JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 2-5-85 through the jail as well as by her counsel. The learned Judge convicted her for the offence under Sec. 302, IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year's R.I. 2. The prosecution story is that accused Smt. Manjula was married to Moolaram. On the intervening night of 18th and 19th March, 1983, Smt. Manjula and her husband Moolaram slept in one room. In the morning of 19th, Dharma father of the deceased went out of the house, he found the dead body of the deceased Moolaram. He saw multiple injuries on his neck and some more injuries on the different parts of the body. He called his wife Mst. Geri. Both of them took the dead-body to his house. When they brought the dead-body at their house, they informed the accused Mst. Manjula. They suspected her that she might have killed him. As they were suspecting her she was trying to leave their house. PW 7 Dallaram lodged the first information report at the police station, Rohida on 19.3.83 at 10 a.m. stating therein that his house is situated near the house of Dharma (father of the deceased). When he heard the cries of weeping, he immediately went to the house of Dharma where he saw the dead-body of Moolaram, which was lying on the ground having sharp-edged injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. It is said that Smt. Manjula had killed her husband and she had dragged the dead-body away at a distance of about 100 steps from the house. On this information, a case was registered. The police reached the spot and arrested the accused Smt. Manjula. The police prepared "Furd Surat Hall Lash" of the deceased in the presence of the motbirs vide Ex. P/6, Site plan Ex. P/7, identification memo Ex. P/8 and inquest report of the deceased Ex. P/9. The postmortem of the dead-body was got conducted by Dr. Vinod (PW 1). He noticed the following injuries: 1. Incised would multiple united together on the back of neck 6" x 3" x 1 in size. P/6, Site plan Ex. P/7, identification memo Ex. P/8 and inquest report of the deceased Ex. P/9. The postmortem of the dead-body was got conducted by Dr. Vinod (PW 1). He noticed the following injuries: 1. Incised would multiple united together on the back of neck 6" x 3" x 1 in size. They caused the fracture of cervical 3, 4 & 5 vertebrate causing the laceration of spinal cord, neck and muscles of neck great hyoid thyroid cartilage. 2. Incised wound 21/2" x 1" x 1/2" on spine of right scapulae. 3. Incised wound 21/2" x 1" x 1/2" in size 1" below right spine & scapulae. 4. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" left side of cheek. 5. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/2"-1.5" lateral to the 4th wound (Injury No. 4). 6. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/2"-1/2" away from the angle of left mandible. 7. Incised wound 2" x 3" x 1/2"-1" above the left mastoid process. 8. Incised wound 1" x 2" x 1/2"-1" above the right mastoid process. 9. Oval wound 1" x 1" deep medial to head of left fibula. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to rupture of spinal cord Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and also due to haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of great vessels of the neck. 3. During investigation, a kulhari (Ex.P.12) was recovered at the instance of the accused. One box was also recovered from her possession. When the lock of the box was opened, the police found the blood stained clothes in that box. The control soil and blood-stained soil were collected from the spot and thereafter, they were seized and sealed in a separate packet. It was also found that the room in which, the accused and the deceased were sleeping, some blood stained were found on the wall of the room. The turban of the deceased was found half burnt. The lehanga and Odni of Smt. Manjula were also seized and sealed. The kulhari was also seized and sealed. All the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. On examination, the blood group `O' was found on the chaddi, Gudri, dhoti, khat (cot) and kulhari. On turban of the deceased, Lehanga and Odni of the accused, it is opined that the blood stained was of human-blood but no blood group was ascertained. All the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. On examination, the blood group `O' was found on the chaddi, Gudri, dhoti, khat (cot) and kulhari. On turban of the deceased, Lehanga and Odni of the accused, it is opined that the blood stained was of human-blood but no blood group was ascertained. After due investigation, challan was put up in the court of Judicial Magistrate. Abu Road, who in his turn, committed the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 and Section 201, IPC. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313, Cr P.C.3A. Considering the material on record the learned Sessions Judge. Sirohi came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced her to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years R.I. He also convicted her for the offence under Section 201, IPC and sentenced her to 3 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year's R.I. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 2-4-85, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court through her counsel and another through jail. 5. Mr. M K. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that there is no eye-witness of the crime in this case. The case rests entirely on the circumstantial evidence. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the recovery of kulhari. The prosecution witnesses are close relations of the deceased and are against the accused-appellant, therefore, they have falsely implicated her. Even the conduct of the accused-appellant does not reveal that she had committed any crime. She came alongwith the deceased on 18th March. In the night, when her husband Moolaram went to attend `Sangat', which had taken place at the house of Chimnaram Kumhar. She afraid being alone in the room, therefore, she came in the night in pretext to take water in the adjoining room, where her in-laws were sleeping. She came alongwith the deceased on 18th March. In the night, when her husband Moolaram went to attend `Sangat', which had taken place at the house of Chimnaram Kumhar. She afraid being alone in the room, therefore, she came in the night in pretext to take water in the adjoining room, where her in-laws were sleeping. Thereafter she came to take odna and she also came third time in that room and disclosed that she is being alone in her room, her husband has gone in `Sangat', therefore, she want to sleep with them and she slept there. It is a natural conduct of the innocent person. If she had committed the crime, she should have run away. The motbir of the recovery is PW 8 Narainlal, does not mention that the key (Chabi) was given from her possession and no recovery memo of the key was prepared nor it was exhibited by the prosecution. As the relation of the accused-appellant was not cordial with the family of the deceased, therefore, they falsely implicated her. All the family members of the deceased were against her. In the morning, the dead-body of Moolaram was seen lying under the Pipal tree at a distance of 100 ft. from the house of Dharma. It was not possible for her to take that dead-body to that distance. If she wanted to leave that village, it was not abnormal. When they wanted to falsely implicate her. she had no option but to leave the village & explain the position to her parents. No evidence in respect of `Sangat' was collected nor any enquiry with regard to the presence of the deceased in `Sangat' in the house of Chimna Ram Kumhar, was made by the Investigating Officer. The accused-appellant in the very beginning stated that the deceased Moolaram had gone in `Sangat' in the house of Chimnaram Kumhar. When she was all alone in the room, she was afraid of being alone in the room & came to the room where her father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping. It may be that Moolaram would have come thereafter in that room and some body murdered him. 6. The prosecution story is that she has murdered her husband and threw him out, at a distance of 100 ft. It may be that Moolaram would have come thereafter in that room and some body murdered him. 6. The prosecution story is that she has murdered her husband and threw him out, at a distance of 100 ft. from the house of her father-in-law near the Railway track just to make belief that he might have been met with accident. After doing this, she was quietly sleeping in the room of her father-in-law wearing blood stained clothes. In the morning, she wanted to run away. Can it be believed? With regard to the recovery of blood-stained kulhari, the prosecution witnesses have admitted that after her arrest i.e. on 19th March, she never came to their house, while the police had recovered the kulhari at the instance of the accused-appellant from that house on the next day. All these facts clearly show that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of kulhari. PW4 Mst. Geri., PW5 Dharma. PW6 Mst. Radha and PW9 Mst. Pavni were against the accused-appellant therefore, in these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Sec. 302, IPC. 7. On the other hand, Mr. V.S Choudhary. learned Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted that the accused-appellant. Mst. Manjula and the deceased Moolaram were 1st seen together and they slept in the same room. The accused-appellant was not in cordial relation with the deceased. As per prosecution, her Odna and Lehanga were found with blood-stained. The box (Dibba) was recovered at the instance of the accused. In that box (Dibba) the blood-stained turned and shirt of the deceased were found. In the morning, the dead-body of Moolaram was seen by PW5 Dharma, father of the deceased Prior to that incident, once she tried to take his life by giving poison in the milk. In the morning, while she was suspected she tried to leave the place. That conduct of the accused also supports the case of the prosecution, thus, the conviction was justified. 8. Heard Mr. M. K. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Mr. V.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also carefully perused the record of the case. 9. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. That conduct of the accused also supports the case of the prosecution, thus, the conviction was justified. 8. Heard Mr. M. K. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Mr. V.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also carefully perused the record of the case. 9. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Vinod on 19-3-1983 at 5.30 p.m. reveals that the deceased Moolaram died due to rupture of spinal card of 3, 4 and 5 leading to spinal shock and also due to haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of great vessel of neck. In the opinion of the doctor, the death is not natural but homicidel. Now, only limited question for consideration is whether Mst. Manjula committed the murder. On record, the facts are not in dispute Mst. Manjula was brought back to her in-laws house by the deceased on 18th evening. She married with him about 10 months back. The relations as per the prosecution witnesses were not cordial. According to the prosecution-witnesses, they slept in one room but the accused-appellant stated that she was afraid of being alone in the room, as her husband Moola Ram had gone in `Sangat', therefore, she came in the room where her father-in-law and mother-in-law and two sisters of the deceased were sleeping. Firstly, she came in that room for taking water, then for taking odna as she was feeling cold and third time she came as she was afraid of being alone in the room as the deceased had gone in `Sangat' at the house of Chimnaram Kumhar. No enquiry or investigation has been made by the Investigating Officer, whether the deceased had gone to `Sangat' on that fateful night at the house of Chimnaram and when he returned from Sangat? Why the prosecution has failed to make the enquiry about the Sangat, this fact goes to the roof of the case. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution especially when, the accused-appellant had disclosed this fact in the night itself. This shows that the investigation is not fair. 10. The suspicion is further strengthened by the fact of false recovery as shown by the prosecution. Even the prosecution witness Mst. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution especially when, the accused-appellant had disclosed this fact in the night itself. This shows that the investigation is not fair. 10. The suspicion is further strengthened by the fact of false recovery as shown by the prosecution. Even the prosecution witness Mst. Geri (PW 4) mother of the deceased said that the kulhari was lying near the dead-body of the deceased and the police recovered the kulhari on the same day and while the prosecution has shown the recovery of kulhari at the instance of the accused-appellant on 20th March. PW 4 Mst. Geri further stated that after the arrest of Mst. Manjula on 19th, she never came back to their house. PW 5 Dharma after of the deceased also stated that after arrest, Mst. Manjula never came to their house. The kulhari was taken away by two policemen on the next day of her arrest. Can we connect this recovery with the crime in question and implicate her? Our answer will obviously be in negative especially when the prosecution witnesses, namely; Geri (PW 4), Dharma (PW 5), Mst. Radha (PW 6) and Mst. Pavni (PW 9) were against her and they were interested in her conviction. 11. The submission of Mr. Garg appears to be correct that her conduct was not abnormal. On 19th morning, when she wanted to leave then her conduct was natural as all the family members of the deceased were against her and wanted her to implicate her in the alleged murder. No body was supporting her. She was being a young lady of 20-21 years, her conduct was natural to leave that place to explain her innocence to her parents. If she had committed the crime, she could run away in the night itself, instead of coming in the room of in-laws, that too, wearing the blood-stained clothes. This fact does not go against her. The police has shown false recovery of fulhari at her instance but that fact has not been supported even by the interested witnesses. 12. The prosecution case is that after committing the murder, she has thrown the dead-body at a distance of 100 ft. near the Railway track to make belief that the death is due to accident. This fact also not supported by the prosecution witnesses. 12. The prosecution case is that after committing the murder, she has thrown the dead-body at a distance of 100 ft. near the Railway track to make belief that the death is due to accident. This fact also not supported by the prosecution witnesses. Even PW 5 Dharma who saw the dead body first time in the early morning at a distance of 100 ft, which was lying under a pipal tree and not on the Railway Track. Further was it possible for a lady-accused to lift the body on her shoulder or drag the same to that distant place. The burden is on the prosecution to prove whether she was in a position to do that act. No evidence is adduced to prove this fact, if she was tried to destroy the evidence, which connect her with the crime. Why she was wearing blood-stained clothes? No explanation was given by the prosecution. 13. The prosecution witnesses have alleged that she did not want to live with him and she attempted on his life by giving poison in the milk prior to this incident. When milk was thrown outside, one dog after taking that milk died. It is also said that once she herself had taken poison before this incident. This fact was supported by two sisters viz. PW 6 Mst. Radha, PW 9 Mst. Pawani and Dharma (PW 5). In our opinion, they are not trustworthy. Their statements are contradictory in respect of the recovery of kulhari and they are against the accused appellant to see her conviction, therefore, they can tell a lie. If she has given poison in the milk to the deceased prior to this incident, was it made known to any independent person except the interested witnesses. The explanation is that being a `Brahmin' by Caste, they did not want to disclose this fact of giving poison in the milk by Mst. Manjula to her husband (deceased). If the milk was poisoned, how Moolaram came to know that the poison is in the milk without tasting it, who has seen that she (Manjula) has put the poison in the milk? In our opinion, reliance cannot be placed on the statements of these three interested witnesses viz. PW 6 Mst. Manjula to her husband (deceased). If the milk was poisoned, how Moolaram came to know that the poison is in the milk without tasting it, who has seen that she (Manjula) has put the poison in the milk? In our opinion, reliance cannot be placed on the statements of these three interested witnesses viz. PW 6 Mst. Radha, PW 5 Dharma and PW 9 Pavni who supported this fact as they are interested witnesses and they are against her and they are interested in her conviction. 14. As regards the explanation or plea of the accused-appellant, it is submitted that on the fateful night, the deceased Moolaram had gone in `Sangat' in the house of Chimnaram Kumhar. No enquiry has been made by the police and no material has been brought on record, whether the deceased had gone in `Sangat' in the house of Chimnaram Kumhar in that night or not. It is incumbent upon the investigating authority to go to the roof of the case. 15. It is true that a young lady of 20 years, who got married with the deceased about 10 months back, may not aware of the atmosphere of the village, therefore, she was afraiding being alone in the room during midnight. She first came in the room, where her father-in-law & mother-in-law and two sisters of the deceased namely; Radha & Pavni were sleeping, with a pretext to take water. In the second time, she came in the room to take odna as she was feeling cold and in third time, she came in the room after sometime and disclosed that her husband Moolaram (deceased) has gone in `Sangat' in the house of Chimnaram Kumhar, therefore, she was afraiding of being alone in the room, therefore, she wanted to sleep with them. They allowed to sleep her. It shows her innocent conduct. This fact has been disclosed by Mst. Manjula in that night itself. This fact goes to root of this case. It no enquiry is made in respect of this fact There is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. If enquiry made and facts suppressed the investigation, is not fair. In either of the case, a serious doubt is raised in the prosecution story. 16. It is one of the possibilities that when she came and slept with the in-laws, thereafter, Moolaram came and then somebody might have been committed his murder. If enquiry made and facts suppressed the investigation, is not fair. In either of the case, a serious doubt is raised in the prosecution story. 16. It is one of the possibilities that when she came and slept with the in-laws, thereafter, Moolaram came and then somebody might have been committed his murder. In the circumstances, it is a case of great suspicion. The recovery with regard to the blood-stained clothes etc., no blood group is detected and no memo of key has been prepared by the prosecution. The prosecution has not explicity explained, where the key had gone, whether that box (Dibba) was at all locked? All these facts further create the doubt in the story of prosecution. 17. To sum-up the death of Moolaram is homicide. No eye-witness of the crime has come out and the recovery of Kulhari at the instance of Mst. Manjula has not been proved by the prosecution. No memo of key and lock has been prepared, which was put on the box (dibba). The prosecution has failed to prove or connect the key with the crime. Dharma-father of the deceased, Mst. Geri mother of the deceased, two sisters of the deceased viz-Radha and Pavni were against the accused-appellant. Their statements are not of sterling-worth. It is not safe to convict the accused-appellant on the statements of these interested witnesses, especially, in the case of circumstantial evidence. 18. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused-appellant Mst. Manjula is in jail. She should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Per Hon'ble Sharma, J : 19. I have gone through the judgment prepared by my learned brother. I am in entire agreement with him that these two appeals deserve to be accepted. I further agree with him that the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted of both the charges viz. u/s 302 and 201, IPC. However, I shall record my own reasons for doing so. 20. The charges against the appellant are based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to be occurrence. The deceased met his death some time in night intervening 18-3-83 and 19-3 83. He sustained multiple injuries caused by some sharp edged weapon. The learned trial Judge found following circumstances proved against the appellant viz. (i) Appellant was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Moola Ram. There is no eye-witness to be occurrence. The deceased met his death some time in night intervening 18-3-83 and 19-3 83. He sustained multiple injuries caused by some sharp edged weapon. The learned trial Judge found following circumstances proved against the appellant viz. (i) Appellant was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Moola Ram. (ii) Relations between the appellant and her husband were strained; appellant had tried to poison her husband on a previous occasion. (iii) Appellant had been brought to village Dhanari Golia only the day preceding the murder, by her husband the deceased Moola Ram. (iv) Deceased Moola Ram, appellant Manjula stayed at the house of Moola Ram father Dharma PW 5. where besides Dharma Dharma's wife Geri PW 4 Dharma's daughter PW 9 Pawani were staying. (v) All the inmates of Dharma's family took their evening meals and retired for sleep. Dharma, Geri and Pawani slept in one room while the appellant and the deceased slept in the cattle shed known as Padwa. (vi) At the dead of night, appellant came to the room where Dharma, Pawani and Geri were sleeping. She took some water from the room. (vii) She revisited the room after some time and took away a tin box containing her clothes. Upon enquiry, she stated that she needed her `odhna'. (viii) She again visited the room after some time and stated that her husband had gone to attend a `Sangat' and she left scared. She was then allowed to sleep with Smt. Geri. (ix) In the early hours of 19-3-83 Dharma went out of the house to urinate under a Peepal tree and found the body of his soon Moola Ram. Moola Ram had numerous injuries on his person and was wearing only a `chaddi. (x) Dharma called his wife Geri and both of them brought the dead body in the room where they had slept for the night. (xi) When the dead body was brought, the appellant tried to leave the house with her box but was not allowed to do so. (xii) Dharma Ram informed her neighbour Dalla Ram PW 7 of the incident and asked him to lodged a report upon which Dalla Ram went to police Station Rohida and lodged the report Ex. P/15. (xiii) PW 12 Bhanwar Singh reached the spot, inspected the scene of occurrence and arranged for post-mortem examination of the deceased. (xii) Dharma Ram informed her neighbour Dalla Ram PW 7 of the incident and asked him to lodged a report upon which Dalla Ram went to police Station Rohida and lodged the report Ex. P/15. (xiii) PW 12 Bhanwar Singh reached the spot, inspected the scene of occurrence and arranged for post-mortem examination of the deceased. From the scene of occurrence, he inter alia recovered a tin-box which bore a lock. They key of the lock was with the appellant. Bhanwar Singh recovered the key, got the box opened and found blood strained `Lehanga; Rali and odhna in the same. He recovered these articles alongwith certain other articles. (xiv) Bhanwar Singh arrested the appellant and the appellant got an axe recovered, which was found to be stained with blood. (xv) The various articles including the incriminating articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur duly sealed, from where report Ex. P. 17 was received. 21. I have to see if the aforesaid circumstances have been established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt by cogent and trustworthy evidence and whether from proved circumstances, the charges have been proved against the appellant. 22. Here I may state that the law relating to circumstantial evidence is rather well settled. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hyphothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability be act must have been done by the accused. (See Hanumant v. State of M.P. 1951 SCR 1091 = AIR 1952 SC 343 ) . It is on this touch stone that the evidence of the prosecution has to be tested. 23. Here, I may state that there is absolutely no doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death. (See Hanumant v. State of M.P. 1951 SCR 1091 = AIR 1952 SC 343 ) . It is on this touch stone that the evidence of the prosecution has to be tested. 23. Here, I may state that there is absolutely no doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death. He had been inflicted a large number of injuries by some sharp edged object and he succumbed to them. The medical evidence proves this fact indubitably and this aspect of the case has not been challenged before us by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Hence, the only question before us is whether it was the accused-appellant who inflicted the said injuries on the deceased. 24. Now, there is no dispute that the appellant was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased. That on the fateful night, she was present in the married home is also not in dispute. It has come in the testimony of Smt. Gery, Dharma and Pawani that the deceased had brought the appellant from Neetora only on the preceding evening. There is no reason to doubt the statements of these witnesses on this aspect.It is in the testimony of these witnesses that after taking evening meals, all the inmates retired that night. Dharma, Geri and Pawani slept in the house itself while the deceased and the appellant went to sleep in the cattleshed. This part of the evidence has not been demolished in any way and I would accept the same as trustworthy. Learned counsel for the appellant also does not challenge this part of the evidence. 25. Now, it has also come in the evidence of these witnesses that at about mid night, the appellant came to the room where the aforesaid inmates were sleeping. She took one `lota' for water and went away. After some time, she again came to the room and took a tin-box containing her clothes on the ground that she wanted her `odhna'. Then again she came to the room and told the inmates that she was scared as her had gone away to attend a `sangat' and she was all alone. At this, she was allowed to sleep with Smt. Geri. 26. In this very context, it may be stated that a `Sangat' was definitely held that night at the house of one Chimna Kumhar. At this, she was allowed to sleep with Smt. Geri. 26. In this very context, it may be stated that a `Sangat' was definitely held that night at the house of one Chimna Kumhar. This fact is admitted by PW 4 Geri and PW 5 Dharma and PW 9 Pawani. Now, there is nothing to show that the appellant made a false statement to the inmates of the house that her husband had gone to attend the sangat and therefore she felt scared. The investigating officer has admitted that he did not make any investigation to find out if the deceased had really attended the sangat or not. This was a serious lapse on the part of the investigating officer. Chimna has not been examined by the prosecution to show that Moola Ram had not attended the sangat that night at the house of Chimna. If such an investigation would have been made, the veracity or otherwise of the statement of the appellant made to Dharma, Geri and Pawani could have been tested. If what she told the inmates of the house was true, then the probability remains that Moola Ram was murdered after he left the sangat i.e. after the appellant had gone to sleep with her mother-in-law. The prosecution has failed to exclude this hypothesis because of laconic investigation made by the investigating officer. In my opinion, this introduces a serious infirmity in the prosecution story and it is difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion that the appellant had told a lie to the inmates of the house at the dead of night regarding her husband having gone to attend the sangat. Viewed in this light, the earlier visits of the appellant to the room where Geri, Dharma and Pawani were sleeping lose their significance altogether and are at best natural circumstances. 27. The circumstance that when the dead body of the deceased was brought into the house by Dharma and Geri, the appellant tried to leave the house with her box would at best create some suspicion against the appellant and no more. 28. The most damaging circumstance alleged against the appellant is that the investigating office recovered a key from her opened the tin-box belonging to her and found concealed therein an `odhna', a `lehanga' and a `rali' all of which were found to be stained with human blood. 28. The most damaging circumstance alleged against the appellant is that the investigating office recovered a key from her opened the tin-box belonging to her and found concealed therein an `odhna', a `lehanga' and a `rali' all of which were found to be stained with human blood. Surprisingly, the investigating officer himself is silent on this aspect of the case. He does not state that he recovered any key from the appellant. He does not state that he found concealed in a tin-box an `odhna', a `lehanga' and a `rali'. This is true that Dharma and Narayanlal have deposed about the recovery of the aforesaid articles but they too do not depose about the recovery of any key from the appellant nor do they depose that any lock of tin-box was opened with such key and then these articles were recovered. It may be stated that no key or lock were ever produced before the learned trial court. 29. Another very damaging piece of evidence upon which prosecution has relied is the recovery of an axe, the alleged weapon of offence, said to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant. This is true that the investigating officer and PW 8 Narayan Lal have deposed about recovery of an axe at the instance of the appellant but to my mind, this recovery appears to be a piece of padding. This is admitted by Smt. Geri that when her husband called her, she had gone near the dead body and had found the axe lying there. She is mother of the deceased and is not expected to shield the appellant, if it is so, the alleged recovery losses its significance altogether. Then, Dharma has admitted that police had came to his house for recovering the axe. Police was accompanied with two persons. He is categorised that the appellant did not accompany the police at all. The police seized the axe and took it way. This belies the story given by the investigating officer and Narayan Lal altogether. It may be recalled that Narayan Lal is an omnibus attesting witness of a large number of memos prepared by the investigating officer in this case on different dates. Narayan Lal's cross-examination shows that on the day the axe is said to have been recovered, he bad gone to Swaroopganj to purchase kerosene. It may be recalled that Narayan Lal is an omnibus attesting witness of a large number of memos prepared by the investigating officer in this case on different dates. Narayan Lal's cross-examination shows that on the day the axe is said to have been recovered, he bad gone to Swaroopganj to purchase kerosene. The police came to Swaroopganj and took him to the house of Dharma along with one Soma. This soma has not been produced. It is surprising that police brought Narayan Lal from Swaroopganj to attest the recovery. In the circumstances of the case appearing in the testimony of Geri and Dharma, evidence of Bhanwar Singh and Narayanlal does not inspire confidence at all. 30. Learned P.P. urged that the deceased would not have gone to attend a `sangat' in a chaddi. Hence, the story that he had gone to attend sangat should be taken to be false. True that the deceased would not have gone to attend sangat in a chaddi. But there is nothing on record to show that deceased was not murdered after he might have returned from sangat and might have gone to bed. The cattleshed where tell take marks have been found was easily accessible and an unknown assailant or assailants could have easily committed the murder and could have removed the dead body to the place where it was found by Dharma and Geri. This possibility has not been ruled out in this case at all. 31. Now it may be stated that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory could be used against the appellant only when it could be shown that various articles recovered and sealed reached the Forensic Science Laboratory in the very condition they were sealed. PW 12 Bhanwar Singh has not stated as to whom did he hand over the various seized articles for safe custody in the police station. Some articles of the case were seized on 19-3-1983 and the axe was seized on 20-3-1983. Ex. P. 17 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and it recites that the various articles mentioned therein were received on 8-4-1983 vide receipt No. 860. This receipt is Ex. P. 5. Ex. P 2 is the Road Certificate dated 6-4-1983 which recites that articles mentioned therein were received by Dharam Singh from Hafizulla Khan. Ex. P. 17 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and it recites that the various articles mentioned therein were received on 8-4-1983 vide receipt No. 860. This receipt is Ex. P. 5. Ex. P 2 is the Road Certificate dated 6-4-1983 which recites that articles mentioned therein were received by Dharam Singh from Hafizulla Khan. Hafizulla has appeared as PW 11 and has deposed that he received the various articles on 7-4-1983 and handed them over to Dharam Singh on 7-4-1983. He obtained these articles from Dharam Singh the same day and took them to Forensic Science Laboratory on 8-4-1983. In cross-examination he stated that the articles were handed over to him by Kapoor Chandra. Head Moharrior on 7-4-1983. Now, it is not known as to who handed over the articles to Kapoor Chandra. Bhanwar Singh could have thrown light on this aspect but the learned P.P. if the court below has not interrogated Bhanwar Singh on this aspect. The prosecution has not produced and proved the Malkhana Register entries to show as to who remained in charge of the alleged incriminating articles during the period they remained in police Malkhana. Hence it has not been established satisfactorily that these articles reached the Forensic Science Laboratory in the self-same condition in which they are said to have been recorded. When it is so, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be used by the prosecution to advance its case. 32. The prosecution has tried to establish that on an earlier occasion, the appellant had tried to poison her husband. In this regard Geri, Dharma and Pawani have deposed that they were so informed by Moola. They do not state when Moola informed them of such an occurrence. In the statement recorded u/s. 313, Cr. PC it was not put to the appellant that her husband had levelled such an accusation against her and had informed Geri. Dharma and Pawani that appellant had tried to poison her. PW 6 Radha has of course been produced to say that appellant had herself consumed poison once and had mixed medicine for killing lice in the milk which Moola Ram did not consume and threw away to a dog, which died after consuming the milk. Now, this story is not corroborated by any contemporaneous complaint or F.I.R. which might have been recorded in connection with such a serious matter. Now, this story is not corroborated by any contemporaneous complaint or F.I.R. which might have been recorded in connection with such a serious matter. How could Moo a Ram bring the appellant to his house inspite of her such heinous conduct passes my comprehension. This is true that no adequate cross-examination has been directed against this statement of Radha but the story appears to be too good to be believed and it would be unsafe to act upon such story without adequate corroboration. The appellant has denied this story altogether. Moreover, such past conduct, even if held to be proved, would at best attach suspicion to the appellant and would not suffice to fasten liability of the guilt on the appellant. 33. In the ultimate analysis, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant. The matter does not travel beyond the realm of suspicion. I would, therefore, accept the two appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, convictions and sentences passed against the appellant and would acquit the appellant.By the court: 34. We accept the twin appeals; set aside the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant and acquit her of both the charges viz. for offences u/ss. 302 and 201, IPC. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******