injury was anti mortem in nature. As such, it is a case of homicidal death. 6. There is no direct evidence in this case. The entire case depends on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, there are four circumstances, which lead to the conclusion that accused Ram Prashad committed murder of his wife Mst. Vimla. These circumstances are: (1) Last seen evidence; (2) Extra- Judicial confession by accused Ram Prashad to Amarsingh (PW8) and Bhagwandas (PW2); (3) Motive; and (4) Conduct of the accused. 7. We have heard the Amiens Curiae Mr. S.K. Gupta, and the learned P.P. Smt. Kamla Jain at length. We have also perused the entire evidence produced by the prosecution in this respect. 8. The first circumstance against the accused is, that Mst. Vimla was last seen with the accused. The learned Sessions Judge believing the prosecution evidence also held that Mst. Vimla was last seen with the accused. It is an admitted fact that deceased Mst. Vimla was the wife of accused Ram Prashad. It has come in the evidence that Ram Prashad and Mst. Vimla (deceased) had gone to Bayana to meet their relations and they had returned on the night of 2-2-80. Both the accused and Mst. Vimla slept in the night in the Jhuggi, which was allotted to them by the owner of the Bhatta. In the morning at 5-6 A.M. accused Ram Prashad met Amarsingh Chowkidar (PW8) and then he went to his owner Bhagwan Dass. It had also come in the evidence that at 9 A.M. when Amarsingh returned from his house to the Bhatta at village Tonga, accused Ram Prashad told him that he was going to search his wife. This evidence proves that on 2.2.80 Mst. Vimla was with accused Ram Prashad and they slept in the night in the Jhuggi, which was allotted to them. In the morning Mst. Vimla was not there and had gone to search her. This evidence proves that on 2.2.80 Mst. Vimla was with accused Ram Prashad and they slept in the night in the Jhuggi, which was allotted to them. In the morning Mst. Vimla was not there and had gone to search her. So, the evidence of last seen of Mst. Vimla with the accused is sufficient, and it is proved that they both were together in the night of 2-2-80. It is also natural because they were husband and wife. Thus, this circumstance is proved that Mst. Vimla was last seen with the accused Ram Prashad. 9. The second circumstance against the accused is the extra judicial confession made by him before Amarsingh Chowkidar (PW8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW2), the owner of the Bhatta. We have scrutinised the statement of Amarsingh. He gave information to the police on 3-2-80 at 5.20 P.M. about the fact that Mst. Vimla was lying dead in one of the Juggis. In this report (Ex. P.12) he stated that Ram Prashad and Mst. Vimla used to live together in the Jhuggi. On 3-2-80 in the morning Ram Prashad told him that his wife had gone somewhere and he was going to search her. At about 1 O'Clock in the day when he was going to drink water at the well, he heard the cries of a dog and saw the dead body of Mst. Vimla lying in the Jhuggi. But in the Court statement, this witness has made some improvement. He has stated that in the morning at 5-30 or 6A M. Ram Prashad accused met him, because the owner of the Bhatta and sent a person to call Ram Prashad. He has stated that he did not see Mst. Vimla wife of the accused in the Jnuggi. In the morning Ram Prashad did not tell him about his wife. In the report (Ex.P.12) he has stated that in the morning Ram Prasad had told him that his wife was not in the house, she had gone somewhere, and he was going to search her, but he has denied this fact in the Court statement. He too did not ask Ram Prashad about his wife, Amarsingh then went to his house and returned at 9 A.M. to the Bhstta after taking his food, and he found Ram Prashad and Bhagwan Dass on the Bhatta. He too did not ask Ram Prashad about his wife, Amarsingh then went to his house and returned at 9 A.M. to the Bhstta after taking his food, and he found Ram Prashad and Bhagwan Dass on the Bhatta. Bhagwan Dass was asking Ram Prashad to go and work on the tractor, and Ram Prashad was telling that his wife had gone somewhere, which place is not known to him. Amarsingh then went to the office and slept there. The owner went away to the Bhatta known as Jaghinawala. He further stated that Ram Prashad came with his bedding to the office and told him that he was keeping his bedding there and was going to search his wife. This statement is contradicted by the police statement Ex.P.12. No doubt, the difference is a minor one, but this difference and the statement coupled with other differences prove that Amarsingh is the most unreliable witness. On this point Bhagwan Dass (PW2) has stated that one labour Moti came to him and told that Ram Prashad had come back. He and Moti started on cycle for the Bhatta Tongwala, while on the way near Maida Factory the accused Ram Prashad met them. He asked Ram Prashad to go on tractor and work there and he went to the Bhatta Jaghinawala. He has not stated that he had sent some person to call Ram Prashad to the Bhatta Tongawala. As such the statement of Amarsingh is contradicted on this aspect. Bhagwag Dass (PW2) has also stated that when he was working on the Bhatta Jaghinawala, Amarsingh came to him and informed him that Ram Prashad's wife was lying in the Jhuggi. He asked Amarsingh about Ram Prashad who told him that Ram Prashad had gone to Bayana by the noon shuttle. Bhagwan Dass asked him to run and catch Ram Prashad. At the Bhatta Tongawala, Amarsingh, Ram Prashad and Mst. Vimla were the only persons residing in Jhuggis. So, he asked Amarsingh to go to the police station and report the matter. It means that Amarsingh came to Bhagwan Dass at the Bhatta Jaghinawala. Before this, Bhagwan Dass has not said that he and Ram Prashad were at the Bhatta Tongawala at 9 AM where Amarsingh met them. Vimla were the only persons residing in Jhuggis. So, he asked Amarsingh to go to the police station and report the matter. It means that Amarsingh came to Bhagwan Dass at the Bhatta Jaghinawala. Before this, Bhagwan Dass has not said that he and Ram Prashad were at the Bhatta Tongawala at 9 AM where Amarsingh met them. If we read the cross-examination of Amarsingh (PW 8), he has stated that Moti came to him in the morning at 5-6 A. M. and woke him up. Ram Prashad himself came to his quarter at 5-30 or 6 A.M. and at that time he did not tell him that his wife was not in the Jhuggi and she has gone somewhere. Then at 5-30 or 6 A.M. Moti and Ram Prashad left for the city and when he came after taking his food, Bhagwan Dass and Ram Prashad met him at the Jhuggi Tongawala. This is a different statement than the statement made by him in his examination-in-chief. This statement is not corroborated by Bhagwan Dass (PW 2). The material witness for this story was Moti. but he has not been examined by the prosecution. Bhagwan Dass (PW 2) has not stated that he had sent Moti to the Bhatta Tongawala to call Ram Prashad. On the other hand from the statement of Bhagwan Dass it transpires that Ram Prashad was called through somebody, but his name is not known as to who that man was, and when he was coming to the owner of the Bhatta, Bhagwan Dass and Moti met him near Maida Factory. Bhagwan Dass has not stated that he and Ram Prashad came to Bhatta Tongawala at 9 A M. Apart from this, the statement as given by Amarsingh in the Court does not find place in the report Ex. P. 12. In the report, he has not mentioned that after taking food he came to the Bhatta Tongawala at 9 A. M. where Bhagwan Dass and Ram Prashad met him and Ram Prashad told him that his wife had gone somewhere and he was going to search her. Therefore, from the discussion of the evidence of Amarsingh (PW 8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW 2) we find that both these witnesses are not reliable. 10. Now we come to the extra judicial confession made by accused Ram Prashad. Therefore, from the discussion of the evidence of Amarsingh (PW 8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW 2) we find that both these witnesses are not reliable. 10. Now we come to the extra judicial confession made by accused Ram Prashad. Amarsingh (PW 8) has stated that on the second day, i.e. on 4-2-80 Ram Prashad accused met him in the Bijariya at Railway Station. He asked Ram Prashad as to where he had gone. His wife was lying dead in the Jhuggi. At this Ram Prashad told him that he had committed this mistake and he should be saved Ram Prashad told him that Mst. Vimla died at his hands. In cross-examination he has stated that when Ram Prashad confessed before him in the Bajariya Kedarnath father of Bhagwan Dass and Prabhu Jatav were present. It means that Ram Prashad accused made this confession to Amarsingh (PW 8) in presence of Kedarnath and Prabhu Kedar Nath has been examined as PW 1, but he does not support the statement of Amar Singh (PW 8). Kedar Nath has not stated in his statement that he was in the Bajariya on 4-2-80 where Ram Prashad accused confessed his guilt to Amarsingh (PW 8). Prabhu (PW 7) has also been examined by the police, but he too does not corroborate Amarsingh (PW 8). In examinat on-in-chief he has stated that on the second day of discovery of the dead body, Ram Prashad met him with Amarsingh in the Bajariya of the Railway Station. Ram Prashad with folded hands was telling Amarsingh to save him treating him as his son. Except these words, he had not heard anything. Therefore, in what words Ram Prashad had confessed his guilt and whether he confessed the fact of murdering Mst. Vimla has not been stated by Prabhu. This witness Prabhu was declared hostile by the prosecution. Another person who was present when the confession was made by the accused was Kedar Nath (PW 1), who has also not corroborated the statement of Amarsingh (PW 8). Thus, the solitary statement of Amarsingh remains on the record to prove the extra judicial confession made by the accused to him. 11. It will also be relevant to mention that Amarsingh has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 2-2-80 in the evening at 5 or 5-30 P. M. Ram Prashad and Smt. Vimla returned to their Jhuggi. Thus, the solitary statement of Amarsingh remains on the record to prove the extra judicial confession made by the accused to him. 11. It will also be relevant to mention that Amarsingh has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 2-2-80 in the evening at 5 or 5-30 P. M. Ram Prashad and Smt. Vimla returned to their Jhuggi. In the night they slept in the Jhuggi and he slept in the office. He has also stated that before Mst Vimla died, he was told by her that she had gone to meet her Jeeja (brother-in-law) from where Ram Prashad brought her after beating. There were marks of beating on the body of Smt. Vimla. In cross-examination, he has stated that he never went to the Jhuggi of Smt. Vimla. Smt. Vimla used to observe Parda with him and she did not use to talk to him. Then he has stated that when Smt. Vimla told him about her beating by Ram Prashad he was all alone and Ram Prashad was at the well at that time. Smt. Vimla did not observe Parda with him and she showed to him the injuries caused by Ram Prashad. This type of statement indicates that Amarsingh is the most unreliable and untruthful witness. He has made such a statement which is self-contradictory. As such the solitary statement of Amarsingh (PW 8) about the extra-judicial confession cannot be believed, and we are unable to believe him on this aspect. 12. Another witness to this circumstance is Bhagwan Dass (PW 2). He has stated that on the second day in the evening at 4-O' clock he was at the Bhatta Jaghinawala where the accused came to him. Ram Prashad told him that he had murdered his wife, the police will harass him and as such he should be saved. The witness told the accused that he had done a very wrong act and he cannot help him. The accused then went away. In cross-examination he has stated that when Ram Prashad made this confession, he was all alone. He did not remember the time of Ram Prashad's coming to him. He has only said that he had come in the evening. This is a vague statement. Then he stated that he did not inform the police that Ram Prashad had murdered his wife. He did not remember the time of Ram Prashad's coming to him. He has only said that he had come in the evening. This is a vague statement. Then he stated that he did not inform the police that Ram Prashad had murdered his wife. This witness had not taken step to catch hold of Ram Prashad at the time when he confessed his guilt before him. This conduct of Bhagwan Dass (PW 2) is most unnatural. Apart from this. the most important aspect is that Ram Prashad confessed his guilt before Amarsingh and Bhagwan Dass that he had murdered his wife, but none of them had informed the police at that very moment. It is alleged that when Ram Prashad had told Amarsingh about the murder of his wife, they were standing only about 50-60 paces away from the police station. Amarsingh should have taken Ram Prashad to the police station. Similarly Bhagwan Dass should have done. but both remained silent and no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why they did not inform the police on 4-2-80 immediately after making confession by accused Ram Prashad. This conduct of the witnesses is most unnatural and they cannot he relied upon. 13. Another aspect is that according to the prosecution the police had recorded the statements of Amar Singh and Bhagwan Dass on 3-2-80. In those statements they have made a general statement that Smt. Vimla was found dead in the Jhuggi. At that time Ram Prashad had not confessed his guilt before them. and as such there was no question of telling the police about this confession. But. on 4-2-80 the accused Ram Prashad had confessed his guilt before them and they knew that by that time their statements had been recorded by the police on 3-2-80. Amarsingh is the informant of this incident. It was their duty to inform the police about the clue of murder of Mst. Vimla. Bhagwan Dass is the owner of the Bhatta, and it was his duty to inform the police, because Smt. Vimla was found dead in the Jhuggi belonging to him. Then on 7-2-80 the police further investigated into the matter and recorded the statements of Amarsingh (PW 8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW) 2), and in those statements they have deposed about the confession made by Ram Prashad accused. Then on 7-2-80 the police further investigated into the matter and recorded the statements of Amarsingh (PW 8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW) 2), and in those statements they have deposed about the confession made by Ram Prashad accused. We fail to understand how the police came to know about the confession, and there was no necessity to record their statements on 7-2-80 when on 3-2-80 their statements were already recorded. These witnesses did not inform the police on 4-2-80 about the confession made by Ram Prashad accused. There is no other evidence on record from which it can be imagined that the police had been informed that the accused had confessed before Amarsingh and Bhagwan Dass that he had murdered his wife. It is also said that Kedarnath and Prabhu were present at the time the accused confessed his guilt before Amar Singh, but Kedar Nath and Prabhu also did not inform the police about it. Therefore it is a mystry as to how the investigating officer came to know about this fact which compelled him to record the statements of Amarsingh (PW 8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW 2) on 7-2-80 again. This all shows that the story of extrajudicial confession has been concocted and manipulated. The police was completely in dark and on the report of Amarsingh (PW 8), which is Ex. P. 12, they were proceeding u/s 174, Cr. P. C. and were of the view that it was a case of suicide. Thus, the statements of both the witnesses Amarsingh (PW 8) and Bhagwan Dass, (PW 2) are most unreliable and cannot be believed on this aspect. 14. The third circumstance is the motive for committing murder. The prosecution has argued that accused Ram Prashad was of the view that the character of his wife Smt. Vimla was not good. He doubted her character. It was also argued that when they had gone to the house of her Jeeja, accused Ram Prashad had beaten her there also. In this respect, they have examined Mst. Laxmi (PW 5) and her husband Isarlal (PW 6). We may say that both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Mst. Laxmi (PW 5) has stated that Smt Vimla is not her sister. She admitted that Smt. Vimla and Ram Prashad had come to her house and stayed for three days. In this respect, they have examined Mst. Laxmi (PW 5) and her husband Isarlal (PW 6). We may say that both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Mst. Laxmi (PW 5) has stated that Smt Vimla is not her sister. She admitted that Smt. Vimla and Ram Prashad had come to her house and stayed for three days. There both Ram Prashad and Vimla had quarrelled and Ram Prashad had beaten Smt. Vimla with a Chimta. She has also stated that Smt. Vimla did not inform her about the behaviour of Ram Prashad. Therefore, according to this witness Ram Prashad had beaten Smt. Vimla at her house, but it does not mean that the behaviour of Ramprashad towards Vimla was rude and he used to beat her off and on. Isharlal (PW 6) stated that there was no quarrel in his presence between Ram Prashad and Smt. Vimla. As such, both these witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story that Ram Prashad used to beat Smt. Vimla. Regarding the chastity of Smt. Vimla, there is not a single word on the record of this case. The prosecution has not examined any witness to say that the character of Smt. Vimla was doubtful and she was leading an adulterous life. Amarsingh (PW 8), who is the Chowkidar and always used to live near the Jhuggi of Ram Prashad, has not stated even a word about the bad character of Smt. Vimla. Therefore, there is nothing to show that as the character of Smt. Vimla was doubtful and that Ram Prashad accused was annoyed with her which resulted in her death. So the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the murder of Smt. Vimla by Ram Piashad accused. The learned Sessions Judge also was of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. We also agree with the learned Sessions Judge on this point. 15. The fourth circumstance as argued by the learned P.P. is about the conduct of the accused. It has been argued that after committing the murder, the accused ran away and he was caught later on by the police on 13-2-80 at Malgodam road from a Jhonpri adjacent to a temple. The accused in his statement u/s 313. Cr.P.C. has denied that he was arrested on 13-2-80. According to him, he was arrested on 3-2-80. It has been argued that after committing the murder, the accused ran away and he was caught later on by the police on 13-2-80 at Malgodam road from a Jhonpri adjacent to a temple. The accused in his statement u/s 313. Cr.P.C. has denied that he was arrested on 13-2-80. According to him, he was arrested on 3-2-80. Amarsingh (PW8) has stated that on 3-2-80 Ramprashad brought his bedding to his office, kept it there and told him that he was gong to search his wife. By this statement, the police says that the accused after keeping his bedding and murdering his wife had run away from there. But we do not agree with this story of the prosecution. Had the accused murdered his wife on 3-2-80, and according to Amarsingh (PW8) had gone to search her, where was the necessity for the accused to come on 4-2-80 in the evening in the Bajariya near Railway Station and meet Amarsingh and Bhagwan Das, on the same evening for making the confession of his guilt to them. There is also nothing on record to show that the accused had left by the noon shuttle on 3-2-80, as stated by Amarsingh to Bhagwan Dass. Therefore, the argument of the learned P.P. on this circumstance of misconduct has no substance. 16. The most important aspect of this case is the post-mortem report and the statement of the doctor Shri B.K. Sharma. According to the prosecution, Amarsingh (PWS) found the dead body of Smt. Vimla in the Jhuggi in the day at about 1-O' clock on 3-2-80. In the morning at about 5-6 A.M. accused Ram Prashad met Amarsingh in his office and then left the Bhatta Tongawala for the place where Bhagwan Dass the owner of the Bhatta was available. According to one witness Bhagwan Dass called Ramchand from the Bhatta Tongawala. So, it is proved and established by the prosecution that Ram Prashad left Bhatta Tongawala at 5-6 A.M. on 3-2-80. He did not return to the Bhatta Tongawala between 6 A.M. to 1 P.M. It is also in the evidence that Ram Prashad and Bhagwan Dass came on the Bhatta Tongawala at 9 AM as stated by Amar Singh. Even if we presume that they were at the Bhatta Tongawala at 9 AM.and Ram Prashad was with Bhagwan Dass, there was no question of murdering Smt.Vimla at that time. Even if we presume that they were at the Bhatta Tongawala at 9 AM.and Ram Prashad was with Bhagwan Dass, there was no question of murdering Smt.Vimla at that time. It means that Smt. Vimla was murdered before 5 AM on 3-2-80. In the night of 2-2-80 Ram Prashad and Smt. Vimla had slept together in the Jhuggi and at 5 A.M. Ram Prashad accused had left the Jhuggi and the Bhatta Tongawala. Therefore, Smt. Vimla might have been murdered in the night intervening 2-2-80 and 3-2-80, i.e., prior to 5 A.M. 17. Now, we take up the post-mortem report (Ex P.4) and the statement of the doctor. The post-mortem was conducted on 4-4-80 at 10-30 A.M. Dr. B.K. Sharma (PW3) has proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P.4.). He has stated that the age of Smt. Vimla was about 19 years and the probable time of her death was about IS hours before the post-mortem examination. Thus, according to the doctor the post-mortem was done on 4-2-80 at 10 A.M. and the probable time of her death comes to on 3-2-80 at about 4 P.M. Amarsingh (PW8) had seen the dead body of Smt. Vimla lying in the Jhuggi at 1 P.M. It has been mentioned in the post-mortem report that the right ear and soft part of nose were eaten by animals and the soft part of the right side of face and both the lips were missing. This shows that the dead body of Smt. Vimla was lying there for quite a long time and it was eaten by animals. It shows that she must have died much earlier when Amarsingh (PW8) saw her dead body lying in the Jhuggi. There is nothing on the record to show that Smt. Vimla was murdered between 6 A.M. and 1 P.M. Ram Prashad had left his Jhuggi in the morning at 5 A.M. and did not return back. which indicates that Smt. Vimla must have been murdered in the night of 2-2-80 before 5 A.M. It means that her death had occurred more than 30 hours before the post-mortem was conducted. The learned P.P. could not satisfy us about this discrepancy, though she w1s repeatedly asked to explain it. It is not correct to say that her death occurred near about 4 P.M. on 3-2-80 in view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution case. The learned P.P. could not satisfy us about this discrepancy, though she w1s repeatedly asked to explain it. It is not correct to say that her death occurred near about 4 P.M. on 3-2-80 in view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution case. This creates a serious doubt in the story as put up by the prosecution. 18. As we have discussed above, all the circumstantial evidence point by point, and we are of the opinion that the witnesses Amar singh (PW8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW2) are most unreliable and the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made to these witness is not believable. The prosecution has completely failed to establish and prove the extra-judicial confession as also to bring home the guilt to the accused. Moti who was an important witness has not been examined by the prosecution for the reason best known to them, which gives an adverse inference against the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the statements of Amarsingh (PW8) and Bhagwan Dass (PW2) and has committed an error in holding that the accused had made the extra-judicial confession. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 19. In the result, no case u/s 302, I.P.C. is made out against the accused Ram Prashad and he has been wrongly held guilty for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. 20. The appeal of accused Ram Prashad is, therefore, accepted and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated 25-10-80 is set aside. Ram Prashad is acquitted of the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. He is in Jail, and he shall be released fothwith. if not required in any ether case. A copy of this judgment be sent to the appellant through Jail.Appeal accepted. *******