JUDGMENT V.P. Bhatnagar, J.—Accused Rai Singh and Kartar Singh, who are real brothers, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, for having committed offences under sections 302 and 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty and for having murdered Veena Rani wife of Rai Singh on 2-5-1986. The learned trial Court, by Its judgment dated 7-7-1Q89, acquitted both the accused for the offence under section 49R-A of the Indian Penal Code. It further acquitted accused Kartar Singh of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted Rai Singh under section 302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment He was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months- Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, Rai Singh preferred the present appeal. 2. After hearing arguments on 26-4-1991 we made a brief order accepting the appeal and directed that the appellant be released forthwith for reasons to be recorded. We proceed now to record the reasons accordingly. 3. The prosecution case may now be stated In brief. 4. It is not disputed that Veena Rani whose burnt dead-body was found at a distance of about 300 metres from her house in village Chanaur in a waste Kharetar land on 2-5-1986 had been married to Rai Singh on 8-2-1982 Both of them had a son aged two years from the wedlock. Veena Rani had done her Higher Secondary School Examination and also had a diploma in tailoring course. Rai Singh was employed in the Indian Army. 5. On the day of occurrence viz, 2-5-1986 Veena Kumari wife of accused Kartar Singh was arranging the bed of her brother-in-law Rai Singh in the morning when she found two chits Ex P-14 and Ex. P-15 and the golden ear rings of Veena Rani there. The chits contained writings in the hand of Veena Rani to the effect that she was going to end her life and that nobody should be held responsible for it A little earlier at about 6. 45 a m., she had complained of back-ache to her husband. Rai Singh is stated to have told her that he would take her to the doctor after finishing his shave. 45 a m., she had complained of back-ache to her husband. Rai Singh is stated to have told her that he would take her to the doctor after finishing his shave. He then saw Veena Rani going towards Kharetar land and thought that she was probably going to answer the call of nature. The contents of the chits, however, put him on the alert and he proceeded in search of Veena Rani end ultimately found her burnt body at a distance of about 300 metres from the house in the Kharetar land. He returned to the village and informed every-one about it. President, Gram Panchayat. Abhinash Chander (PW 14) then proceeded to the spot and he also saw the burnt body of Veena Rani, He then wrote a Ruqa Ex. P-16 and sent it to the police through a messenger Head-constable Karnail Singh (PW 18) recorded the report Ex. P-l in the Daily Diary of Police of Police Post Dehra and thereafter came to the place of occurrence. He prepared the Inquest Reports Ex. P-25 and Ex. P-26. In the meantime, a message had also been sent to Veena Ranis father Parmodh Singh (PW 13) through one Kesru Ram (PW 16). The postmortem examination of the dead-body was performed by Dr. Prem Lata Shukla (PW 2) and Dr B. D. Sharma (PW 3). They found I00% burn injuries on the dead-body and opined that the death bad been caused due to shock by extensive bum injuries. They proved their postmortem report Ex, P-5. The viscera, stomach, intestine liver, spleen and kidney etc were sent to the Chemical Examiner. His report has been introduced into evidence and is at Ex. P-6 According to this report organo-phosphorus compound (an insecticide) and alcohol were found in the viscera The final opinion about the cause of death was given by Dr. B. D. Sharma. It is at Ex. P-7. According to it, the cause of death was due to shock caused by extensive burns and contributed by the presence of alcohol and organo-phosporus compound, 6. Sher Singh (PW 1) is the maternal uncle of Veena Rani. He received a telegram from Parmod Singh about Veena Ranis death on 4-5-1986 and rushed to the village. He suspected that it was not a case of suicide but that Veena Rani had been done away with since she had no ornaments on her dead-body. His statement Ex. Sher Singh (PW 1) is the maternal uncle of Veena Rani. He received a telegram from Parmod Singh about Veena Ranis death on 4-5-1986 and rushed to the village. He suspected that it was not a case of suicide but that Veena Rani had been done away with since she had no ornaments on her dead-body. His statement Ex. P 24 was recorded resulting into registration of case under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code Veena Ranis relatives, however, were not satisfied and kept on running from pillar to post. It was ultimately on 8-1-1989 when S. I. Kulwant Singh (PW 12) converted the charge into one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Accused Rai Singh, in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted his marriage to Veena Rani and her death due to burn injuries on 2-5-1986. He admitted having given the statement Ex. P-27 to the police during the investigation and further that he had noticed his wife Veena Rani going towards the Kharetar land but she had gone empty-handed from the room. His defence has been that it is a case of pure and simple suicide and that no allegations had been levelled against him or his brother in the beginning but that it had been done later on merely to spoil their reputation. 8 There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The case, therefore, hinges upon circumstantial evidence. 9. The prosecution has examined as manj7 as 19 witnesses. The statements of Shakuntla Devi (PW 1) Nirmla Devi (PW 4), Kamla Devi (PW 5), Balbir Singh (PW 6), Parkash Chand (PW 7), Krishan Lal (PW 8), Amar Singh (PW 9), Parmodh Singh (PW 13), and Sher Singh (PW 15) are primarily meant to prove motive on the part of the accused to put an end to the life of Veena Rani. Veena Rani is stated to have complained to her parents Nirmla Devi and Parmodh Singh) and other relatives that her husband Rai Singh was carrying on illicit relations with Veena Kumari wife of Kartar Singh (co-accused before the trial Court and Rai Singhs real brother). Another ground suggested as motive is that Rai Singh and Veena Rani had gone to Delhi and had borrowed a sum of Rs. Another ground suggested as motive is that Rai Singh and Veena Rani had gone to Delhi and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 or Rs 6,000 from Veena Ranis maternal uncle Sher Singh (PW 15) for purchase of land. After some time, they had demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000 but Sher Singh declined to advance more loan. This is stated to have constituted motive for the crime. Yet another suggestion put-forward on behalf of the prosecution is that Rai Singh and members of his family were used to eating meat and consuming liquor but that Veena Rani would not participate due to which reason Rai Singh developed disliking towards her. He hated her and did not consider her as an equal match for him. 10. It is well-settled that proving motive for such a crime is not a sign-qua-non for the prosecution. In the present case, however, the prosecution heavily banks upon the above-mentioned grounds and the evidence adduced in support thereof to bring the guilt home to the accused. This part of the evidence, therefore, roust be dealt with at this very stage. 11 Apart from the oral evidence of the witnesses mentioned above, there is no proof that the relations between Rai Singh and Veena Rani were not cordial. All these witnesses had no option but to admit in their cross-examination that they did cot whisper a single word in their statements to the police recorded after the occurrence about the existence of any reason for Rsi Singh having burnt his wife In fact, a twist was given to the entire case only after Sher Singh (PW 15) reached the village from Delhi on 5-5-1986 and gave his statement Ex. P-24 to the police. A perusal of this statement shows that all that Sher Singh did was to express a doubt about Veena Rani having committed suicide. After having spoken to her sister and brother-in-law, Sher Singh formed an opinion that she had been done to death. He gave three clear reasons for forming that opinion in his statement Ex. P-24. First, the ornaments of Veena Rani had been removed though some silver ornaments were still there. After having spoken to her sister and brother-in-law, Sher Singh formed an opinion that she had been done to death. He gave three clear reasons for forming that opinion in his statement Ex. P-24. First, the ornaments of Veena Rani had been removed though some silver ornaments were still there. Secondly, his sister Nirmala Devi (PW 4) told him on his arrival that Rai Singh had come to her house at village Garli alongwith Veena Rani and had told her that Veena Rani was no match for him and that she should better be kept at their home at Garli or somewhere else. And, thirdly, Veena Raai and Rai Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs 5,000 from him for purchase of land. Once again, they had demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000 in April, 1986 when they had come to Delhi to visit him in connection with the opening ceremony of his shop He had declined to give this amount to them. Now, the recording of the statement Ex. P-24 was the first occasion for any relative of Veena Rani to have come out with the reasons for suspecting foul play. Clearly. Sher Singh said nothing about Rai Singh having illicit relations with his sister-in-law. Coupled with it, as noticed above, the failure of the witnesses to say so to the police in their statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leads to the conclusion that the introduction of the story regarding Rai Singh having illicit relations with his sister-in-law is an afterthought and cannot be relied upon. The other grounds stated by various witnesses are too feeble in nature to have constituted a real motive for committing such a heinous crime of murder. 12. On the other hand, some evidence has crept in which shows that relations between Rai Singh and his wife were cordial. Prakash Chand (PW7) have been serving in B. S. F. and had returned to his village Chanaur (where the accused lived) after retirement from service on 8-4-1986. He was present in the village when the incident took place. According to him, the dead-body was cremated after two days of the incident and the Superintendent of Police came to the village 7 or 8 days after the cremation of the body. He was present in the village when the incident took place. According to him, the dead-body was cremated after two days of the incident and the Superintendent of Police came to the village 7 or 8 days after the cremation of the body. He had told the Superintendent of Police that nothing untoward had been seen by bun between Rai Singh and his wife. This statement has been made by him in his examination-in-chief. Krishan Lal (PW 8) is the Vice-President of Gram Panchayat Chanaur He has admitted in his cross-examination that Rai Singh had cordial relations with his wife and that he had never heard any bickering between the two. Not only that. Veena Rani had been invited by her maternal uncle Sher Singh to Delhi on the occasion of the opening ceremony of his shop, Rai Singh who then happened to come to his village on leave from the place of his posting actually accompanied her to Delhi on this occasion. Notwithstanding the fact that they asked for a loan of Rs. 10,000 which Sher Singh did not agree to advance, the fact of the husband and wife having jointly gone to Delhi on an occasion of happiness in itself shows existence of good relations between the two. 13. One of the reasons which has weighed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in returning the order of conviction against Rat Singh is that Rai Singh had been last seen together with Veena Rani and being her husband it was for him to account for her death. There is nothing unusual about a husband being with his wife Rai Singhs explanation is that Veena Rani ended her own life by pouring kerosine oil on herself and setting herself on fire. He further made the statement that Veena Rani wanted to accompany him to the place of posting but that all of a sudden he was recalled to report for duty to join a course where he could not take his wife This may or may not have been a good reason for an ordinary prudent wife to commit suicide but failure of the accused to fully establish cogent reason for the wife to commit suicide would not per se give rise to a conclusion of his being positively involved in her death on the facts and circumstances of this case. Verily, we are left with a situation where evidence adduced from both the sides appears to be rather of weak nature so as to have constituted sufficient motive for committing murder and at the same time for committing suicide. In such a situation, it is bounden duty of the Court to look to the other facts and circumstances of the case to find out whether the criminal liability has been fully fastened on the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not. 14. It is not disputed that the Chits Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P. 15 have been penned by Veena Rani. She has stated therein in categorical terms that she is putting end to her life of her own accord and that no one else is to be blamed for it. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected these chits on rather untenable grounds He has concluded that these chits have been got written from her forcibly merely because she has written thrice in these two chits about her intention to end her life. This line of reasoning does not appeal to us. In that state of mind, a person can behave in queer manner indeed. And then, there is not a shred of evidence that she was beaten or forced to write these chits, In fixing criminal liability, guess work cannot do the service of proof. 15. Another ground which has heavily weighed with the learned Court below is the report Ex. P. 6 of the Chemical Examiner wherein he has found Organo-phosporus and alcohol in the viscera of Veena Rani. This has led him to hold that she was probably administered these compounds at the house and thereafter the chits Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P. 15 extracted out of her and then she was put to fire. We have no manner of doubt that the prosecution evidence in this case does not warrant any such conclusion at all. The Chemical Examiner has not quantified the Organo-phosporus compound or the alcohol detected in the viscera. The testimony of Dr. Prem Lata Sfaukla (PW 2) and Dr. B IX Sharma (PW 3), who performed the postmortem examination, clearly indicates that death was caused due to extensive burn injuries The statement of Dr Sharma that the presence of Organo-phosporus compound and alcohol could be a contributory factor to the death cannot be accepted. The testimony of Dr. Prem Lata Sfaukla (PW 2) and Dr. B IX Sharma (PW 3), who performed the postmortem examination, clearly indicates that death was caused due to extensive burn injuries The statement of Dr Sharma that the presence of Organo-phosporus compound and alcohol could be a contributory factor to the death cannot be accepted. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the quantity of liquor and organo-phosporus compound has not been quantified by the Chemical Examiner in his report. It is a matter of common knowledge that organo-phosporus compound is one of the constituents of insecticides which are now-a-days commonly sprinkled on the food grains, vegetables, fruits and other eatables for obtaining more produce Organo-phosporus compound, if consumed in sufficient quantity, can cause death due to poisoning but in such an eventuality well known symptoms of poisoning have to be there for which there is not an iota of evidence in the present case There is a good reason for the presence of alcohol in the viscera. Veena Rani was having back-ache and her husband had told her that he would take her to the doctor on the day of incident after finishing his shave. Krishan Lal (PW 8), has also been working as private medical practitioner at village Chanaur. He was the family doctor of Rai Singhs family and had been treating Veena Rani as such. Thus the possibility of Veena Rani having taken some alcohol-based medicine before the occurrence cannot be overruled. In any case, this explanation is more acceptable than the one stated by the learned trial Court and we are of the firm opinion that the presence of unquantified Organo-phosporus compound and alcohol certainly does not establish the charge of murder against Rai Singh Also, it does not rule out suicide as held by the learned Court below. 16. We also find nothing abnormal about the conduct of accused Rai Singh so as to hold him guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. If he has left his two years old infant with his maternal grand father about three days after the death of his wife, it does not warrant jumping to a conclusion that he wanted to get rid of the child altogether muchless that he was guilty of the crime of murder. If he has left his two years old infant with his maternal grand father about three days after the death of his wife, it does not warrant jumping to a conclusion that he wanted to get rid of the child altogether muchless that he was guilty of the crime of murder. No doubt Veena Kumari recovered golden ear rings belonging to Veena Rani on her bed along with suicide chits Ex. P. 14 and Ex P. 15 but it may be that some women find it more convenient to go to bed after taking off their golden ornaments. The factum of this recovery cannot necessarily mean that Veena Ranis in-laws wanted to finish her by burning to save in the process the golden ear rings. 17. Rai Singhs subsequent conduct, in fact, speaks volumes about his innocence. No effort whatsoever was made to destroy any evidence viz. to cremate the dead body in haste. On the other hand, not only the entire village was informed where the dead body was lying but it was also not tampered with in any manner till the arrival of the police. A message was also sent immediately through Kesru Ram (PW 16) to his father-in-law who reached the place of occurrence during the course of that very day. It will be too much to say that he was misled by the suicide chits Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P 15 and, therefore, accepted the story about suicide without applying his mind. It cannot be forgotten that he himself was a teacher and, therefore, a literate person. His silence for as many as three days without casting a little suspicion about the complicity of his son-in-law or any other member of his family is clearly indicative of the fact that he did not smell any rat during those days We have no reliable evidence worth the name to indicate that the relations between Rai Singh and his wife were such as could have prompted the former to even contemplate about doing away with the life of his wife. 18. Cumulatively, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the acceptance of the appeal and the order of release of the accused which we have already passed on 26-4-1991. Reasons announced. Appeal allowed.