A. N. DIKSHITA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS Bin Singh, Smt. Jai Devi and Ramphal have filed this appeal bring aggrieved against the Judgment of the Special Judge, Agra dated 2. 4. 1987 passed in S. T. No. 369 of 1985 convicting them under section 302 read with sections 34 and 498-A, I. P. C. and sentencing them to death and 3 years R. I. respectively. ( 2 ) BIN Singh appellant is the son of Ram Phal appellant while Smt. Jai Devi is his mother (wife of Ram Phal), Smt. Muni Devi (deceased) is the wife of Bin Singh appellant. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story is that on account of non-payment of dowry all the appellants have committed the murder of Smt. Muni Devi (deceased) wife of Bin Singh, appellent by strangulating her in their house in village Salempur Dhankar on 10. 7. 1985 at 2 p. m. ( 4 ) THE oral First Information Report was lodged by Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) at P. S. Nibhora, district Agra on 10. 7. 1985 at 4. 30 p. m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 3 miles In the F. I. R. lodged by Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) on 10. 7. 1985 at 4 p. m. it was stated that he is by caste a Thakur and is a resident of Nichakheda. Around 3 p. m. on 10. 7. 1985 as he was preparing to go to a Sarangpur Fair from his village, a boy from Salempur Dhankar came and informed him that Ram Phal Thakur of village Salempur Dhankar has killed his daughter-in-law Munni Devi. As his niece Baijanti is married to Nahar Singh, elder son of appellant Ram Phal, he on hearing such news immediately went on cycle to Salempur Dhankar and reached the house of Ram Phal where he found the dead-body of Munni Devi. The body of Smt. Munni Devi bore injuries also. It has further been mentioned in the First Information Report that Smt. Munni Devi was married about a year back with Bin Singh sb Ram Phal. The father of deceased Munni Devi is a teacher and a resident of village Pharara, P. S. Bah, district Agra. The body of Smt. Munni Devi bore injuries also. It has further been mentioned in the First Information Report that Smt. Munni Devi was married about a year back with Bin Singh sb Ram Phal. The father of deceased Munni Devi is a teacher and a resident of village Pharara, P. S. Bah, district Agra. After the performance of the marriage, Munni Devi was brought to village Salempur Dhankar by Ram Phal and Bin Singh and then Ram Phal and Bin Singh demanded a dowry of Rs. 10,000/from the master (father of Munni Devi ). The Master (father of deceased Munni Devi) after arranging Rs. 4000/- had given it to them (appellant Ram Phal ). However, a balance of Rs. 6000/- could not be given by the Master. It was on this account that Ram Phal and Bin Singh had not sent Smt. Munni Devi to her fathers place and started beating her every day. It is further mentioned in the First Information Report that two months prior to the incident, Master (father of Munni Devi) went to the house of Ram Phal in village Salempur Dhankar. Ram Phal again demanded the balance of Rs. 6000/- which was refused by Master (father of 4ece:lsed Munni Devi ). Provoked on such refusal Ram Phal ran to beat him with a shoe. It has further been mentioned that 20-25 days prior to this incident 13th day ceremony of his (Chandan Singhs) Mama was performed at his house in village Nichakheda where Munni Devi had come. At that time it is alleged in the First Information Report that Munni Devi had told the informant Chandan Singh that on account of such non-payment. of the amount (balance of Rs. 6000/-) by her father, Bin Singh; her mother-in-law Jai Devi and her father-in-law Ram Phal gave her beating every day. She told him (Chandan Singh) to convey this information to her father who may take her to his place otherwise these persons would kill her. In village Salempur Dhankar (when he reached on the information of the boy) people told him that around 2 Oclock Munni Devi was badly beaten by Bin Singh son of Ram Phal, Jai Devi wife of Ram Phal and Ram Phal son of Chhitar Prasad inside the house. The shrieks and cries of Munni Devi (deceased) were heard by the villagers. The shrieks and cries of Munni Devi (deceased) were heard by the villagers. It is alleged in the First Information Report that all the three (Bin Singh, Jai Devi and Ram Phal) jointly have killed Munni Devi on account of the non-payment of the dowry. Bhanwar Singh, Kaptan Singh and Bharat Singh of village Salempur Dhankar, P. S. Nibhora, district-Agra are the witnesses of the incident. The dead body of Smt. Munni Devi is lying inside the house. Lastly it has been alleged that Jai Devi and Ram Phal have run away from the house. ( 5 ) NECESSARY investigation ensued. The dead-body of (the deceased) Smt. Munni Devi was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. A. P. Agrawal (P. W. 7) on 11. 7. 1985 at 4 p. m. The following antemortem external injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 1. A braded con tusion 1 x 1/4 on right side of neck 1 cm outer to mid line on front 2 above the inner and of clavicle. 2. Contusion 2. 2 x 1" on left side of neck, 1. 2 outer to mid line on front 1" above the inner and of claviole. 3. Contusion 1 x 1 on right plam. 4. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 on front of right knee. 5. Two contusions 1/3 x 1/4 on the posterior aspect of left knee 1" apart. ( 6 ) ABRASION 1/3" x 1/2" on front of left knee. 6. In the opinion of Dr. A. P. Agrawal (P. W. 7) the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem injuries. ( 7 ) ON the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed and the accused (appellants) were tried. They pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to village pratibandi. The trial court on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. Heard counsels for the parties. ( 8 ) TO butress the prosecution story 10 witnesses were examined to connect the appellants with the crime namely Bhanwar Singh P. W. 1, Kaptan Singh P. W. 2, Ranbir Singh P. W. 3. Chandan Singh P. W. 4, Tokan Singh P. W. 5, Narain Singh P. W. 6, Dr. Hence this appeal. Heard counsels for the parties. ( 8 ) TO butress the prosecution story 10 witnesses were examined to connect the appellants with the crime namely Bhanwar Singh P. W. 1, Kaptan Singh P. W. 2, Ranbir Singh P. W. 3. Chandan Singh P. W. 4, Tokan Singh P. W. 5, Narain Singh P. W. 6, Dr. A. P. Agrawal, P. W. 7, S. I. V. P. Sharma P. W. 8, Suresh Chandra P. W. 9 and V. K. Dohre Circle Officer, P. W. 10. ( 9 ) BEFORE scanning the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is radiantly revealing from the record that there is no eye-witness in this case who may have witnessed the incident. No doubt in the First Information Report it has been mentioned that Bhanwar Singh (P. W. 1), Kaptan Singh (P. W. 2) and Bharat Singh (not produced by the prosecution) are the witnesses of the incident but the two witnesses Bhanwar Singh (P. W. 1) and Kaptan Singh (P. W. 2) have denied having witnessed the incident. The entire prosecution case, thus, rest on the circumstantial evidence. ( 10 ) TWO other factors are also shining on the canvass of the prosecution story to bring home the guilt of the appellants. ( 11 ) ONE motive of the appellants is to kill Munni Devi (deceased) and the other that the appellants after committing the crime had run away from the house. ( 12 ) BEFORE scanning the circumstantial evidence, it is imperative to explore the motive in killing Smt. Munni Devi by the appellants and also whether the appellants after committing the crime had run away from the house. ( 13 ) AS regards motive to kill Smt. Munni Devi it is alleged by Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) that after the performance of the marriage when the bride Smt. Munni Devi was taken home, a demand of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry was made. Out of this demand Rs. 4000/- were paid by the father of Munni Devi (deceased) but the remaining balance of Rs. 6000/- could not be paid and was refused. This has been shown by the prosecution to be the motive to kill Munni Devi. 10,000/- as dowry was made. Out of this demand Rs. 4000/- were paid by the father of Munni Devi (deceased) but the remaining balance of Rs. 6000/- could not be paid and was refused. This has been shown by the prosecution to be the motive to kill Munni Devi. ( 14 ) AS regards running away from the house one witness Tokam Singh (P. W. 5) has stated that he saw the three appellants going out of the house and this fact has been shown to be conclusive to rope in the appellants with the commission of the crime. This has also been shown to be a circumstance as the deadbody of Smt. Munni Devi was found in the house of Ram Phal appellant and they were seen coming out of the house. Both these factors i. e. motive and absconding of the appellants are without any intrinsic worth as would be shown later. ( 15 ) TO appreciate the testimony of the witnesses it is necessary to find as to whether the cardinal principles as settled by the Supreme Court in regard to the circumstantial evidence has been established or not. ( 16 ) IN the case of Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra it has been held as under: The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 13) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. ( 17 ) THE above principle was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Narabhad rappa v. State of Karnataka where it was again held as under: In cases in which the evidence is purely of a circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they must be in their effect as to be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. ( 18 ) FURTHER in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra five principles were set out with celebrity. (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Case law discussed. The Supreme Court further found that the circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. Case law discussed. The Supreme Court further found that the circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between may be proved and must be or should be proved as was held by the Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between may be and must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. ( 19 ) IN the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra) these five circumstances were found to be five golden principles constituting the Panchsheel of the case based on circumstantial evidence. It has thus to be seen that the circumstantial evidence is so cogent and compelling as to convince that upon no rational hypothesis other than the murder can be accounted for. However, pure a moral conviction may be, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certainly an explicit evidence. ( 20 ) IN view of the above shining guidelines it has now to be seen as to whether the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution story are credible and that their evidence inheres intrinsic worth. It cannot be doubted for a pause that motive is an important factor which prompts a person to commit the crime. It is where the eye-witnesses are not available that circumstantial evidence is adduced to connect the motive with the crime. ( 21 ) AS shown above the prosecution has examined number of witnesses to bring home the guilt to the appellants. ( 22 ) P. W. 1 Bhanwar Singh is mentioned as a witness of the incident in the First Information Report lodged by Chandan Singh (P. W. 4 ). He has stated that the appellants Ram Phal, Bin Singh and Jai Devi are known to him as they are of the same village (Salempur Dhanker ). Marriage of Bin Singh was performed with the daughter of a master of village Pharera about a year back. He has also stated that Baijanti is the fethoni of the wife of Bin Singh. Wife of Bin Singh died around 10 months back. Marriage of Bin Singh was performed with the daughter of a master of village Pharera about a year back. He has also stated that Baijanti is the fethoni of the wife of Bin Singh. Wife of Bin Singh died around 10 months back. He has categorically stated that he does not know as to how the wife of Bin Singh died. The prosecution then declared him hostile. However, this witness was cross - examined by the prosecution. He has stated that he was not interrogated by the Investigating Officer. When the statement of this witness recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. was read out to him, he specifically reiterated that he did not give any such statement to the Sub-Inspector. He has clearly stated that he saw the dead-body of the wife of Bin Singh when policemen were taking such dead-body out of the house of Tokam Singh (P. W. 5 ). Though he is an independent witness but has failed to support the prosecution version. The veracity of his testimony is thus of no avail to the prosecution. ( 23 ) THE prosecution has produced P. W. 2 Kaptan Singh in support of its case. In the First Information Report he has been mentioned as a witness of the incident. He has stated that he knows only Ram Phal and Bin Singh. On seeing towards Jai Devi (accused-appellant) be has stated that he does not know her. He has admitted that wife of Bin Singh (Munni Devi) expired 10 months back. He has categorically stated that he does not know as to how she died. He has also specifically asserted that he does not know as to when the wedding of Bin Singh took place. Again the weapon of declaring this witness as hostile was used. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the State. He has clearly stated that the Sub-Inspector neither ever interrogated him nor recorded his statement. On being read out, the statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. , this witness has categorically denied that he ever gave such a statement to the Sub-Inspector. He has feigned ignorance as to how the Sub-Inspector has recorded such a statement. This witness was put to a searching cross-examination by the counsel for the State about his caste and the prevalent dowry in his caste. P. C. , this witness has categorically denied that he ever gave such a statement to the Sub-Inspector. He has feigned ignorance as to how the Sub-Inspector has recorded such a statement. This witness was put to a searching cross-examination by the counsel for the State about his caste and the prevalent dowry in his caste. He has stated that he is a Thakur and is of the same caste as that of Bin Singh. This witness is aged about 28 years and has affirmed that in his marriage he had received a dowry of Rs. 500/- only. This payment of dowry of Rs. 500/- clearly reveals the prevalent dowry being given amongst the (caste of) Thakurs at the relevant time. This witness has denied the suggestion of the counsel for the State that he saw the beating and heard shrieks and cries of the wife of Bin Singh (Munni Devi ). He has also denied another suggestion that he heard cries of Baijanti. He has further denied another suggestion that the wife of Bin Singh died on account of receiving injuries. It is thus apparent that Kaptan Singh (P. W. 2) has also not supported the prosecution version. ( 24 ) THESE two witnesses Bhanwar Singh (P. W. 1) and Kaptan (P. W. 2) have amply not supported the prosecution version. ( 25 ) BESIDES these two witnesses who were shown by the prosecution as having witnessed the incident there is no other eye-witness. ( 26 ) P. W. 3 Ranbir Singh alias Master is the father of deceased Munni Devi. He has stated that his daughter Munni Devi (deceased) was married to Bin Singh around two years back. She expired 10 months back. He had given a dowry of Rs. 7100/ -. He has categorically stated that no settlement for the payment of dowry was arrived at the time of marriage. He has stated that after 10 days of the wedding the bride had returned home whereafter he was taken by his brother-in-law (Jeth) and at that time certain clothes were given. However, when Tychari was sent in the month of Sawan through a barber and his son Kali Charan it was returned. When he himself went Ram Phal appellant demanded Rs. 6000/ -. As he was a poor person, he could not pay it. Circumstances continued to be the same and the appellants were unhappy. However, when Tychari was sent in the month of Sawan through a barber and his son Kali Charan it was returned. When he himself went Ram Phal appellant demanded Rs. 6000/ -. As he was a poor person, he could not pay it. Circumstances continued to be the same and the appellants were unhappy. When Kali Charan went to bring Munni Devi she was not sent by the grooms party and instead an allegation was levelled that he wanted to sell the girl. Hither or thither abuses were hurled making Kali Charan weep. He has admitted that Baijanti is Jethani of his daughter Munni Devi (deceased ). Baijantis father Fateh Singh resides in village Nicha Kheda. Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) is the brother of Fateh Singh. It is thus clear that Chandan Singh is the uncle of Baijanti. P. W. 3 Ranbir Singh has stated that Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) had informed him that he had lodged the report of murder of Munni Devi. He has also stated that when the news of the death of Munni Devi reached his home, he was not there. His son Kali Charan and nephew Ram Autar had gone to Salempur Dhankar. He had returned the next morning (i. e. on the 11. 7. 85 ). In the evening Kali Charan and Ram Autar had brought the dead-body of the deceased Munni Devi to his village Pharera which was earlier sent by the police to Agra. On receipt of the dead-body of Munni Devi last rites were performed. But at that time none from the house of Ram Phal came as they had killed the girl. ( 27 ) THE prosecution has introduced the motive in the killing of Munni Devi as the non-payment of dowry in the First Information Report. Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) has alleged in the First Information Report that Rs. 10,000/- were demanded as dowry. This witness P. W. 3 Ranbir Singh has categorically stated that no dowry was settled though he had given Rs. 7 100/ -. Once there was no settlement of dowry then the very ingredient of dowry would not be satisfied. In various sections of society a demand is made and the amount which is settled in lieu of the marriage is called the dowry but here the element of demand is completely lacking. 7 100/ -. Once there was no settlement of dowry then the very ingredient of dowry would not be satisfied. In various sections of society a demand is made and the amount which is settled in lieu of the marriage is called the dowry but here the element of demand is completely lacking. Ranbir Singh (P. W. 3) has specifically decried the allegation of Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) that a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made as dowry. At no point of time this witness (P. W. 3) has ever stated that any such dowry of Rs. 10,000/- was settled. As shown above, the motive has to be established beyond doubt and only then evidence either visual or circumstantial would supplement the motive for the commission of the crime. No doubt the prosecution has introduced a demand of Rs. 6000/- by the appellants from this witness but it appears incredible and implicit reliance cannot be placed on such a testimony. ( 28 ) P. W. 4 Chandan Singh is the informant and is the main architect of the prosecution story. He has stated that appellants are known to him as they belong to Salempur Dhankar though be is the resident of village Nicha Kheda. He knows Nahar Singh (son of appellant Ram Phal and elder brother of appellant Bin Singh) to whom his elder brothers daughter (Baijanti) has been married. Munni Devi was married to Bin Singh (appellant) about two and a half years back, Munni Devi is daughter of Ranbir Master (earlier Mst Master has been mentioned but this Master is Ranbir P. W. 3 ). Nahar Singh to- whom his niece is married is the son of appellant Ram Phal. About one and a half years back around 2 p. m. he was at his house and was preparing to go to a. fair at Sarangpur to purchase bullocks when a boy from Salempur Dhankar came. (There is no disclosure in the prosecution story as to who is this boy who came from Salempur Dhanker ). He has stated that this boy told him that Ram Phal, Jai Devi and Bin Singh, had killed his Bahu whose name was revealed as Munni Devi. (There is no disclosure in the prosecution story as to who is this boy who came from Salempur Dhanker ). He has stated that this boy told him that Ram Phal, Jai Devi and Bin Singh, had killed his Bahu whose name was revealed as Munni Devi. He reached Salempur Dhanker where there was a big crow daear a temple outside the village and he has stated that he had a talk with Kaptan (P. W. 2) Bhanwar Singh (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh. They told him that girl Munni Devi had been killed by Ram Phal, Jai Devi and Bin Singh (appellants ). He then went to. his (Ram Phals) house where he found the dead-body of Munni Devi lying in the verandah of the house of Ram Phal (appellant ). He has stated that a dowry af Rs. 10,000/- was settled with Ram Phal far the marriage of Bin Singh. Munni Devis father had given Rs. 4000/- in cash. The balance was not given. On account of this no n-payment, these persans (appellants) had killed the girl (Munni Devi ). He dictated a written report of the incident at the police station and signed it. ( 29 ) IN his crass-examination he has stated that the bay who had Came to inform him was aged at 12 years though he does not know his name. He admits that in the report name of Ram Phal alone had been written and not of all the three appellants. He had gone to. Salempur Dhankar an a bicycle which is two miles away from his village. He admits that he was going to village Sarangpur fair to purchase bullocks but he did not go there that day though bullocks were purchased after a week. He further admits that he did not tell the Sub-Inspector about the bay who had informed him. He also admits that he stayed at the site for half an hour where from he went straight to the police station. He has stated that he reached Salempur Dhankar around 2. 30 p. m. After lodging the report at the police station he returned to his house which he considered proper. It is strange that he did not return to village Salempur Dhanker where a close relation of his far wham he had gone to the police station Nibhora to lodge the report did not came. 30 p. m. After lodging the report at the police station he returned to his house which he considered proper. It is strange that he did not return to village Salempur Dhanker where a close relation of his far wham he had gone to the police station Nibhora to lodge the report did not came. He also admits that at his instance two months back Rs. 4000/- were given to the appellants. Though he has stated that the police station is around 2 miles from village Salempur Dhanlcer but in the same breath in the cross examination he admits that Kachpura is 4 miles from village Salempur Dhankar while Nibhora is 3 miles from village Kachpura. He has admitted that when he reached the place of occurrence he found Jai Devi around 2. 30 p. m. present in her house though he did not have any conversation with her. He has admitted that after this incident he went to village Salempur Dhanker after about two months. This appears to be wholly in conflict with human nature and family relationship when such a close relation of his was killed. Further there is absolutely no consistency and congruity in his statement which appears to be laden with myth and fib when he introduces the demand of dowry and the payment of a part of the amount of dowry through P. W. 3, Master Ranbir has denied that any dowry was settled. The testimony of this witness is incredible and far from truth, though there is no suggestion to this effect but it appears that he is mare prompted to implicate the appellants so that the entire assets and property of Ramphal may fall into the hands of Nahar Singh who is the husband of his niece. This circumstance is so cardinally consistent with the happenings in the villages where the persons in order to help their kith and kin do not fail to falsely implicate other relations far self aggrandizement. ( 30 ) FROM the statements of P. W. 3 Ranbir Singh and P. W. 4 Chandan Singh it is clearly revealing that their statements are contra dietary in intent and in spirit. The allegation as stated in. the testimony of P. W. Chandan Singh regarding dowry of Rs. ( 30 ) FROM the statements of P. W. 3 Ranbir Singh and P. W. 4 Chandan Singh it is clearly revealing that their statements are contra dietary in intent and in spirit. The allegation as stated in. the testimony of P. W. Chandan Singh regarding dowry of Rs. 10,000/- having been settled far the marriage o f Bin Singh (appellant) has been proved to be false, as such a story has been completely, may, categorically, denied by P. W. 3 Ranbir Singh. In such circumstances the motive to kill Munni Devi (deceased) by the appellants fails. ( 31 ) THESE were the two witnesses as regards demand of dowry. Bath have contradicted each other and as such now it is to be seen whether there is any circumstantial evidence to bring home the guilt against the appellants. ( 32 ) P. W. 5 Tokam Singh has stated that his house is after one house of Ramphal. He has stated that about one and a half year back around 2 p. m. he was at his residence when he heard the noise that a girl has been killed. On hearing such a noise he went to the house of Ramphal where he found the girl (Munni Devi) dead. He saw the appellants going towards the south of the house. In his cross-examination this witness has categorically stated that he does not know as to how she (Munni Devi) died. He has admitted that he did meet witness Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) but he had no. talk with him. However, with an other breath he has stated that the appellants were briskly moving though he saw them from the back. This is the only circumstance that the prosecution has stressed to bring forth against the appellants that P. W. 5 Tokam Singh after the incident saw them leaving the house. But the veracity and the truthfulness, of his statement is belied by a similar fact that P. W. 4 Chandan Singh admits that when he reached the place he found Jal Devi (appellant) at her residence. It is again wholly Improbable and contrary to human conduct that this witness would not talk to witness Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) though he is known to him. It is again wholly Improbable and contrary to human conduct that this witness would not talk to witness Chandan Singh (P. W. 4) though he is known to him. Similarly when a girl is killed in a village how such villagers who had assembled at the site would permit the killers to leave the house. The evidence of this witness that he seawall the appellants leaving the house is in the teeth of the evidence of P. W. 4 Chandan Singh who has specifically stated that he did meet Jai Devi (appellant) when he reached there. Another glaring aspect about the testimony of P. W. Chandan Singh and P. W. 5 Tokam Singh is that they did not have any conversation with either Jai Devi ,or the appellants. The prosecution has tried to show that these (appellants) were the persons who had committed the crime and the circumstance of the appellants leaving the house is being used against them. Admittedly no one has seen the appellants committing the crime. This circumstance alone cannot be sufficient when Baijanti wife of Nahar Singh who is niece of Chandan Singh was also present in the house. Even no witness has supported the prosecution story that they had seen Munni Devi alive along with the three appellants and as such the dictum of last seen together cannot in our opinion rope in the appellants. It may again be mentioned that Baijanti, niece of P. W. 4 Chandan Singh and another daughter-in-law of Ram Phal were present in the house as is shown in the site-plan. It appears that the place from where she was standing she has seen the incident. She has not been produced by the prosecution. Human conduct and social relationship and family feuds even do not give a clear picture of an incident. In villages relationship between the two daughter in-laws are often strained and their rivalry even prompts one of them to end other life even on petty squabbles. True such a fact is not revealing from the record. But, the courts are expected to have social background while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. Implicit reliance cannot, thus, be placed on the truthfulness of his P. W. 5 Tokam Singhs) testimony which otherwise lacks in intrinsic worth. True such a fact is not revealing from the record. But, the courts are expected to have social background while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. Implicit reliance cannot, thus, be placed on the truthfulness of his P. W. 5 Tokam Singhs) testimony which otherwise lacks in intrinsic worth. The only circumstance that he saw the appellants leaving the house in haste is neither sufficient nor reliable and is infact worthy of incredibility. ( 33 ) P. W. 7 Dr. A. P. Aggarwal has conducted the post-mortem examination. He has proved the post-mortem report. He has admitted that the word strangulation has not been used in the report though he has said that it was not necessary as asphyxia is caused by strangulation in the light of the injuries. He has also admitted that once hybid bone ill fractured a person cannot cry or speak. Who has raised the noise is not clear nor it is emerging as to whether the deceased at the time of being strangulated had cried or had raised an alarm or was even in a position to speak. ( 34 ) P. W. 8, S. I. V. P. Verma had initially investigated the case as he was posted as S. O. at police station Nibbora. He has stated that necessary formalities in regard to investigation were performed by him. He has admitted that Jai Devi appellant was arrested from the house of Mohan Singh, her brother. He also recorded the statement of Bhunwar Singh and Kaptan Singh and has written whatever was stated by them. He admits that on the day he arrested Jai Devi the investigation was taken over from him. In his cross-examination he has admitted that besides the appellants Baijanti, daughter-in-law of Ramphal was also residing in the house. He has also stated that he did not have any information that besides Bin Singh and Nahar Singh, two other sons of Ramphal were also residing in the house. This clearly shows that other sons of Ramphal were residing in the house and this witness is concealing something or has not properly gone into the truthfulness of the incident it appears that he was not properly conducting the investigation which apparently was taken over by him and handed over to the Circle Officer, vinod Kumar Doharey (P. W. 10 ). This witness has not enquired about the solitary fact about the residence of the sons of Ramphal in that very house nor did he record their statements though he made a search for them. ( 35 ) P. W. 9, Suresh Chand sb. Kanhaiya Lal rio. Nibhora, P. S. Nibhora has stated that around 20- 22 months back Bin Singh and Ramphal had come to his house in village Nicha Khera along with the Station Officer, Nibhora, Ram Phal and Bin Singh had told him that he is known to police officers. They have committed a mistake in having killed Bahu. This fact was repealed by this witness to the C. O. though he had assured the appellants that he would have a talk with the C. O. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he had never stayed nor resided at village Nicha Khera nor is he still residing there. He has admitted that he does not know as to how his residence has been shown in Nicha Khera as the place of his residence in the chargesheet. He has admitted that his fathers name is Kanhaiya Lal. He has further categorically stated that neither his name is Surendra nor his parentage is Suresh. However, in the charge-sheet one Surendra son of Suresh has been mentioned as a witness. It is thus clear that this witness was not cited in the charge sheet. He has admitted that Fateh Singh had never told him that the appellants had killed their Bahu. He has further admitted that he had never given any such statement to C. O. that the appellants had committed a mistake in killing their Bahu. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness as he was not named in the charge-sheet. It would be an error of law to place any reliance on such extra judicial confession as is being attributed. In these circumstances it appears that the statement of P. W. 9 Suresh Chandra was not recorded by the Investigating Officer regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants Ramphal and Bid Singh to him. The statement of another person Surendra son of Suresh was recorded by P. W. 10 Vinod Kumar Dohrey. Thus the extra judicial confession made to P. W. 10 Vinod Kumar Dohre by appellants Ram Phal and Bin Singh cannot be relied upon. The statement of another person Surendra son of Suresh was recorded by P. W. 10 Vinod Kumar Dohrey. Thus the extra judicial confession made to P. W. 10 Vinod Kumar Dohre by appellants Ram Phal and Bin Singh cannot be relied upon. ( 36 ) P. W. 10 Vinod Kumar, Circle Officer has admitted that he took over the investigation of this case on 12. 7. 85 and had recorded the statements of Fateh Singh and the witness Suresh Chand s/c Kanhaiya Lal. He has admitted that on 16. 7. 85 he was informed that the appellants had been arrested. The charge sheet was submitted on 30. 7. 85. In his cross examination he has admitted that he recorded the statement of Surendra s/c Suresh on 13. 7. 85 at his residence in the police line. He has also admitted that one Maya Ram witness had stated before him that Bin Singhs wife hanged herself. ( 37 ) THIS is the entire prosecution evidence. ( 38 ) FURTHER there is absolutely no evidence that after the commission of the crime the appellants had absconded. The appellants have clearly stated that at the time when Munni Devi (deceased) is alleged to have expired they were not at home. Ram Phal and Bin Singh have stated that they had gone to market in village Sarangpur (village-Saharanpur) district Agra. Appellant Jai Devi had clearly stated in her statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. that she had gone to the house of her father in village Kachpula, district Agra on the date of the incident. In any case there is absolutely no evidence that the accused after the commission of the crime had absconded. ( 39 ) IN view of the cardinal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and considering the view of Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (supra) it is difficult that the prosecution has succeeded in making out any case. Neither there is any extra-judicial confession in this case nor there is any evidence against the appellants which may hold them guilty. Further motive has not been proved in this case and motive cannot be extracted from extraneous circumstances. Neither there is any extra-judicial confession in this case nor there is any evidence against the appellants which may hold them guilty. Further motive has not been proved in this case and motive cannot be extracted from extraneous circumstances. The circumstantial evidence which has been led in this case also does not conform to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court as there is not even single circumstance which may conclusively establish the guilt of the appellants. ( 40 ) IT is also a very significant feature in this case that it cannot be determined as to which of the appellants allegedly strangulated the deceased to death. ( 41 ) IN view of the above discussion this appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 42 ) IN the result the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are hereby set aside. The appellants are in jail. They shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Reference made by the Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby rejected. Appeal allowed. .