Judgment S. S. BYAS, J. ( 1 ) RAM Chandra and his son Balraj who are appellants before us, were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu by his judgment dated October 16, 1987. They have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction. ( 2 ) THE victim in the case is Smt Krishna born on 1/7/1969. She was the wife of the appellant Balraj. P. W. 2 Om Prakash and P. W. 12 Mst. Pana are the parents, P. W. 1 Dharamveer Singh is the brother and P. W. 15 Smt. Vidhya is the sister of the victim. The prosecution case may briefly be summarised as under: the marriage between Krishna and the appellant Balraj was solemnized on 26/5/1984 in Dhani Sheoran Tan Dev Road P. S. Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. After marriage Krishna went to live with her husband and in-laws in Jhunjhunu. Thereafter she visited her parents house off and on. The distance between Dhani Sheorana and Jhunjhunu is 15 or 16 Kms. On 21/3/1985 when she was living in Jhunjhunu with her husband and in-laws, she appeared in the first paper of English of the secondary examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. Accused Ram Chandra appeared at the Police Station, Jhunjhunu in the morning on 22/3/1985 and presented written report Ex. P-29 to the Station House Officer Mahavir Prasad (P. W. 21 ). It was stated therein that at about 4. 00 a. m. on that day, he was told by his elder brother Shivraj Singh that the latrine situate in his house was in flames and the shutters were burning. He immediately went to the latrine and found a completely burnt dead body therein. Smt. Krishna was missing. The dead v. body could be, therefore, of her. He requested the v. Police to make an inquiry into the matter. P. W. 21 Mahavir Prasad, S. H. O. contacted the Dy. S. P. Virbhana Ajwani (P. W. 24) and both of them went to the house of the accused Ram Chandra. They noticed a completely burnt body of a woman inside the latrine. He requested the v. Police to make an inquiry into the matter. P. W. 21 Mahavir Prasad, S. H. O. contacted the Dy. S. P. Virbhana Ajwani (P. W. 24) and both of them went to the house of the accused Ram Chandra. They noticed a completely burnt body of a woman inside the latrine. Accused Ram Chandra had also sent the information to the parents of Krishna, and her father Om Prakash (P. W. 2) also arrived there. The police prepared the TFerd Surathal Ex. P-9 and the inquest report Ex. P. 8 of the dead body in the presence of the Mohtbirs and Om Prakash (P. W. 2 ). The burnt body was identified to be that of Smt. Krishna. The body was sent for medico legal autopsy which was conducted by a board of three doctors viz. P. W. 6 Dr. , Ratan Singh, P. W. 19 Dr. Smt. Rekha and Dr. K. K. Sharma. They noticed as follows: (1 ). Whole body burnt blackened. thick soot dry and friable appearance on body surface. No clothing detected on body. Light smell of kerosene oil muscles churned up, matted, whole muscle mass of both upper and lower limbs neck, enest, abdomen, back burnt leaving bones exposed which are friable on randle. Scalp hair, eyebrows, pubic hair not visible due to bum. Roasting and charring of parts of both limbs upper limb semiflex at elbow and shoulder, lower limb semi flexed at knee and hip joint. Dislocation of left wrist due to bum. An opening of 4 x 3 on left side of back below leastal margin present due to bum bangles on left forearm present, A gold chain present in neck no marks of ligature detected on neck due to extensive bum. Eye bail melted whole external ears burnt external aemtalio burnt. (2 ). Scalp hair, scalp muscle burntt ( 3 ) THE Medical Board was of the opinion that the cause of death would be given after receiving the report from chemical examiner to whom astric contents and a piece of stomach of Smt. Krishna were sent for chemical examination. The post mortem report prepared by the Medical Board is Ex. P. 10. It was latter opined that the cause of death was burning. The post mortem report prepared by the Medical Board is Ex. P. 10. It was latter opined that the cause of death was burning. Since the case was not found of homicidal burning, the police after taking the proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code closed the chapter day of examination in the first paper of English. It was on account of this frustration that she committed suicide by burning herself. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charge under. ( 4 ) THE parents of Smt. Krishna however, sensed a foul play in her death. P. W. 1 Dharam Singh draw up report Ex. P. 3 and presented it on 28/3/1985 with a mob of seven or eight thousands persons to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu who was camping at Pilani. The Superintendent of Police directed the Station House Officer, P. S. jhunjhunu to register a case and entrust the investigation to the Dy. S. ;p. The police thereafter registered as case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 4. He found the shutters of the latrine burnt and the walls blackened. He took a tin, two exercise copies, one inland letter, plaster pieces of the of the latrine scretches of the walls, one drum one gunny beg, one empty dalda tins etc. in possession lying in the different places of the house of the accused Ram Chandra. During investigation, it transpired that Smt. Krishna was not treated kindly and cordially by her husband and in laws because she had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents and also because she was not a well educated girl. After when the investigation was over, the police presented a crime reports against the two appellants Ram Chandra and Balraj in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial magistrate, Jhunjhunu, who i8sn his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the two accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the two accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. The defence taken by the husband is that he was not in Jhunjhunu throughout the night of incident. He was at Chirawa where he was carrying on his business. According to the appellants, w they never demanded the dowry and the entire allegations of their mal-treating Smt. Krishna are baseless and unfounded with no truth in that. She was very cordially and sweetly treated by them and the members of their family. Smt. Krishna before her marriage had appeared in the secondary examination of the Board of Ajmer and failed. Again she appeared in the said examination. But she did not farewell on her very first day of examination in the first paper of English. It was on account of this frustration that she committed suicide by burning herself. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code duly proved against the accused persons. He, however, found on case for the offences under Sections 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against them. The two accused Ram Chandra and Balraj were, therefore, convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each was sentencd as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against their conviction, the accused have taken this appeal. ( 5 ) IT would be proper to briefly notice the findings recorded by the Court. They are: (1) It was not a case where the victim was done to death on account of insufficient dowry. (2) The death was homicidal and not suicidal. (3) The two accused Ram Chandra and balraj alongwith Ram Chandras wife and daughter were not happy with Krishna. They all were in the house of Ram Chandra in the fateful night and they, therefore, had the opportunity of burning Krishna. (4) No Stranger or outsider could caused the death of Krishna, and (5) The defence taken by the appellants was palpable false. They all were in the house of Ram Chandra in the fateful night and they, therefore, had the opportunity of burning Krishna. (4) No Stranger or outsider could caused the death of Krishna, and (5) The defence taken by the appellants was palpable false. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the cumulative effect of the circumstances 2 to 5 narrated above lead to the inevitable inference that the appellants had burnt Krishna to death. ( 7 ) WE have heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar - learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Rizwan Au assisted by Mr. N. L. Tibrewal, learned Counsel for the complainant. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case squarely rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstance relied upon by the Trial Court in convicting the appellants are (1) the death was homicidal (2) the appellants and the members of their family were not happy with the deceased and (3) nobody else other than the appellants could cause the death of the victim by burning. ( 9 ) HERE is a case where the death of the victim had occurred on account of burning. The first and for most fact in issue arising for deliberation is whether the death of Krishna was accidental, homicidal or suicidal. ( 10 ) IT was strenuously, contended by Mr. Dhankar that the Court below committed a gross error in concluding that the death was homicidal. It was argued that the opinion of the doctor who conducted the medico legal autopsy of the victims dead body did not express an opinion that die death of Krishna was homicidal. On the other hand, they expressed the opinion that it could be a case of suicidal burning. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Tibrewal that the whole body of Krishna was found burnt and blackened. No body committing immolation gets completely burnt. Krishna could not burn her whole body. ( 11 ) WHETHER the death of a person caused by burning was accidental, suicidal or homicidal has always been a perplexed question. On page 327 Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (1987 Edition) by Ccx, the following view has been expressed suicide, Accident or Homicide? No body committing immolation gets completely burnt. Krishna could not burn her whole body. ( 11 ) WHETHER the death of a person caused by burning was accidental, suicidal or homicidal has always been a perplexed question. On page 327 Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (1987 Edition) by Ccx, the following view has been expressed suicide, Accident or Homicide? -Here there is little help that the purely medical aspects can offer, as the differentiation between these two cases is largely a matter for the police investigation. ( 12 ) JHALA in his book. Medical Jurisprudence (1988 Edition) has dealt with the problem on page 393. He observes the nature of bums whether suicidal, homicidal or accidental has to be established in all cases of death from bums. It is not always easy to come to a correct conclusion with data very often insufficient in such cases. If the burns are severe and extensive, they prove fatal because of shock, dehydration and collapse in a very short time. ( 13 ) WE now turn to the evidence of the doctors who conducted the post mortem examination of the victims dead body. Dr. Ratan Singh (P. W. 6) in his examination in chief was asked whether the death of Krishna was suicidal and he expressed the opinion that it could be a case of self immolation. We are lured to quote his opinion in his own words qes.- Kya Krishna ki yeh mot atem hatya jalane ke falswroop ho sakti hai ? ans. Vah atem hatya ka case kese ho sakta hai, Agar pani kepule tatha kerosin va koyale ka prayog kiya gaya ho, vaise koyle ka prayog aavashyak bhee nahi tha. Agni kand mai jalte samay yah shat-pratishat aavashyak nahi hai ki jal raha vyakti aavashyak roop se chikhe, kaei bar chikh nikalti bhee hai, kai bar nahi bhee. ( 14 ) IN cross examination, he stated: Heet lagne se jalne ke cases mai heet lagne se shak ho sakta hai or vah behosh ho jata hai or bad mai jalata rahta hai, aesaes case mai bhee sambhav hai. ( 15 ) HE thus stated that on account of excessive heat to the victim, he may go in shock becomes unconscious and thereafter he continues to bum. Dr. ( 15 ) HE thus stated that on account of excessive heat to the victim, he may go in shock becomes unconscious and thereafter he continues to bum. Dr. Rekha Devi (P. W. 19) at first stated in examination in chief that in her opinion if one commits immolation, the condition of his body would not be that as was that of the body of the deceased victim but she could not maintain her opinion successfully and stated that on account of intensive heat, one may go in shock. She was pointedly asked to state her opinion as to whether it was a case of suicidal or homicidal burning and she exeressed her inability to state any opinion on the material aspect of the case. It would be proper to reproduce the question and answer put to her in this respect: qus. Es mamle mai mrtatika ki las ko dekhkar yah kya bataya ja sakta hai ki jalne se mratika ki jo mratyu hui vah aatmhatya ka mamla tha ya manvavat ka ? ans. Mratika ki mratyu jalne se hui thi tatha uske sharir par aathmahatya va manvavat ko bhed kerne vale kyoi lachan the yah ye doctor bata sakte hai jinhonai lash ka pura parikshan kiya tha. ( 16 ) IN cross examination, she further stated : Yadi koi aadhami kafi matra mai pani ke pule, koyle va kerosin tel juta ker swyam merna drahe to jal ker mer saleta hai, Maine las ka jitna bhag delcha tha tatha vah jis prakar jala hua tha vaisa ukt prakrlya se aadami swaim jal sakta hai, mujhe pata nahi Ice mratika ka sharir jalne mai kerosin, koyle va pule tam mai aaye ho, Maine upar bayan mai yak nahi bataya ki jis mahila ki las thi vah swaimjallcer nahi marl. She thus admitted that it could be a case of self immolation. ( 17 ) MR. Tibrewal contended that intensive heat is required to completely destroy the human body by burning, and that is sufficient to draw the inference that it could not happen in a suicidal burning. She thus admitted that it could be a case of self immolation. ( 17 ) MR. Tibrewal contended that intensive heat is required to completely destroy the human body by burning, and that is sufficient to draw the inference that it could not happen in a suicidal burning. He drew our attention to the following passage occurring on page 1000 of Forensic Medicine by Tedesehi For instance, in cremation, in which the body is exposed for one and a half hours at 1,600 to 1,800 of, bone fragments may still be found among the 2 to 3 lb of ashes that constitute the residue. ( 18 ) WE find not much substance in the submission of Mr. Tibrewal. The opinion expressed above shows that a particular degree of heat is required to bum the body. This passage does not assist us as to whether such a heat cannot be caused in a case of self burning. After all, in a case of immolation, intensive heat as mentioned in the above passage is required to bum the body. ibis intensive heat is not limited only to a case of homicidal burning. In a case of self burning and immolation, the same intensive heat is required. ( 19 ) THE opinion of the two doctors Ratan Singh and Rekha Devi does not show that it was a case of homicidal burning. According to them it could be a case of suicidal burning. ( 20 ) IN Sharad Birdhichand Sardo v. State of Maharashtra1, their Lordship were faced with the situation as to whether the case was of suicide or homicide and the possibilities indicated either way. It was observed: on the evidence of this case two possibilities are clearly open viz. (1) that it may be a case of suicide, or (2) that it may be a case of murder, and both are equally probable; hence the prosecute on case stands disproved. On this ground alone therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt resulting in his acquittal; ( 21 ) THE above observations aptly apply to the instant case in our hands. The two doctors Ratan Singh and Rekha Devi did not state that it was case of homicide. They expressed the opinion that it could be the case of suicide. The two doctors Ratan Singh and Rekha Devi did not state that it was case of homicide. They expressed the opinion that it could be the case of suicide. If the evidence of these two doctors is read even with a wider latitude to the prosecution, there are two clear possibilities viz. (1) it may be a case of homicide or (2) it may be a case of suicide. When these two possibilities are there, the benefit must go to the accused. It was upon the prosecution to prove that the death of Krishna was homicide and not suicide. The prosecution has miserably failed on this count. ( 22 ) THE learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration these various aspects and abruptly held that it was a case of homicide by burning. The finding is not correct and it should be reversed. ( 23 ) MR. Dhankar also argued that the circumstances did not point out that the appellants or any member bf their family could cause the death. It was argued that the appellants had no reason for doing so. Krishna was kindly and sweetly treated by them. In the letters addressed by her in her own hand writing to her parents and sister, she always praised the sweet behaviour extended to her by her husband and the in-laws. It was argued that as per finding of the Trial Judge, it was not a case of demanding the dowry. If it was not so, there was no reason for the appellants to commit her murder. Mr. Dhankar also argued that Krishna had failed on the secondary examination before her marriage, and she did not far well in the first paper of English of the secondary examination on the day of incident. It was argued that the appellants have a highly educated family. It appears that Krishna got frustrated on account of her being not educated Her not doing well in the first paper of English on the day of incident pushed her to commit self burning; ( 24 ) IT was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Tibrewal that Krishna had failed in the secondary examination before her marriage and therefore it was impossible to imagine that she would commit suicide by burning only because she did not farewell in the first paper of English on the day of incident. Tibrewal that Krishna had failed in the secondary examination before her marriage and therefore it was impossible to imagine that she would commit suicide by burning only because she did not farewell in the first paper of English on the day of incident. We have taken the respective submissions into our consideration. ( 25 ) THE contentions raised by Mr. Dhankar have much force and substance. The marriage of Krishna with the appellant Balraj took place on 26/5/1984. She thereafter came to Jhunjhunu to live with her husband and in laws. P. W. 1 Dharamveer Singh who is the real elder brother of Krishna admitted in his cross examination that Krishna lived mostly in Jhunjhunu with her in laws after her marriage. From Jhunjhunu she addressed some letters to her father. Ex. P. 1 is an inland letter addressed by her to her father on 28/7/1984. In this letter she stated that she was living happily in the house of her in-laws. Of course she stated in this letter that in case she was educated well by her parents she would have been in a much better position. She further stated that nobody should be worried about her as she was living happily. She advised her brothers and father that they should not visit her at Jhunjhunu because according to her in laws, every visit incurred the expenses of Rs. 20/- or 30/ -. In another letter Ex. P. 2 dated 24-9-84 addressed by her to her father she wrote that she was very very happy with her in laws. She advised her brothers and their wives to keep her parents happy serve them well and pay proper regards to them. She further wrote that her in laws were very loving persons and she was serving them well. We may quote the relevant passage from Ex. P. 2. Maire ko mere sas-susar bahut pyare. lagte hai. Inki mere se hoti hai baisi seva karti hui or prem se rahte hai. ( 26 ) THERE is no dispute that these two letters Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 are in the handwriting of the deceased Krishna. If these two letters are read, it is manifest that Krishna was living happily in the family of her in-laws with no cause of grievance. ( 26 ) THERE is no dispute that these two letters Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 are in the handwriting of the deceased Krishna. If these two letters are read, it is manifest that Krishna was living happily in the family of her in-laws with no cause of grievance. There is nothing in these two letters, to show that she was not treated kindly or lovingly by her in-laws. The lines quoted above leave no room for doubt that she was leading a happy married life. On the contrary, what we see in Ex. P. 2 is that she advised her brothers and their wives to treat her parentst with love and affection. Simply because she wrote. in Ex. P. 1 that in case she was educated well, she would not have look towards anybody, it cannot be said that anybody in the family of her in-laws was unhappy with her. ( 27 ) IT is very easy to make any sort of allegation after the incident that Krishna was not treated well by her in-laws or husband. The two letters Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 belie the allegation made by the deceaseds brother Dharamveer Singh, father Om Prakash, mother Mst. Pana and other relatives who have been examined in this case that Krishna was not treated with live and affection by herhusband or in-laws. The averment that she was not liked by her in-laws and husband is a unfounded lie. ( 28 ) WHEN Krishna was found completely burnt, Satvir who is the son of Shobha Nand was sent to the parents of Krishna to bring them to Jhunjhunu. Shobha Nand is the real brother of appellant Ram Chandra. Satvir took a car to the village of Krishnas parents to bring them to Jhunjhunu before the cremation took place. If the death of Krishna was homicidal and she was done to death by the appellants, we are unable to imagine that the appellants would sent Satvir to bring her parents. The guilt conscious of the appellants would have never allowed them to do so in case they had burnt her to death. ( 29 ) P. W. 2 Om Prakash stated that Satvir came in a car to take him to Jbunjhunu. He accompanied him and went to Jhunjhunu in that very car with Sativr. The guilt conscious of the appellants would have never allowed them to do so in case they had burnt her to death. ( 29 ) P. W. 2 Om Prakash stated that Satvir came in a car to take him to Jbunjhunu. He accompanied him and went to Jhunjhunu in that very car with Sativr. When he reached to house of the appellants, accused Balraj came forward with a laughing face. We fail to understand that in case Krishna was burnt to death by the appellant, appellant. Balraj would welcome his father-in-law Om Prakash with a laughing face. Whether the death was homicidal or suicidal, it is impossible to imagine that appellant Balraj would have a smiling or laughing face. It shows that P. W. 2 Om Prakash is a biased witness capable of introducing even the impossibilities in his testimony. ( 30 ) OM Prakash (P. W. 2) admittedly arrived at the house of the appellants when the police reached there and prepared the inquest report. The inquest report prepared by police is Ex. D. S P. W. 2 Om Prakash has been named as a Mohtbir in the proceeding in Ex. D. 8. He admitted that it was prepared in his presence and bears in his signatures A to B. In Ex. D. 8, it has not been mentioned that the death of Krishna was homicidal. If the appellants and the members of their family were treating Krishna with contempt and Om Prakash had any suspicion about her death, he would have raised protests than and there before the police and would have refused to append his signatures on Ex. 0-8 as a Mohtbir. P. W. 2 Om Prakash could not explain as to why he observed a stoic silence when Ex. D-8 was prepared. He took part in the cremation of Krishna. A father whose daughter is burnt, never acts in the manner Om Prakash (P. W. 2) acted. ( 31 ) THERE is yet one more aspect of the matter. Om Prakash (P. W. 2) stated that he spent nearly 50/60 thousand rupees in the marriage of his daughter Krishna. He denied the suggestion in cross- examination that he threatened the appellants to return the dowry articles and demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 as compensation from the appellant Ram Chandra. But his denial is false. Om Prakash (P. W. 2) stated that he spent nearly 50/60 thousand rupees in the marriage of his daughter Krishna. He denied the suggestion in cross- examination that he threatened the appellants to return the dowry articles and demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 as compensation from the appellant Ram Chandra. But his denial is false. He admitted in his cross examination that on 4/4/1985, appellant Ram Chandra returned him the dowry articles and a sum of Rs. 45,000. 10 total he received Rs. 81,404. 00 in cash and kind from appellant Ram Chandra on 4/4/1985 and he issued receipt Ex. D. 7 which bears his signatures A to B. He stated that he spent rupees 50/60 thousand, in the marriage on his daughter Krishan. Admittedly, he received a sum of Rs. 81,404/- in kind and cash from appellant Ram Chandra. He thus got back much more than what he had spent in the marriage of his daughter. It shows that he was keen in recovering back from the appellants the money the spent in the marriage of his daughter in Ex. D. 7, he mentioned. Men or Shri Ramchandra budhaniya (appellant) ki aapsi koi raijish nai hai or no hamare ko es per mukdama kerno hai. ( 32 ) FROM these circumstances, it can be safely discerned that the F. I. R. in the case was lodged after six days of the incident by the victims brother Dharamveer Singh to bring a pressure on theappellants to return the marriage expenses alongwith compensation, When it was paid, P. W. 2 Omprakash issued receipt Ex. D. 7. It thus appears a case of black mailing as suggested by Mr. D han ka r. ( 33 ) IBE parents and brother who have been examined by the prosecution of course stated that Krishna used to complain to them off and on about the ill-treatment of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. They also stated that. Krishna used to express her apprehension off and on before them that she would be burnt to death. H to was so, it is difficult to conceive that she would not address, any letter to her parents expressing the apprehension of her being killed. On the contrary, we find the letters Ex. p. i and Ex. They also stated that. Krishna used to express her apprehension off and on before them that she would be burnt to death. H to was so, it is difficult to conceive that she would not address, any letter to her parents expressing the apprehension of her being killed. On the contrary, we find the letters Ex. p. i and Ex. P. 2 in which she wrote that she was living very happily in the house of her in-laws and they were treating her kindly and lovingly. ( 34 ) IBE learned Sessions Judge held that the false defence taken up by the appellants indicate their guilt and the false defence should be taken into consideration in assessing their guilt. According to the learned Sessions Judge, appellant Balraj took the false defence of Alibi that in the fateful night he was at Chirawa. The learned Sessions Judge further held that appellant Ram Chandra filed a false report Ex. P. 29 before the S. H. O. Jhunjhunu. We fail to appreciate the approach of the Sessions Judge. How it could be expected from the appellant Ram Chandra that he would mention in his report Ex. P 29 that Krishna was burnt to death by him and his son. The defence of Alibi comes play into only when the prosecution establishes the guilt of the culprit. Whether appellant Balraj was at Chirawa or Jhunjhunu in the fateful night is not of importance. The question of importance is whether Krishna was burnt to death by him. Unless the prosecution proved so that Krishna was burnt to death by appellant Balraj, his defence of Alibi - true or false should not have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. The approach of the Sessions Judge is erroneous. In Shardas case (supra) their Lordships observed: before a false explanation or false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link to the chain of circumstantial evidence, the following essential conditions must be satisfied (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstances is in proximity to the time and situation. ( 35 ) AS discussed above, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not prove the guilt of the accused. ( 35 ) AS discussed above, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not prove the guilt of the accused. They do not point that the death of Krishna was homicidal and that she was burnt to death by the appellants. As such even if the plea of Alibi was not it should not have been taken into consideration in assessing the guilt of the appellants. The plea of Alibi would have been relevant if the prosecution proved its case. In that eventuality, the false plea of Alibi would have been an additional factor reinforce the conclusion of guilt. ( 36 ) THE worst feature of the prosecution case is the inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The incident took place in the night between 21st and 22nd March, 1985. The brother and the parents of Krishna suspected a foul play in her death. And yet they remained silent and presented the typed First Information Report Ex. P. 1 on 28/3/1985 before the S. P. Jhunjhunu who was camping at Pilani. Om Prakash (P. W. 2) the father of the victim was present when the inquest report of the victims dead body was prepared. He also took part in the proceeding under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and yet no report was lodged at the police station nor any complaint was made against the police officers for not taking any action in the matter. This delay in First Information Report is a serious matter and renders the prosecution story highly suspicious. ( 37 ) AS we have said earlier, the prosecution case rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence should be kintted like that of Spiders wed so that if the fly gets infested therein, it should have no out-let to escape. Here in the instant case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution when taken and assimilated together even do not suggest - not to talk of prove that Krishna was burnt to death by the appellants. It is true to say that the various circumstances depending on one another should be read as one integrated whole and not separately. When it is done so, they should establish that the offence was committed by the accused and none else. It is true to say that the various circumstances depending on one another should be read as one integrated whole and not separately. When it is done so, they should establish that the offence was committed by the accused and none else. ( 38 ) IN Shardas case (supra), it was observed: the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely may be fully 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 ill the act must have been done by the accused. ( 39 ) WE may reiterate that the prosecution has failed to prove that- (1) the death of Krishna was homicidal, and; (2) she was burnt to death by the appellants. ( 40 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the appellants. They must be acquitted. ( 41 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal of accused Ram Chandra and Balraj. Their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences awarded to them thereunder are set aside. They are acquitted of the said offence. They are serving the sentence in Jail, and shall be m immediately set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.