K.S. LODHA, J.—Suspicion however grave, cannot take place of proof; it is always for the prosecution to establish its case beyond doubt and to the hilt and the weakness of the defence taken by the accused cannot to taken to be a proof of the prosecution case. These principles are well settled by the various decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, but it appears that in this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not kept these principles in mind while considering the prosecutions case and appreciating the evidence. That is why, according to us, he has reached to drawing conclusion of the guilt of the accused on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that deceased Smt. Anita was married to the accused Somnath on 23.5.81. It does appear that Smt. Anita was not happy in her husbands home and had some grouse mainly against her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, although at sometimes, she accused the present accused of bad character. All the same, she never complained of any ill-treatment or cruelty meted out to her husband. This will appear from the letters written by her from time to time and to which we shall presently refer. 3. It is not in doubt that Smt. Anita died an unnatural death on 11.5.82. The case of the prosecution is that at about 4.45 PM accused Somnath came in search of Dr. Ashok Kaner to the dispensary at Rajasthan Atomic Power Project (RAPP) and told him that his wife was seriouslyill and, therefore, he wanted him to go to his house. Dr. Kaner, however, showed his inability to go to his house as he was to go to Dispensary in phase II. He, however, told him that he was sending ambulance so that the wife of the accused could be brought to the dispensary. Later at about 5.10 PM in the evening, Somnath again went to the dispensary in Phase II and met Dr. Jetley. He insisted upon Dr. Jetley to come to his house and see his wife because she had died or was about to die. Dr. Jetley went with the accused and on entering the house, he found Smt. Anita lying in supine position in the kitchen and seemed to have died a few hours back. Jetley. He insisted upon Dr. Jetley to come to his house and see his wife because she had died or was about to die. Dr. Jetley went with the accused and on entering the house, he found Smt. Anita lying in supine position in the kitchen and seemed to have died a few hours back. He also found a visual mark on the neck of the deceased when he saw her from a distance. On this,Dr. Jetley informed the officers of the RAPP and also to the Police Chowky Phase I. He also sent his jeep to the police chowky, whereupon constables Kishanlal Dashora and Ishwar Singh came to the spot. Dr. Jatley sent a report to this effect vide Ex. P. 21 on 11.5.82 to the police chowky. This report was taken by Ishwarsingh, constable to the police station, Rawatbhata at about 6.30 P.M. on 11.5.82. Somnath also accompanied Ishwar Singh to the Police Station. On being interrogated, he stated that as he was not feeling well, he was lying in his bed in the day and later at about 4.30 P.M. he had gone out to buy cigarettes. On his return, he found the door of the kitchen shut from inside. Therefore, he went to Shri M.L. Sharma, who came along with him and then they saw that Smt. Anita was hanging by a fan in the kitchen. The door of the kitchen was pushed open and the accused and Shri M.L. Sharma eased the body from the fan. The report was recorded by Shri Shyamlal, S.H.O. Rawatbhata. Then, he proceeded to the spot and after seeing the deadbody prepared a panchayatnama Ex. P. 14. He also inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 15. The photographs of the dead body were also got taken through Shri Lalchand, photographer vide Exs. P/7 to P/13. Two letters Ex. P 3 A and Ex. P. 3 B are also said to have been found at the spot. They were also taken possession of by Shri Shyamlal, vide Ex. P./29 The accused is said to have produced a lungi at the spot, which was taken possession of vide Ex. P/30. On the next day, the post-mortem examination of the dead body was carried out by Dr. C. Banerjee with the help of Dr. Kaner. They were also taken possession of by Shri Shyamlal, vide Ex. P./29 The accused is said to have produced a lungi at the spot, which was taken possession of vide Ex. P/30. On the next day, the post-mortem examination of the dead body was carried out by Dr. C. Banerjee with the help of Dr. Kaner. This post-mortem examination was got carried out at the RAPP dispensary since the doctor at P.H.C. was not available. 4. It appears that on 11.5.82 itself at about 5.45 PM the accused had sent telegrams to his father-in-law Krishna Mohan Mishra and his brother-in law Anil Kumar about the death of Anita and they reached Rawatbhata on 13.5.82 at about 10.30 or 11.00 AM. Thereafter, the funeral of the deceased was performed. 5. On 14.5.82, however, Shri Anil Kumar (P.W. 1), brother of the deceased, filed a written report Ex. P./l at Police Station, Rawatbhata, alleging that according to him, Anita had not committed suicide as alleged by the accused, but had been murdered and, therefore, the accused may be proceeded against. On this report, a case under sec. 302 and 120B, I.P.C. was registered by Shri Shyamlal (P.W. 13). He then started investigation, collected information about the leave taken by the accused from RAPP. He also effected search of the house of the accused on 14.5.82 and during the course of that, he recovered 10 letters from his house vide Ex.P/37. He also recovered the clothes of the deceased. Then, he sent one Head Constable Prithvi singh to Mungher on 15.5.82 to collect more information from the parents of the deceased. Prithvi Singh submitted his report Ex P/40 in this respect along with the statement of Krishna Mal Mishra, father of the deceased Ex: P/14.He also submitted the photo copies of the telegrams Exs. P/43 and P/44 and some other documents. It appears that a Medical Foard was got set up in order to examine the circumstances of the death of Smt. Anita and arrive at a conclusion whether it was a case of suicide or murder. The Medical Board was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and it consisted of (1) Dr. M. L. Sharma, Prof. & Head of Department of Pathology, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur; (2) Dr. S. R. Dharkar, Prof. & Head of Department of Neuro-surgery, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur; (3) Dr. The Medical Board was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and it consisted of (1) Dr. M. L. Sharma, Prof. & Head of Department of Pathology, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur; (2) Dr. S. R. Dharkar, Prof. & Head of Department of Neuro-surgery, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur; (3) Dr. M. R. Goel, Reader & Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. These doctors at one sitting took into consideration the postmortem report, photo state copies of the panchayatnama, questionaire sent to Dr. C. Banerjee by the police, unattested copy of the carbon copy of the letter dated 14.8.82 from Dr. C. Banerjee, Medical Superintendent, addressed to C.I.D. (CB), Udaipur camp Rawatbhata; photographs of the deceased. Thereafter, they called for some other material, for example, photo stat copy of the F.I R., photo stat copy of the panchayatnama, photo copy of the rough note prepared by Dr. Kaner, photo copy, of the challan, photo stat copy of the chemical examiners report, photo stat copy of Dr. Jetleys statement and carbon copy of the letter dated 18.10.82 from the Addl. S.P., C.I.D. (CB) rarge Udaipur. Thereafter, they had a second sittting and as a result of their deliberatiors, they came to the conclusion that the post-mortem report is incomplete and bears some contradictory findings from which no firm conclusion can be drawn. However, on the basis of the above mentioned observations, strangulation as cause of death in this case may be considered. They further opined that the death of Anita could not be attributed to hanging. 6. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the accused for offences under sec. 302 and 201, IPC before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun, who committed the case to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh from where, it was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh. The learned Add). Sessions Judge framed a charge under sec. 302, IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. . 7. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and produced 54 documents in support of its case, The accused, when examined under sec. The learned Add). Sessions Judge framed a charge under sec. 302, IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. . 7. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and produced 54 documents in support of its case, The accused, when examined under sec. 313, Cr.P.C. maintained his denial of the prosecution story and also filed a written statement of his defence, reiterating the stand taken by him when he was interrogated by Shri Shyamlal while recording the F.I.R. He examined one witness in his defence viz. Dr. S. S.. Das. On considering the evidence of the parties and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh convicted the appellant under sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, further simple imprisonment for one month, by his judgment dated 19.3.86, aggrieved of which, the appellant has come up in appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the matter rests purely on circumstantial evidence. He framed four points for consideration as under :- (1) Whether the accused was present in the house at the time of the death of Smt-Anita? (2) Whether there were strained relations between the accused and other members of the family and deceased Smt. Anita? (3) Whether the accused got the string Art. 2 recovered in pursuance of his information and at his instance? and (4) Whether Smt. Anita had committed suicide, or her husband had strangulated her and, thus, committed her murder? 10. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, he found points no. 1,2 and 3 in favour of the prosecution and regarding point no. 4, the finding was that in view of the findings on first three points and the other circumstances, to which we shall presently refer, it was a case of strangulation. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged all these findings before us and we, therefore, proceed to consider each of these findings with relation to the material on which they have been based. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged all these findings before us and we, therefore, proceed to consider each of these findings with relation to the material on which they have been based. 12. Regarding the fact that the accused was present in the house at the alleged time of the death of Smt. Anita, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has placed reliance upon the statement of Rama (P.W. 5), Arjun (P.W. 19), Amar-singh (P.W. 18) and Dr. Jetley (P.W. 18). It may at once be stated that the accused himself does not deny his presence in the house on that day except for a brief period when he had gone to fatch cigarettes. Therefore, this point is not of much significance. However, in order to show the perversity of the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we shall refer to the evidence relied upon by him. Rama (P.W. 5) alleges to have visited the house at about 11.00 AM when the accused and his wife were present in the house. According to her, the accused was lying in his bed room covering his face, but later he got up and prepared tea and served the same. Then, she states that Anita had gone to the kitchen to fetch water, but her husband obstructed her way by stretching his hands, but Anita pushed him and went in for taking water. The fact of Ramas coming to the house is not denied by the accused but it appears to be hardly relevant because according to Rama, she had come to the house of Anita at about 11.00 AM whereas according to the medical evidence, Anita must have died at about 2.00 PM and it is nobodys case that Rama was present at the house at that time. 13. Arjun (P.W. 19) states that at about 11.00 AM while passing by the house of the accused, he heard some noise and saw that both husband and wife had come out of the house and later the husband forcibly took the wife in the house. Similarly is the evidence of Amar Singh (P.W. 18), but according to him, the time was about 12.00 or 1.00 Noon. It may be mentioned that both these witnesses are chance witnesses. Similarly is the evidence of Amar Singh (P.W. 18), but according to him, the time was about 12.00 or 1.00 Noon. It may be mentioned that both these witnesses are chance witnesses. Not only this, both of them did not know Anita from before and it is only a surmise on their part that the lady who had come out of the house and was later taken back by the accused, must be his wife. The discrepancy regarding time is also significant. Both could not have seen the same incident at different times and it does not appear from the evidence that there were two such incidents. Again, these witnesses were examined very late by the police, i.e. after two months of the incident. It is true that Shri Mohanlal (P.W. 16) had taken over investigation on 11.7.82 and had examined Arjun on 12.7.82 and Amar singh three days later, but that does not wipe out the fact that they were examined very late when the complaint had already been filed by Anil Kumar (P.W. 1) on 14.5.82 and investigations had already started. It is further pertinent to note that Raja Ram with whom Smt. Anita was talking outside the house on that occasion has not been produced. He was the person who is alleged to be working in the garden opposite the house of the accused. He could therefore be expected to know Smt. Anita. He could be a better witness than Arjun and Amar singh. Non-examination of this witness therefore gives rise to a presumption against the prosecution. 14. Then, so far as Dr. Jetley is concerned, he came into picture after 5.15, PM and from his evidence, it cannot be said for certain that the accused was present at the house at the relevant time except for the statement said to have been made by the accused to him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that there is no evidence to show that any other person, other than the accused and his wife had come to the house or was present at the house at the time of death of Anita on that day. But this also appears to be a pure surmise and there is no clear and convincing evidence in this respect. Therefore, point no. 1 does not carry us anywhere. 15. Regarding point no. But this also appears to be a pure surmise and there is no clear and convincing evidence in this respect. Therefore, point no. 1 does not carry us anywhere. 15. Regarding point no. 2, i. e. whether the relations between the accused and her husband and other relations of the husband were strained, he has relied upon the evidence of Dr. Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar, brothers of the deceased, Shri Krish Mishra, father of the deceased and letters Exs. P/2 to P/6. In this respect, it may be stated at the cost of repetition that Smt. Anita did not appear to be happy in her husbands house and had grouse mainly against her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and to some extent against her uncle and ant-in-law. Except a bare allegation of bad character against her husband. She had never accused him of any ilitreatment or cruelty meted out to her by him and the evidence of these witnesses as also the letters referred to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not establish anything more than this. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has himself observed that these letters do not directly show strained relations between the husband and wife, but from the fact that in letters Exs. P2A and P/6 she had complained about the character of her husband, Aguist be presumed that her relations with her husband were also not cordial and were strained. We are unable to endorse the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in this respect also and as a matter of fact, the evidence in this respect does not at all establish beyond doubt that the relations between the husband and the wife were strained. On the other hand, some of the letters go to show that the accused was a very loving and caring husband to the extent of being over-indulgent towards his wife. 16. Dr. Anil Kumar (P.W.I) states that Anita told him that her mother-in-law, uncle and aunt-in-law- were forcing her to give her ornaments to her sisters-in-law Geeta and Kalyani. So also is the statement of Sunil Kumar (P.W. 15), another brother of the deceased, Krishna Mohan (P.W. 11) father of the deceased. 16. Dr. Anil Kumar (P.W.I) states that Anita told him that her mother-in-law, uncle and aunt-in-law- were forcing her to give her ornaments to her sisters-in-law Geeta and Kalyani. So also is the statement of Sunil Kumar (P.W. 15), another brother of the deceased, Krishna Mohan (P.W. 11) father of the deceased. Shri Krishna Mohan goes to the extent of saying that some articles of the dowry of Smt. Anita had already been given to her sister-in-law, which is not the case of the other two witnesses, nor can it be concluded from the letters Exs. P/2 to P/6 which only go to show that the demand for her ornaments was being made either by her mother-in-law or uncle and aunt-in-law to her sisters-in-law, but it is nowhere stated that any articles of her dowry were handed over to her sister-in-law. It does not at all appear from the evidence of these witnesses that the accused had ever asked her to part with any article of her dowry in order to give the same to her sisters-in law. Not only this, it is an admitted case of the prosecution witnesses that the accused had sent a draft of Rs. 9000/- to the wife of Sunil Kumar. According to the letter Ex.9 it was for the benefit of Anita so that she could purchase any article of her choice, whereas according to the brothers, this amount was sent by the accused for his own purpose and the same was re-paid to him, but they have not led any evidence in this respect except their bare assertion. It cannot be believed that a husband, who was willing to send a sum of Rs. 9000/- to his wife so that she could purchase any article of her choice would compel her to part with her own ornaments or other articles of dowry so that the same may be given to the husbands sisters. Again, the fact appears to be unbelievable on the face of it inasmuch as it is admitted that the sisters of the accused had already been married about 5-6 years back and, therefore, there was no question of any article to be given to them by way of dowry at that stage. Again, the fact appears to be unbelievable on the face of it inasmuch as it is admitted that the sisters of the accused had already been married about 5-6 years back and, therefore, there was no question of any article to be given to them by way of dowry at that stage. The prosecution witnesses have tried to show that at the time of the marriages of Geeta and Kalyani, dowry was promised by the family of the accused, but those promises could not be fulfilled and, therefore, Anita was being forced to part with her dowry in order to fulfil those demands. We need not quote here the letters Exs. 2 to 6, as the relevant parts thereof have already been quoted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment and he himself has come to the conclusion that these letters do not directly prove the strained relations between the deceased and her husband, but has only relied upon the fact that in two of these letters, she had complained about the bad character of her husband. As already stated above, although she may have a grouse against her husband regarding his character, these letters do not in any way show that the accused had been ill-treating her or there was any motive for him to have done away with her. The learned Addl. District Judge has also made a surmise that the husband may have been annoyed by the complaint of his wife regarding his character and, therefore, he may have murdered her. In the first place, there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that this complaint had come to the notice of the husband before the death of Smt. Anita. In the second place, according to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it was possible that the husband may have been annoyed and may have murdered her. The prosecution cannot succeed by merely proving the possibility or probability. It has to establish the case beyond doubt. As has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, there is long distance between may be and must be and all that distance has to be covered by the prosecution by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, this surmise also does not help the prosecution. It has to establish the case beyond doubt. As has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, there is long distance between may be and must be and all that distance has to be covered by the prosecution by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, this surmise also does not help the prosecution. He also observes that the husband did not give single paisa to his wife for her expenses and that shows that he was ill-treating her. But this is relied when it is admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves that the husband had sent no less than a sum of Rs. 9,000/- for the use of his wife. As a matter of fact Smt. Anita had stated in the letter Ex. 5 that no paisa is given to her, in a different context altogether. That was to contrast the behaviour with her sisters-in-law who were very well treated at the house of the accused. 17. This brings us to the two letters written by the accused to his wife. These letters are Ex. D./9, D/10, the authenticity of which has not been challenged by the prosecution and it is not denied that these letters had been written by the accused to his wife. A perusal of these two letters would clearly go to show that Somnath was deeply in love with his wife and was also caring for her. The letters are over flowing with expressions of love. In Ex. D/9, he had asked Anita to send the account number of her brothers wife so that he could get the money transferred and then, she could purchase whatever she liked. Taken with the fact that he had admittedly sent a sum of Rs. 9000/- to Sunil Kumar clearly goes to show that he was caring and providing for his wife. As already stated above, the plea of the brother that this amount had been paid back, is only a verbal plea without any concrete evidence to establish repayment. . 18. The matter does not rest here. The fact that Somnath was a caring and loving husband and was rather over-indulgent towards his wife is borne out further from the letter Ex. P/38, written by his sister Smt. Geeta to him. The authenticity of this letter is also not under challenge and this letter-has been produced by the prosecution itself. 18. The matter does not rest here. The fact that Somnath was a caring and loving husband and was rather over-indulgent towards his wife is borne out further from the letter Ex. P/38, written by his sister Smt. Geeta to him. The authenticity of this letter is also not under challenge and this letter-has been produced by the prosecution itself. In this letter Geeta had been asking her brother (accused) be to strict with, his wife and to keep her under control and not to be over-indulgent She says <span class="Hfont">^^choh dks pkgk Hkh tkrk gS mldh Hkkoukvksa dh dnj Hkh dh tkrh gS ysfdu FkksM+k jkSc Hkh t:jh gSA rqedksa blfy;s fLVªDV jguk pkfg, D;ksafd cM+h cgw esa ;s xq.k ugha gSA T;knk ncko ugha ysfdu] D;k lgh gS D;k xyr gS bl ckr dks rqEgsa geskk /;ku j[kuk pkfg;sA (Here cM+h cgw refers to the mother of the accused). Then further she writes- <span class="Hfont">vkjEHk esa dksbZ ubZ cgw fdlh dk fojks/k ugha djrh vkSj gj ckr [kqkh 2 djrh tkrh gSA ;s rqEgkjs thtk th dk vktek;k uqL[kk gSA bl le; dks ;fn vR;f/kd ykM nqykj esa ;ksa gh u"V dj fn;k tk; rks ckn esa cgw dks viuh bPNkuqlkj <kyuk vlaEHko ugha rks dqN dfBu vo; gks tkrk gSA It also appears from this letter that Smt. Geeta was not happy with the conduct of Anita in her husbands house. She also did not like the indulgence granted by the accused to Anita. At one place, in this letter, she says - <span class="Hfont">ysfdu ubZ cgw dks tc rd ij[k yh ugha tk;s rc rd FkksM+k dl dj jguk pkfg;sA rqeus cMh cgw ds lkeus mls eSDlh lyokj dqrkZ iguok;kA ;s mfpr ughaA cM+h cgw lh/kh gS dqN dgrh ugha bldk rqe yksx uktk;t Qk;nk mBkrs gks ----- fcuk cM+h cgw ds iwNs rque vuhrk dks ek;ds Hkst fn;kA The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed, that although it appeared from the letters written by Anita that she was unhappy in the husbands house and complaints against all inmates. It does not appear that she was so frustrated or. dejected that she may have committed suicide. It does not appear that she was so frustrated or. dejected that she may have committed suicide. This, in our opinion is not the correct interpretation of the letters written by her and if we properly read these letters, they would clearly go to show that it was she who was fed up with life and wanted to get rid of the house of her husband because of the maltreatment of her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. In this context, we shall like to refer to some of these letters. The first letter in this context is Ex. P/4, which is dated 2.4.82. In that letter, after stating that she had been fed up, she clearly declares, that she would contact a second marriage. To quote- <span class="Hfont">;gka Hkh ,sls okrkoj.k gS fd ge ijskku gks x;s gSA vkt ge lkQ dg fn;s gS fd eS nwljh kknh dj ywaxhA ------ ;gka lc bruk ân; ghu gS fd dg ugha ldrsA ----- lqcg ls kke rd rks cd cd gksrs jgrk gSA bu yksx dks lgh <ax ls thuk ugha vkrk gSA tks lgh <ax ls thuk ugha lh[kk mldks ge D;k fl[kyk ldrs gSA -------- tSls rks fcuk fk{kk dk T;kns lw[kh FksA ge ;gkW jguk ugha pkgrsA This leaves no room for doubt that she was fed up in her husbands house and was contemplating to quit it and to have a second marriage. 19. Then comes the letter dated 21.4.82 Ex. P/6. In this also, she complains against her mother-in-law and says- <span class="Hfont">^^ckck jkst lqcg ls kke rd rax djrh FkhA Kota xsLV gkÅl esa x;s rks [kwc fpYykbZ ge jaMh ckth djrs gSA uSu yM+krs gSA flxjsV ihrs gSA irk ugha D;k D;k cksyh mefj;k esa yM+rh jghA Then she says- <span class="Hfont">ckck ge ncs ughaA eSa cksyh ;s lc /kks[kk /kM+h fdlh vkSj ds lkFk djuk vHkh ge vius HkkbZ dks cqyokdj crykrs gSA ----- ckck iwjk fj[kka dk yM+dk xyr VkbZi dk gSA twvk [ksyuk] kjkc ihuk] jaMhckth djuk vkSj eka cki ds lkeus lh/kk cu tkukA lkseukFk ess lkFk Fks blfy;s lkseukFk dks ftu pgV x;k gSA ----- ckck vc bruk uk nqfu;k ns[k fy;s gS fd bu lcdk dksbZ vlj gh ugha gksrk gSA vki ijskku u gksb;sxkA This also goes to show that she was very much annoyed with her mother-in-law but wanted to take cudgles with her. 20. 20. Then there are two letters Exs. P/2 and P/2A, written on 3.5.82. Ex. P/2 is addressed to the police and clearly bears the dated 3.5.82 and in it, it is also mentioned that on that very day, she was writing another letter to her father. This another letter appears to be Anx. P/2, although it does not bear the date 3.5.82. Now, in this Ex. P/2, addressed to the police, she complains against her mother-in-law and accuses her of getting the marriage between her and the accused performed under deceit. Then, she also states that her husband was given to gambling and that there were complaints about his character and she had herself seen him touching the breast of a maid servant in Mangur and then she states: <span class="Hfont">^^—I;k vki ekjus ds ckn iwjk Nku chu fdth;sxkA Then she again complains against her mother-in-law, and says that she does not allow her to sleep with husband on the pretext that he would become weak. She also complains that her mother-in-law took her to Riva and there she and her uncle-in-law and aunt-in-law joined hands in defaming and humiliating her. Then again she says- <span class="Hfont">blfy;s ;s iqfyl iwjk Nkuchu djds dM+h ls dM+h ltk fn;k tk;A ftlls gekjs ckn gekjs Hkkjrh; lekt esa fQj ,slh ?kVuk uk gksA** In Ex.. P/2A, addressed to her father, whom she called Baba, she writes:- ckck vkt felst kekZ dY;k.kh kekZ ¼cgu of ifr½ rFkk esjs lkeus crkbZ fd lkseukFk prqZosnh us nwj ds fjLrsnkj tks Kota esa deiksUMj dh yM+dh dh ykdj mlds lkFk tksj tcjnLrh djus yxs rFkk blds lyokj dk ukjk [kksyus yxsA oks yM+dh Hkkx dj vkbZ rFkk feLVj kekZ rFkk felst kekZ dks crykbZ rFkk lkseukFk pqrZosnh dh ek¡ ¼cM+h cgw½ dks Hkh crykbZ ge yksx dks /kks[kk nh ;s lc dke cM+h cgw us gh djok;k ,slk lcdk dguk gSA From these two letters, it also appears that she was fed up and was annoyed with her in-laws and had a grudge against her husband also. The very fact that she wrote to the police on 3.5.82 regarding these matters goes to show that she was contemplating suicide because if she apprehended murder or cruelty at the hands of her husband, she would have stated so in Ex. P/2 and would have asked for protection, but there is not a word to that effect. The very fact that she wrote to the police on 3.5.82 regarding these matters goes to show that she was contemplating suicide because if she apprehended murder or cruelty at the hands of her husband, she would have stated so in Ex. P/2 and would have asked for protection, but there is not a word to that effect. On the other hand, she has only showed the circumstances which caused her frustration and embr-assment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge attached much importance to the words:- <span class="Hfont">^^—I;k vki ekjus ds ckn iwjk Nku chu fdth;sxkA and also the last part of the letter in which she said that the culprits may be given severe punishment so that in future such events do not happen in the Indian community, to come to the conclusion that she apprehended that she may be murdered. In the first place these words do not at all indicate that she had any such apprehension. The word MAARNE here appears to have been wrongly used for the word MARANE because from the language used in this letter as well as other letters written by her, it clearly appears that Smt. Anita had a very poor knowledge of Hindi and was not in a position to write correct Hindi, as would be apperant from the portions already quoted by us. The prayer for severe punishment to the culprits was for those who would have abetted her suicide by creating such situation that she was forced to end her life. As already stated above, if it was an information to the police of an apprehension of murder, the letter would have been in a very much different phraseology and after showing the apprehension, she must have asked for protection, but this has not been done and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that this letter shows that there was motive for the husband to kill her. It may again be pointed out that a perusal of this letter would go to show that her real grudge was against her mother-in-law and not her husband, though, of course, she was not happy with his character. It has already been stated above that despite the alleged bad character, there is nothing to show that the accused ever ill-treated Smt. Anita and so far as the allegation of bad character is concerned, that is also only in the letters by Anita. It has already been stated above that despite the alleged bad character, there is nothing to show that the accused ever ill-treated Smt. Anita and so far as the allegation of bad character is concerned, that is also only in the letters by Anita. No other evidence has. been produced by the prosecution to show that in fact the accused was a bad character or that he had acted in the manner alleged in these letters, i.e. molested the maid servant etc. 21. Then comes the letter Ex. P/5 dated 10.5.82. This is a very important letter and gives the back drop of the whole situation: From this letter, it will appear that on 8th May, 1982, ail of them including the sister-in-law had gone to Kota. The deceased and her husband had gone to the guest house in order to fatch Deewan and almirah and Kalyani etc., got down on the way to purchase clothes and shoes. Kalyani and other then returned to RAPP at about 3.00 PM by bus and there they made severe complaints against the deceased and her husband to Sharmaji (neighbour). Later, when the deceased and her husband reached there at about 6.00 PM along with the deewan, they started abusing them. At that time, Somnath had asked Kalyanis son to caress his head, but he refused, whereupon Somnath gave him a mild slap. On this, Kalyani abused them badly and also threatened them to see when her husband comes. She also said that nobody would prepare the food and that she did not care though Anita belongs to a wealthy family. The letter further shows that on this deceased Anita took Somnath out in order to pacify him. She was upset on account of this for she could not prepare food and asked Somnath to allow her to go to her fathers place at Munger. However, at about 10.00 in the night, they prepared tea and thereafter they went to sleep. On the next morning, when they got up, they found that Kalyani etc. had already left with their luggage. She awoke Somnath and when both of them went out they (Kalyani etc.) had started abusing them. However, she sent Somnath to bus stand to bring them back. It appears that she was brought back and then she complained that Anita had not prepared food for her. had already left with their luggage. She awoke Somnath and when both of them went out they (Kalyani etc.) had started abusing them. However, she sent Somnath to bus stand to bring them back. It appears that she was brought back and then she complained that Anita had not prepared food for her. The letter goes to show that Anita was fed up with the house hold-work of washing clothes and cleaning utensils and according to her this was a mean family. She also stated that although she was not given a penny, her sisters-in-law were supplied with clothes worth Rs. 500/- or 1000-, within 20 days they were taken to six cinema shows, thrice they were treated with dosa. She also complained that whenever she wanted to write to her father, Chunnu munnu, the children of Kalyani, would be sent to read them secretly and, therefore, she could not write. She also complained that the husband of Kalyani was a 40 years old man without brains. Their children had no clothes and Kalyanis daughter used to wear and tear Anitas clothes. She again reiterated that she had come to a very mean family and she was not able to understand what to do as she was being harassed. This was the day prior to which Anita died. In this letter, she had lots of complaints against Kalyani, but not a word against her husband has been stated. Not only this, it appears that she and her husband were both being harassed by Kalyani and it was she (the deceased) who tried to pacify her husband. Therefore, it cannot be envisaged that despite such good relations, the husband would have suddenly taken in his mind to kill his beloved wife. On the other hand, it appears that being fed up with life and being desperate and dejected it was Anita, who tried to put an end to her miserable life. This fact is further re-enforced by the two letters Exs. P/3A and P/3B. Although they do not bear any date, but it appears, they must have been written on the very day of this incident. These two letters have been written on two parts of a page of a note book bearing letter head "fkEi lqxfU/k;k". This fact is further re-enforced by the two letters Exs. P/3A and P/3B. Although they do not bear any date, but it appears, they must have been written on the very day of this incident. These two letters have been written on two parts of a page of a note book bearing letter head "fkEi lqxfU/k;k". The upper part has been marked B and the lower part has been marked A. The upper part marked B has been addressed by Anita to her father and reads as under: <span class="Hfont">^^ckck vki gekjh kknh djds gedks ujd esa Mky fn;s@vc ge vkSj T;knk lgu ugha dj ldrhA But lateron, it has been scored out. In the lower part marked A the letter has been addressed to no body but appears to be meant for the accused. It reads on the face- <span class="Hfont">^^eSa 100 lkS :- ysdj tk jgh gwWA Hkxoku djs rqe [kwc fdrkc i<+h [kwc lh] [kwc vkjke djks] gka ysfdu rqedks rqEgkjs Hkxoku dh dle rqe eq> dks ysus eqaxsjA On the back, it reads, uk vkvksxs and after some blank space, again reads uk vkvksxs and on both places, it is signed "Anita". 22. From the perusal of these two letters along with the letter Ex. P/5 already referred to, it appears that after Kalyani had been brought back to the. house, she still complained against Anita and blamed her for not preparing food and this must have further annoyed Anita, who, therefore, first wrote part B to her father showing her frustration and dejection, but later scored it out. Then, she wrote part A and this part A clearly corroborates the story put-forward by the accused from the very beginning. It says that she was leaving after taking a sum of Rs. 100/- and told her husband that he may go on reading books, go on sleeping and taking rest, but she emphatically told him not to come to Munger to take her back and the words uk vkvksxs have been repeated and signed again. It is also possible that the words uk vkvksxs on the back of part B had been first written before she tore the two parts and later realising that she had written those words on the back of the note for her father she may have again written these words on the back of the other part meant for her husband. Be that as it may, it gives rise to an inference that she was not quite sure of her steps in the frustration and even after writing this to her husband, she went to the kitchen and hanged herself. The message to the husband that he may go on reading books, and go on sleeping and taking rest, indicate that the husband had adopted escapist attitude and the wife was annoyed on that account. These words Clearly corroborate the version of the accused that on that day he was taking rest in, his bed room. Looking to these letters, the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that even though Smt. Anita was unhappy with her in-laws, she did not feel frustration and dejection to the extent of committing suicide. But to us these letters clearly indicate (hat she was unable to put up with her in-laws any more and was frustrated and dejected and to get rid of this house. 23. Before parting with this aspect of the matter, it may be stated that. the story that. Smt. Anita was being tortured in order to extract further dowry from her parents, has been disbelieved by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge himself and the statement of Krishna Mohan (P.W.11) regarding the demand of dowry and that of Sunil Kumar regarding the threat that they had not properly treated the engineer son-in-law has been discarded. In any case there is not an lots of evidence that it was the accused, who had ill treated or tortured Smt. Anita and, therefore, the strained relations between Anita and her in-laws could not be the cause or motive for the accused to have killed Anita. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has repeatedly said that it was on account of the strained relations that the accused may have killed his wife, but for the reasons stated above, we are unable to agree with this finding at all. 24. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also answered the third point for consideration in favour of the prosecution and his finding is that it was in pursuance of the information given by the accused and at his instance that the string article 2 was recovered. However, to us, this recovery appears to be wholly unbelievable and unnatural. The accused was arrested on 7.8-82 vide Ex. However, to us, this recovery appears to be wholly unbelievable and unnatural. The accused was arrested on 7.8-82 vide Ex. P/46 and he is alleged to have given information on 12.8.82 at about 1-0.00 PM regarding the string vide Ex. P/4 and the recovery is said to have been made from the seat of a flush latrine vide Ex. P/22. The very perusal of the information memo (Ex.P/47) would go to show that it is unnatural and unbelievable. It Says :- <span class="Hfont">bl oä lkseukFk iq= Jh jkefe= pqrosZnh tks eqdíek vuoku lnj esa tsj fgjklr gS us gokykr ls vkokt nsdj eq> bUlisDVj dks cqyok;k o LosPNk iwoZ lwpuk nh fd vfurk dks ekjus ds ckn mlds xys ij ftl jLlh ls fukku cuk;s oks jLlh gLc gwfy;k tSy eSus vius ml oä ds fjgk;rh edku C/1/7 ist 1 esa rkjr ds yk esa Mky nh gS tks eS [kqy pydj cjken djkus dks rS;kj gwWA Underneath this is stated the description of the string. It does not stand to reason that on 12.8.82 at 10.00 PM the accused would have acted in this manner when he had been arrested five days back on 7.5.82. Then the words in which the information has been recorded, cannot be expected to have been used by the accused. For example, <span class="Hfont">^^oks jLlh gLc gwfy;k tSy eSus and then gwfy;k has been described below as:- <span class="Hfont">^^jLlh ,d yk;yksu dh o jax ukjaxh djhc ,d ehVj yEch ftldh fdukj ij ,d xkaB gSA The underlined words are generally used by the Investigating Officer and not by the accused like the present one. Then, even if for the sake of argument it is assumed, that the information was given by the accused, the the manner in which the recovery has been effected, would go to show that it could not have been recovered under sec. 27, Evidence Act. The incident had taken place on 11.5.82. The accused had been arrested on 7.8.82 and in between there is no evidence to show that nobody had used the lavatory in the flush whereof the string article 2 was said to be hidden. Again, it appears that before the said recovery the house had already been searched by the Investigating Officer on 14.5.82, 13.7.82. The accused had been arrested on 7.8.82 and in between there is no evidence to show that nobody had used the lavatory in the flush whereof the string article 2 was said to be hidden. Again, it appears that before the said recovery the house had already been searched by the Investigating Officer on 14.5.82, 13.7.82. and 8.8.82 and the possibility that he may also have looked into the flush and have come to know of the presence of the string if it was there cannot be ruled out. Not only this, the house was under the look and key of the accused from the time of his arrest upto the date of the recovery and admittedly the key of the house was in the office of the RAPP and it was from there that the Investigating Officer got it at the time of the recovery. The lock was not under seal and, therefore, the possibility of string being implanted during this true also cannot be over-ruled. It will also be important to point out that another piece of the string had already been found at the spot at the time when photo-graphs were taken on i 1.5.82. as has been stated by Lalchand, photoerapher. It, therefore, does not stand to reason that the accused would have left a part of the string at the spot and would have hidden a part thereof under the flush. To top it all, this string, which was recovered on 12.5.82, was not even sealed and therefore, the identity of the string becomes open to doubt. The matter does not rest here. It is very much doubtful whether this string was used for strangul-ating the deceased inasmuch as according to Dr. M.R. Goyal, the ligature found on the person of the deceased could not be possible by such a string. He says- "If a ligature mark is caused by nylon rope Art, 2 the breadth of which should confine to the breadth of this rope which is 1/4 inch..... If the width of ligature mark is 1/4 inch then it will not be caused by nylon rope Art. 2." Dr. C. Banerjee clearly states that at the time of the post-mortem examination he found the width of the ligature mark to be 3/4 inch. It is worthwhile to not that according to Dr. If the width of ligature mark is 1/4 inch then it will not be caused by nylon rope Art. 2." Dr. C. Banerjee clearly states that at the time of the post-mortem examination he found the width of the ligature mark to be 3/4 inch. It is worthwhile to not that according to Dr. Banerjee, the cause of death of Smt. Anita was hanging and at the same time, he has also stated that the ligature found on the person of Smt. Anita could be caused by string Art. 2. The learned Additional Session Judge has discarded the opinion of Dr. Banerjee with regared to the came of death but has accepted this part of the statement of Dr. Banerjee that ligature on the person of Anita could be possible by string Art. 2 although he has not given cogent reason for the same. The statement of Dr. Banerjee is not catego-rical in this respect because he has also admitted that it is difficult to say whe-there the ligature mark was of a string or chunni or of lungi and had not noted the nature of dose on the ligature, still when the learned Additional Sessions Judge wants to rely upon the statement of Dr. Banerjee to the effect that ligature could be caused by Art. 2, it only appears that he wants to take up whatever evidence is in favour of the prosecution without scrutinising the same and finding out whether it is reliable or not at all. 25. In this state of affairs, we are clearly of the opinion that the alleged recovery of the string is absolutely of no avail to the prosecution. 26. The last point for consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was whether Anita had committed suicide or it was a case of homicide and he has found it to be a case of homicide, i.e. she had been strangulated. In order to arrive at this conclusion, he has first heavily relied upon the strained relations between the husband and the wife. We have already dealt with this aspect of the matter while discussing point No. 2 and coming to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that there were strained relations between the husband and wife and that such relations could be the motive for the husband-accused to kill his wife. 27. We have already dealt with this aspect of the matter while discussing point No. 2 and coming to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that there were strained relations between the husband and wife and that such relations could be the motive for the husband-accused to kill his wife. 27. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of Rama (P.W. 5), Arjun (P.W. 4) Amar singh (P.W. 18) to come to the conclusion that on the day of this incident itself, there had been a quarrel between the husband and the wife. What transpired between the husband and the wife on that day was only that the wife wanted to go to kitchen in order to fatch water and the husband obstructed the way, on which she pushed him and went into the kitchen. Such an incident cannot lead to any reasonable conclusion that the relations of the husband and the wife were strained because such an incident can also take place in jest. Then, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also states that Smt. Rama had been visiting the couple off and on and, therefore she must be in know of the strained relations between them, but the mere fact that she states that she found their relations to be strained, cannot be sufficient for the Court to come to a definite finding regarding such relations unless Smt. Rama gave certain instances to make her reach this conclusion. She has not referred any other incident. Therefore, according to us, her evidence is of no avail. 28. So far as Arjun (P.W. 4) and Amar Singh (P.W. 18) are concerned, we have already found their evidence to be unreliable and untrustworthy for the reason already stated. 29. Then, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has again repeated that the strained relations were the cause or motive of the murder, but when, the strained relations between the husband and them wife the selves are not established beyond doubt, there cannot be any motive for the husband to kill his wife. In this connection, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has relied upon State Etc. vs. Laxman Kumar & ors. (1) but we find that this case is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and has been wrongly applied to it. In this connection, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has relied upon State Etc. vs. Laxman Kumar & ors. (1) but we find that this case is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and has been wrongly applied to it. That was a case of death by burning of the wife and the husband was found to be a silent spectator and that circumstance was used against the accused, but this is not the case here. In the first place, it does not appear from the evidence on record that the husband was present at the time and place, viz, the kitchen where Smt. Anita hanged herself. In the second place, since he came to see Anita hanging by fan, he rushed to his neighbour Shri M.L. Sharma and with his help he brought her down and then rushed to get the medical aid by approaching Dr. Kanre and on his refusal to Dr. Jetley. Shri M. L. Sharma was with him but the prosecution has not cared to examine him and strangely enough the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has drawn adverse inference against the accused for not producing him. It may be stated here that the Investigating Officer had examined Shri M.L. Sharma thrice and he has supported the case of the accused and that is why the prosecution did not produce him. Adverse inference in these circumstances could not be drawn against the accused. Reliance was also placed on 1969 Cr.L.J. 1186. The case also does not apply to the facts of this case, because in that case, the husband suspected the fidelity of his wife, which circumstance weighed with the court alongwith other circumstances in holding that it was the husband, who had strangulated his wife. In the present case, it is nobodys case that the accused suspected the felicity of his wife Smt. Anita. . 30. Then the learned Addl. In the present case, it is nobodys case that the accused suspected the felicity of his wife Smt. Anita. . 30. Then the learned Addl. Sessions Judge says that suicide has been excluded by the prosecution evidence and for this he relies on the fact that the prosecution witnesses state as also the site inspection note shows that the wings of the fan from which Anita is alleged to be hanging had dust over them .It also appears that there was no dust on the lungi by which she is alleged to have hanged herself and that during the course of investigition, the investigating Officer took a demonstration by hanging a person from the wings of the fan and it was found that the cap came down and the fan started making cracking sound. We have given our careful consideration to these circumstances, but we are unable to conclude that these circumstances establish beyond doubt that it was not a case of hanging. Site inspection note Ex. P/15 clearly goes to show that at least at two places oil is applied to the fan and the words RAPP F 36577 were written, on the right side of the wing, dust appeared to be removed. It is not quite clear whether Anita hanged herself by any of the wings of the fan or by the bar (pipe) by which it was hanging. If the ligature had been tied to the bar, the dust of the wings need not necessarily have been disturbed as the ligature would come down direct from the bar in between the wings and so far as the demonstration is concerned, unless actual position in which Anita was found hanging was known, the demonstration was of no avail. Further, it is stated only by Arjun, one of the motbirs, that such a demonstration had been made, but the investigating Officer Mohanlal Dashora is conspicuously silent about this. 31. Then, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge takes into account certain circumstances, which according to him, show the unnatural conduct of the accused, if it was a case of hanging, as alleged by him. The first circumstance relied upon by him is that at about 5.00 PM the accused called Dr. Kaner but when he did not come but he sent an ambulance to fetch Anita to the dispensary, Anita was not sent there, but Dr. Jetley was called. The first circumstance relied upon by him is that at about 5.00 PM the accused called Dr. Kaner but when he did not come but he sent an ambulance to fetch Anita to the dispensary, Anita was not sent there, but Dr. Jetley was called. We do not find anything unnatural in this conduct. When Dr. Kaner could not come when the accused wanted him to go immediately, the accused went to another Dr. Jetley and called him and as soon as Dr. Jetley came he declared Smt. Anita dead. Therefore, there was no point in sending Anita to the dispensary, thereafter, even if the ambulance had been sent by Dr. Kaner as stated by him, although the very fact whether ambulance had at all reached the house of the accused is not free from doubt as there is no evidence to that effect. 32. The second circumstance relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is "that the accused gave false explanation to Dr. Jetley that Anita had taken some medicine from Dr. Kaner on the earlier day and it may be its reaction. Then the learned Judge also says that the accused did not disclose the fact of death by hanging to Dr. Kaner or Dr. Jetley. Of course, Dr. Kane, has stated about this explanation in the court, but in the first report hesent to the Police vide Ex.P/21, there is no mention of such explanation, in any case, it is not in dispute that Smt. Anita had been keeping ill health and had been taking some medicine prescribed by Dr. Kaner. Therefore, this cannot be said to be an altogether a false explanation on the part of the accused. Otherwise also there is a general tendency on the part of the relations not to disclose the fact of the unnatural death of their relation to others. 33. Then, yet another circumstance relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is that if in fact Smt. Anita had committed suicide by hanging lungi would have been found lying in the kitchen and there was no reason for the accused to take to his bedroom. This is nothing more than a surmise and the reason stated above for the foregoing circumstance is equally applicable to it. 34. Then, he relies upon the fact that the accused told Dr. This is nothing more than a surmise and the reason stated above for the foregoing circumstance is equally applicable to it. 34. Then, he relies upon the fact that the accused told Dr. Kaner that she had hanged herself with the string whereas to Dr. Jetley he said it was a lungi by which she hanged herself. This discrepancy cannot be said to be vital. Further, a specific question in this respect has not been put to the accused and, therefore, this circumstance cannot be used against the accused. 35. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further takes into consideration the fact as to why did the accused himself went to call the doctors and why he did not sent Shri M. L. Sharma. to call them. This finding appears to be against the record inasmuch as it has already been stated by the accused in the very beginning that Shri M.L. Sharma did not stay after easing the dead body from the fan and, therefore, there was no question of his being sent to call the doctors. 36. Yet another circumstance relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is that when Dr. Jetley came to the spot he found the light and fan in the kitchen to be off, which according to the learned Judge appears to be unnatural. This again is a circumstance for which no explanation has been sought from the accused and it has not been established by the prosecution that it was the accused, who had put off the light and fan. Similarly, he draws an inference against the accused on account of the fact that lungi was not found lying tied to the fan because according to him, the accused must have first tried to release the neck of his wife from the noose, but this is not an universal rule that in a case of hanging, ligature should still be left lying at the spot from where the body was hanged. In this connection he placed reliance upon Gangaram vs. State of Rajasthan (2) but that is a very different case and amongst other salient circumstances, the fact that the rope was not found tied to the place from which the deceased hanged himself, was used against the accused. In this connection he placed reliance upon Gangaram vs. State of Rajasthan (2) but that is a very different case and amongst other salient circumstances, the fact that the rope was not found tied to the place from which the deceased hanged himself, was used against the accused. In that case, it was found that the deceased had gone to the house of the accused to demand back his money and soon thereafter he was found dead in the house of the accused. Those circumstances are very much different. 37. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also relies upon the fact that the site inspection note does not show that the door of the kitchen was bolted from inside, as alleged by the accused. Now, it is not the fault of the accused if the site inspection note is not fully and correctly prepared. Further in this case, the case of the accused was that he had already pushed open the door of the kitchen when Shri M. L. Sharma reached the spot. If the door of the kitchen had thus already been opened, there was no question of its being found bolted from inside, at the time of the site inspection. It may further be noted here that in the site inspection note, it has been mentioned that chunni was lying entangled with the door of the kitchen. How this chunni came there has not been explained by the prosecution and the possibility that the chunni may have been used for tying the door from inside, cannot be ruled out. 38. A further circumstance, which also has found favour with the learned Lower court is that the conduct of the accused in going in search of Anita at Shri M. L. Sharmas house without first searching for her in the kitchen. We do not see anything unnatural in it. The house consists of a drawing room, bedroom kitchen, bath-room and latrine in gallery. The accused was first lying in the bed-room and thereafter he had gone out to fetch cigarettes and it was on his return that he found the door of the kitchen shut. He must, therefore, have thought that his wife may have gone out of the house and therefore, he may have gone to the house of Shri M. L. Sharma. He must, therefore, have thought that his wife may have gone out of the house and therefore, he may have gone to the house of Shri M. L. Sharma. It was not necessary for him to have opened the door of the kitchen in order to search out his wife because he had not smelt of any foul play by that time. 39. Then the learned Addl. Sessions Judge goes on to say that the accused had given false explanation on the suicide by his wife and if that was a fact then, he should have left her in the hanging position and informed the police. To us, this reason appears to be wholly untenable in asmuchas if the husband finds the wife hanging, he would certainly first try to release her from the noose and then to resort to the other courses as aforesaid and cannot be expected of him to have left her hanging and first run to the police and call the police. 40. Then, he again relies upon the circumstance of Anitas writing to the police vide Ex. P/2 for dealing with the culprits severely if she-is no more and in that letter she has used the words HUMARE MARNE KE BAAD We have already discussed this aspect of the matter and need not repeat. According to us, it does not appear to be an information to the police about any apprehension of murder at the hands of the accused. On the other hand, it appears to be a suicide note. If Ex. P/2 is read with Ex. P/2A, it would clearly go to show that she may have ended her life on accuunt of anguish against her husband and in-laws-ill-treatment by in-laws and bad character of the husband. 41. The learned lower court also tried to draw an inference from Ex. P/3A that she did not want to commit suicide because she had stated in it that she was leaving after taking a sum of Rs. 100/-. We are unable to agree with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the reasons already stated above in this respect. On the other hand, according to us, this letter supports the case of the accused. From the very beginning when Dr. 100/-. We are unable to agree with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the reasons already stated above in this respect. On the other hand, according to us, this letter supports the case of the accused. From the very beginning when Dr. Jetley reached the spot, the accused had come forth with the story that he had been lying in the house and then he had gone to fetch cigarettes and on return he found Anita hanging by the fan and as he thought that she is still living as some sound came out of her mouth when she was taken down from the noose, he went to the doctor. 42. Then, when the report Ex. P/21 reached the police station, Rawatbha-ta, he had clearly stated that he was not feeling well on that day and, therefore, he was lying in the bed-room till 4.30 PM and then he went out to fetch cigarettes and on return he found the door of the kitchen shut and then he went to M.L. Sharma. In Ex. P/3A while showing her intention to leave her house with a sum of Rs. 100/-. Smt. Anita sarcastically told her husband "he may go on reading books, take rest by lying on bed and not to come to call her". This goes to show that this letter was written by Anita while her husband was still lying in the bed-room otherwise, if both were face to face and a quarrel had taken place between them, there was no occasion for her to write this note and at the same time to write a note to her father vide Ex. P/3B. 43. It has also been observed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that suicide is committed generally in solitude and not at a time when somebody is present in a house and, therefore, when Somnath was already present in. the house, Anita would not have hanged herself, but this observation does not appeal to us at all, it is like legging the question and assuming the presence of Somnath at the very moment when Anita died. On the other hand, it appears to us that Anita took an opportunity of hanging herself when her husband was lying on bed covering his face or had gone to fetch the cigarettes. 44. Lastly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that although Dr. On the other hand, it appears to us that Anita took an opportunity of hanging herself when her husband was lying on bed covering his face or had gone to fetch the cigarettes. 44. Lastly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that although Dr. Banerjee who had performed the post-mortem examination had stated that it was a case of suicide and not strangulation; his opinion has been contradicted by the medical board and according to the report of the medical board it appeared to be a case of strangulation.. In this connection, we may at once state that the report of the medical board is not a piece of conclusive evidence by itself and as a matter of fact, the members of the medical board themselves were not sure about their own opinion. They have only come to the conclusion that it may be a case of strangulation. To quote, in the report at one place, they have stated, "Post-mortem report is incomplete and bears some contradictory findings, from which no firm conclusion can be drawn, however, on the basis of the above mentioned observations strangulation as cause of death in this case may be considered." At yet another place, they have stated. "Post-mortem report is incomplete and bears some contradictory findings from which no conclusion can be drawn, however, in the light of observations and findings mentioned earlier to the death of Mrs. Anita could not be attributed to hanging." Therefore, on the basis of such a medical report, the court cannot come to a firm conclusion that it was not a case of hanging, but was a case of strangulation. Not only this, it appears that the members of the Board had gone much beyond their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion about the cause of death. As experts, they could be expected to give opinion only on the basis of their expertise brought to bear on finding regarding the cause of death, but in this case, the medical board had taken into consideration the extraneous material also, viz, the detailed statements of the persons as mentioned in the reply to quarries no. 1,2 and 3 in the reply Ex. P/48. 1,2 and 3 in the reply Ex. P/48. Further, the members of the Board did not have an opportunity of seeing the dead-body and had to form their opinion only on the basis of the post-mortem report, inquest report and certain other documents. Unless they had the opportunity to see the dead body they could have formed a clear cut opinion about the cause of death, Yet another reason for us not to place much reliance upon that report of the medical board is that although the members of the medical board have stated that the post-mortem is incomplete and bears some contradictory findings, they have not stated clearly as to in what manner the report is incomplete and what were the contradictory findings. On the other hand, Dr. Banerjee has tried to support the finding that the cause of death was hanging by better reasons and the learned Public Prosecutor has not at all challenged them by further cross-examination although he was permitted to cross-examine Dr. Banerjee and he contended himself by putting himself only a solitary question about the number of post-mortem examination conducted by him. This witness cannot be discarded merely because he was allowed to be cross-examined by the P.P. although he was called by the prosecution itself. In this connection we may refer to Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration (3) Bhagwan Singh vs. The state of Haryana, (4). and Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa (5). 45. For our own satisfaction, we have taken into account the various circumstances and features, which distinguish the case of hanging from a case of strangulation on the basis of the medical jurisprudence and we find that in the present case, the circumstances found by Dr. Banerjee as also found by the Investigating Officer at the time of inquest report, go more in favour of the case of hanging than of strangulation. In the case of hanging generally no signs of struggle are found on the body whereas in the case of strangulation they are common. In the present case, we find from the inquest report Ex. P/14 that there were no signs of struggles on the body. So also says the post-mortem report and this is corroborated by the statement of Dr. Kaner and Dr. Banerjee. They have stated that there was no sign of injury except the mark of ligature. Not only this, Dr. In the present case, we find from the inquest report Ex. P/14 that there were no signs of struggles on the body. So also says the post-mortem report and this is corroborated by the statement of Dr. Kaner and Dr. Banerjee. They have stated that there was no sign of injury except the mark of ligature. Not only this, Dr. M.R. Goyal himself has admitted that there were no other marks of injury according" to the post-mortem report or the inquest report. 46. Then in the case of hanging, neck is generally found stretched, but not so in the case of strangulation. From Inquest Report (Ex. P/14) and the post-mortem report (Ex. P./16) it does appear that the neck of the deceased was little stretched tilted towards the left. In the case of hanging, the mark of ligature is not complete and is, directed obliquely upwards with a gap indicating the knot position, where as in the case of strangulation mark of ligature is complete and encircles the neck horizontally. In the present case, we find that the mark of ligature was not complete. 47. Then, again in the case of hanging, there are no marks of abrasions and bruises around ligature whereas they are common in the case of strangulation. There were no abrasions or bruises around the ligature, in the present case, according to the post-mortem report, and the inquest report. Strangely enough, Dr. Surya Prakash (P.W.3), the brother-in-law of the deceased has tried to state that there were abrasion parallel to the ligature mark which the Investigating Offi-cer as also the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination or the doctors who constituted the medical board have not stated. Again, in the case of hanging, there is no fracture of hyoid whereas it is common in the case of strangulation & P.W.7 Dr. C. Banerjee has stated that he did not find any fracture of this bone. So also injury to larynx and trachea, muscles fracture or dislocation of cervical vertebrae, bleeding from the nose, mouth and ear are rare in the case of hanging whereas they are generally present in the case of strangulation and in this case, they were not found. Thus, it can easily be said that the report of the medical board and the evidence of Dr. Thus, it can easily be said that the report of the medical board and the evidence of Dr. M.R. Goyal and inquest report are not of much avail and on the basis of these reports, it cannot be held that it was a case of strangulation without any amount of doubt. 48. It will also not be out of place to mention here that there is a very salient circumstance, which goes against the prosecution case and this is that the death had taken place on 11.5.82. The accused had sent the telegrams to his in-laws on that very day and admittedly these telegrams had reached them on 12th and his father-in-law and brothers-in-law viz. Shri K.M. Mishra and Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar had reached the spot on 13.5.82 along with another son-in-law of Shri K. M. Mishra viz. Shri Surya Prakash (P.W. 3). Out of them, Shri Surya Prakash is a doctor and holds a degree of M. S. and admits that he is very well acquainted with the process of post-mortem as he has conducted many. The post-mortem of Smt. Anita had already taken place on 12.5.82 before thess persons reached. Therefore, Dr. Surya Prakash must have seen the post-mortem report in order to satisfy himself as to what the cause of death was and if he found that the post-mortem report was not correct and the cause of death shown in it was also incorrect, he could certainly have taken objection to the post-mortem report there and then before the cremation of the dead-body and ask for a second post-mortem examination. But this was not done. Not only this, it is admitted by Shri Anil Kumar that it was the accused Somnath who conducted the last rites of the deceased and the members of her fathers family, also participated in them. If, as a matter of fact, by then they had found that it was the accused, who had murdered Smt. Anita, they would not have permitted the accused Somnath to perform the last rites and the explanation given by the witnesses that although he may have murdered he was after all the husband of the deceased and therefore, he was permitted to perform the last rites, is far from being convincing. 49. 49. It will also not be out of place to mention here that although Shri Sunil Kumar is not a doctor, he poses himself to be one by making observations like "that there was ligature mark transversely on the neck of the deceased ar:d there was clotting of the blood over the trachea." His statement about the threat for severe consequences for not treating the engineer brother-in-law well and for the demand of scooter, have already been disbelieved by the trial court and this kind of evidence goes to show that the witnesses are somehow or the other trying to implicate the accused in this case. 50. Looking to all these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had strangulated his wife to death and thereby failed to establish the case of sec. 302, I.P.C. against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was, therefore, wrong in convicting him. He is entitled to benefit of the doubt. 51. We, therefore, accept this appeal; set aside the conviction of the appellant under sec. 302, I.P.C. and the sentence passed thereunder and a quite him of that charge. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.