JUDGMENT 1. - The three accused appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Etas, District Alwar. under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and convicted for the said offence. Each one of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 201/-. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was ordered to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Avtar Singh accused appellant was married to the deceased Chain Kaur alias Guddi. The case of the prosecution is that Avtar Singh had first wife but this fact was concealed at the time of his marriage with deceased Smt. Chain Kaur alias Guddi. Smt. Chain Kaur returned to her father's house after 15 days of her marriage and disclosed that Avtar Singh was demanding dowry and in case the demand was not met, he will beat her. On 22nd February, 1980, deceased Chain Kaur alongwith three accused appellants had gone to the house of Luskar Singh, her maternal-grand-father. They left the house of said Laskar Singh alongwith Smt. Chain Kaur deceased on 23rd February 1980 at about 8 or 9 p.m After about an hour or so,Avtar Singh alone returned to the house of Laskar Singh and enquired as to whether Smt. Chain Kaur had returned to the house or not. Lasker Singh gave out that she has gone with him and others. Lasker Singh became suspicious, called a few people and went in search of Smt. Chain Kaur. It is alleged that the accused appellant Avtar singh gave out that the dead-body of Smt.Chain Kaur deceased is lying in the house of Bakshi Singh. The dead body of Smt. Chain Kaur was recovered from the house of Bakshi Singh and at that time a `Dupatta' was found tied around her neck. A report of the incident Ex. P. 12 was lodged at the police station Kishangarh Bas. District Alwar and case was registered. 3. The postmortem examination of dead-body of Smt.Chain Kaur was conducted by Dr. P.S. Agarwal PW3 and Dr. Agarwal found that there were no external injuries on the dead-body which was decomposed and there was swelling Blood was coming out from nostril. Faceal matter was coming out of anus. Dr. Agarwal preserved vaginal swab and smear to reserve his opinion till the receipt of the report of pathological examination. P.S. Agarwal PW3 and Dr. Agarwal found that there were no external injuries on the dead-body which was decomposed and there was swelling Blood was coming out from nostril. Faceal matter was coming out of anus. Dr. Agarwal preserved vaginal swab and smear to reserve his opinion till the receipt of the report of pathological examination. After receiving report, he ruled out that death is result of poison. He also opines that there was no evidence of any rope and as such the death was natural death. 4. All the three accused persons were tried on the basis of circumstantial evidence. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. Thereafter the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on circumstantial evidence convicted and sentenced each of the accused aforesaid. 5. It may be stated at the very out-set that this Court called Dr. M.R. Goyal, Reader, Forensic Science, S.M.S. Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur and examined him as a court-witness. Said M.R. Goyal was examined on May 16, 1985 and after going-through the postmortem report and the other reports, he has stated that he could not ascertain the cause of death. 6. The contention of learned Advocate for the accused appellants is that there is no material on record that the death of Smt. Chain Kaur was homicidal. He states that Dr. Agarwal has clearly stated that she died natural death. So, under the circumstances, it could not be said that the accused persons or any of them caused the death of Smt. Chain Kaur. He further contends that so far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, firstly, it can not be relied upon and secondly no conviction can be based on this type of evidence. 7. Learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has disbelieved the statement of Dr. Agarwal, P.W. 3 so far as he has stated that the death of Smt. Chain Kaur was natural death. In our opinion once Dr. Agarwal had made a categorical statement in the Court that Smt. Chain Kaur died a natural death, there was no reason to disbelieve his statement more so when no marks of ligature and external injuries were found on her dead body. Even the result of the stomach contents did not show that the poison was administered to her. Agarwal had made a categorical statement in the Court that Smt. Chain Kaur died a natural death, there was no reason to disbelieve his statement more so when no marks of ligature and external injuries were found on her dead body. Even the result of the stomach contents did not show that the poison was administered to her. That apart, this Court summoned Dr. M.R. Goyal, Reader and even be is unable to say as to what was the cause of her death. In these circumstances, it could not be said that Smt. Chain Kaur died as a result of violence. Once this finding is reached, none of the accused persons can be convicted for the alleged murder of Smt. Chain Kaur. That apart even the circumstantial evidence, which has been brought on record is not sufficient to connect the accused persons with the crime. The only evidence is of Lasker Singh P.W. 8, who has stated that the accused appellants had left his house alongwith Smt. Chain Kaur and accused Avtar Singh returned after an hour or two alone. So far as the statement that the accused made an extra judicial confession is concerned, the same cannot he relied upon because it is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Ex.P. 12. Not only this in Ex.P. 12, it has not been mentioned that a 'Dupatta, was found tied round the neck of Smt. Guddi alias Chain Kaur. Subarati PW1 has also stated that the accused persons made extra judicial confession to him and the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on his statement also but no reliance can be made on his statement. He did not support the prosecution and as such the Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions in the nature of cross-examination. Learned Sessions Judge has pressed into service the statement of Subarati Ex.P. 1, recorded before the Committing Magistrate, wherein he hae only stated that three persons gave out that they have committed a mistake and whatever punishment should be inflicted, should be inflicted out of Court. Firstly, this statement does not amount to extra judicial confession in as much as it cannot be said as to which of the three accused persons had made such statement and secondly Ex. P. 1 cannot he held to be a substantial piece of evidence. He was one of the signatories to the Panchayatnama, Ex.P. 2. Firstly, this statement does not amount to extra judicial confession in as much as it cannot be said as to which of the three accused persons had made such statement and secondly Ex. P. 1 cannot he held to be a substantial piece of evidence. He was one of the signatories to the Panchayatnama, Ex.P. 2. There is no mention of the alleged extra-judicial confession, said to hae been made to Subarati by any of the accused persons.Thus, even Ex. P. 1 statement made by Shri Subrali before the Committing-Magistrate does not help the prosecution. 8. After having gone through the judgment and the material on recorded, we are of the opinion that no case against any of the accused persons has been made out. We hereby accept the appeal and set-aside the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kishangarhas' by which the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced u/s 302/34 IPC. All the accused persons are acquitted of the charge u/s 302/34 IPC. 9. The accused Avtar Singh is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused Kurban and Anar Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal accepted. *******