JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Magha Ram was convicted under section 302, IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by his judgment dated May 13, 1976. He has come up in appeal and challenges his conviction. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased Smt. Poli aged about 30 years at the time of her murder was the wife of the accused, who was nearly 50 years of age at that time. They were living in village 7 G.D., Police Station, Garhsana in Ganganagar district. The accused suspected the fidelity and chastity of Smt. Poli. This gave arise to dispute between them. 3. At about 6 p.m. on 22-10-1975, PW 1 Shersingh resident of 4 G.D. appeared at police station Garhsana and verbally lodged the report Ex P 16 It was stated there in that he found the dead body of a human being lying in the Government land near the water channel. The SHO Bhanwar Singh PW 14 arrived on the spot and found the dead body of a woman lying near the water channel. He prepared the inquest report. The dead body was identified to be of Smt. Poli. Since there were injuries on the victim's dead body. the postmortem examination was got conducted. The post-mortem examination was conducted at 10 a.m. on 23-10-1975 by PW 15 Dr. S.S. Shekhawat the then Medical Officer In charge Government Dispensary, Anupgarh. The doctor noticed the following injuries on the victim's dead body "External Injuries : 1. Incised wound 21/2" x 11/2" x 1" anterior aspect of right shoulder and upper arm The wound shows decomposition and obliquely placed. The deeper portion facing backwards. The margins show gapping; 2. Incised wound 11/2" x 1" x 1" on right side of lower neck. The lateral wall of trachea shows a cut; 3. Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right upper neck. The wound shows decomposition. The juglar veins are cut and recognizable; 4. Incised wound 5" x 11/2" x 11/2" on right cheek region standing upto right ear. The lobule of right ear is cut; 5. Incised wound 21/2" x 1/2" x 11/2" on scalp left parietal region. The parietal bone is cut obliquely destroying the membranes and brain substance and left parietal area shows a cut. Internal Injuries : 1. Fracture of left parietal bone; 2. The lobule of right ear is cut; 5. Incised wound 21/2" x 1/2" x 11/2" on scalp left parietal region. The parietal bone is cut obliquely destroying the membranes and brain substance and left parietal area shows a cut. Internal Injuries : 1. Fracture of left parietal bone; 2. The membranes were cut in parietal region in sequence of fracture; 3. Cut in parietal region left side; 4. Trachea had a cut in its lateral wall." 4. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In the opinion of Dr. Shekhawat the cause of death of the victim was shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries to juglar veins and fracture of parietal bone and injuries of membranes and brain matter. The postmortem report prepared by him is Ex. P 23. The doctor was further of the opinion that the duration of death period was about 5 days before the post-mortem was conducted. 5. It transpired during the investigation that a few days before 23-10-1975, the accused and Mst. Poli had left their house to go to the field. Thereafter Mst. Poli was not seen alive. The accused went to the bus stand Garhsana on 19-10-1975 and from there he went to Ganganagar where he lived for some days. Suspicion arose against him and he was arrested. In consequence of the information furnished by him, one pair of silver foot ornaments (Payal) was recovered from his house After the investigation was over, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 302, IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He denounced the whole prosecution story as a fabricated piece of concoction and claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charge duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. 6. We have heard Shri S.R. Singhi learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Mathur learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. Admittedly there is no direct evidence in the case. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. 6. We have heard Shri S.R. Singhi learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.K. Mathur learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the case file carefully. 7. Admittedly there is no direct evidence in the case. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has summarised the various sets of circumstantial evidence as under : 1. "Medical evidence showing that the death of Mst. Poli was not natural but homicidal ; 2. Recovery of gandasi in consequence of the information furnished by the accused whilst in police custody ; 3. The accused and the deceased victim were seen going together by PW 3 Kartar Singh, PW 4 Gurmeet Singh and PW 5 Hetram at about 10 a.m. on 19-10-1975; 4. He was seen at bus stand Garhsana at about 1 p.m. on 19-10-1975 ; 5 From Garhsana he want to Ganganagar and stayed there in a 'Gurudwara' for some days ; 6 One pair or silver 'payal' were recovered in consequence of the information furnished by the accused whilst under police custody 7. Highly suspicious conduct of the accused ; 8. Though his wife missing, he observed complete silence and did nothing to trace her out ; and 9. That the accused suspected the fidelity and chastity of his wife Smt. Poli." 8. It was streneously contended by Mr. Singhi before us that the above sets of circumstantial evidence individually or collectively do not point out the guilt of the accused. It was argued that PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh had seen the accused and his wife going together before three days of 19-10-1975. Since they were husband and wife, their going together was not unnatural. It was further argued that in case it is held that the accused and Smt. Poli were seen going together three days before on 19-10-1976, the entire edifice of the prosecution case crumbles down. It was also argued that there suss no acceptable evidence on record to show that the accused suspected the chastity and fidelity of his wife Smt. Poli. It was also argued that there suss no acceptable evidence on record to show that the accused suspected the chastity and fidelity of his wife Smt. Poli. It was further contended that the 'gandasi 'recovered at the instance of the accused when sent to the Ciernical Examiner was not found stained with human blood and yet the learned Sessions Judge attached too much importance to to this natural fact It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that it was by a sheer misttke ani misunderstanding that PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh stated that they had seen the accused and his wife Smt. Pali going together three days before her murder. It was submitted that in fact what they mean to say was that they had seen the couple going three days before the victim's dead body was spotted by Sher Singh PW 2. As regards the motive, there is the direct evidence of PW 5 Hetram. The accused suspected that Smt Poli had illicit intimacy with this witness PW 6 Hetram. It was further urged that the whole conduct of the accused is highly suspicious pointing his guilt. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 9. It cannot be gain said that the death of Smt. Poli was not natural but homicidal. The learned Sessions Judge took the homicidal death of Smt. Pali as an incriminating piece of evidence against the accused. We are unable to agree with him. The homicidal death of Smt. Poli simply shows that she died an unnatural death but her un-natural death in itself does not speak against the accused or furnishes no incriminating material against him. Likewise, the recovery of 'Gandasi' at the instance of the accused furnishes no inculpating material against the accused because no human blood was found on it when it was sent for chemical examination. 10. The learned Sessions Judge was much impressed by the testimony of PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh who had seen the accused and his wife Smt. Poli going together from 7 GD to their field in the morning on that day. We have gone through the statements of both these witnesses and find that the Sessions Judge had committed a grave error in not properly appreciating what they have stated. We have gone through the statements of both these witnesses and find that the Sessions Judge had committed a grave error in not properly appreciating what they have stated. PW 8 Kartar Singh in his examination-in-chief itself stated that three days before the murder of Smt. Poli, he was standing at the outlet of 4 GD. Gurmeet Singh PW 4 also came there and stood by his side. While both of them were standing there the accused and Smt. Poli came from their village and were proceeding towards their field. Accused Magharam had a 'gandasi' while Smt. Poli had a sickle. PW 3 Kartar Singh asked them as to where they were going. The accused replied that they were going to cut the crop. He further stated that the accused was in the habit of keeping a 'gandasi' always with him. The same facts were narrated by PW 4 Girmeet Singh in more or less the same words. As per medical evidence of Dr Shekhawat PW 15, the death had taken place nearly five days before he conducted the post mortem examination of the victim's dead body. The post mortem examination was conducted at about 10 a m. on 23-10-1975. This shows that the death of Smt. Poli must have taken place on 18-10-1975, even if a concession is granted to the medical opinion. the death must be either 12 hours before or 12 hours later to 10 a.m. on 18-10.1975. These two witnesses PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh had seen the couple going together three days before the victim's death meaning thereby on 15th or 16th October, 1975. If these two witnesses had seen the accused and his wife going together on 15th or 16th October, 1975 there was nothing unusual in it. The going together of the husband and wife is a natural phenomenon and nothing wrong can be read in it. The matter would have been some what different if these two witnesses had seen the accused and Smt. Poli going together on 18-10-1975 but that is not the case as stated by them. 11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The murder of Smt. Poli was committed according to the medical opinion at about 10 a.m. on 18-10-1975. The matter would have been some what different if these two witnesses had seen the accused and Smt. Poli going together on 18-10-1975 but that is not the case as stated by them. 11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The murder of Smt. Poli was committed according to the medical opinion at about 10 a.m. on 18-10-1975. If we accept the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor what was meant by PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh that they had seen the dead body of Smt. Poli before three days of spotting her dead body the matter is the worst. The dead body was spotted on 22-10-1975. If the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor is accepted, these two witnesses had seen her dead body on 20-10-1975. It was impossible for these witnesses to see Smt. Poli alive on 20-10-1975 because she was put to death much earlier on 18-10-1975. In whatever light the statements of PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh are scrutinised it affords no valuable assistance to the prosecution case. Either way their evidence does not render any help to the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was much impressed with the evidence of these 2 witnesses but before it could be taken into consideration, he failed to properly scrutinise and evaluate it. 12. In our opinion the testimony of PW 3 Kartar Singh and PW 4 Gurmeet Singh is useless and furnishes no incriminating material against the accused. 13. PW 5 Hetram stated that he had seen the accused and Smt. Poli going together towards their field at about 8 a.m. on 19-10-1975. He was very specific about the date of 19-10-1975 We need not discuss his testimony at length because it was impossible for him to see Smt. Poli alive on 19-10-1975 as her death had taken place on 18-10-1975. No importance can be given to the testimony of PW 6 Hetram and his testimony furnishes no incriminating material against the accused. 14. PW 6 Khetaram stated that he had seen the accused at bus stand Garhsana at about I p m. on 19-10-1975. He was alone at that time. He asked the accused as to where he was going. The accused replied that as his wife is missing, he was going to Garhsana in search of her. 14. PW 6 Khetaram stated that he had seen the accused at bus stand Garhsana at about I p m. on 19-10-1975. He was alone at that time. He asked the accused as to where he was going. The accused replied that as his wife is missing, he was going to Garhsana in search of her. We again find nothing incriminating in the testimony of PW 6 Khetaram. If Smt. Poli was fund missing by her husband it was nothing unnatural on his part to go in search for her. It is true that the accused lived at Ganganagar in a 'Gurudwara' after 19-10-1975 for a day or two. Since he had gone there in search of his wife his stay at Ganganagar is natural. This circumstance again furnishes nothing incriminating against the accused. 15. The learned Sessions Judge has given much importance to the fact that the conduct of the accused was highly suspicious. We again find that the view taken by him is erroneous and unsustainable. There is no material on record to show that the accused knew about the murder of his wife. Had the fact of murder been in his knowledge, the silence on his part in not reporting the matter to police could have gained some importance. There is nothing unusual in the conduct of the accused which may speak against him or point to his guilt. 16. The evidence relating to the recovery of silver 'payal' at the instance of the accused was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and in our opinion rightly so. 17. In a criminal case resting on circumstantial evidence, various sets or links should be assimilated and taken together and the total cumulative effect of them unerringly should lead to one and the only one hypothesis of the guilt of the accused It is true that the circumstances ought not be considered in isolation because one or more of them in itself or themselves may not be decisive to prove the crime. It is the sum had total effect of the various circumstances we should be take into consideration to assess the guilt of the accused. In the instant case the most important piece of circumstantial evidence was that the accused and his wife Smt. Poli were seen going together. Their going together was quite natural and nothing unusual is there. It is the sum had total effect of the various circumstances we should be take into consideration to assess the guilt of the accused. In the instant case the most important piece of circumstantial evidence was that the accused and his wife Smt. Poli were seen going together. Their going together was quite natural and nothing unusual is there. They were seen going together before three days of her murder. Their going together before three days of the murder is an innocent circumstance furnishing no incriminating evidence against the accused. 18. We have carefully gone through the entire prosecution evidence and we find nothing incriminating against the accused. We may reiterate here that it is not the moral certainty but the legal certainty which is required to convict the culprit. Here in the case in our hand, there is no legal evidence to bring the charge at the door steps of the accused. He was wrongly convicted for the murder of his wife. He is entitled to acquittal. 19. In the result we allow the appeal of the accused Magharam. His conviction and sentence under section 302 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. He is already on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******