JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, dated 17-3-1992, whereby he convicted the accused appellant (George Welington) of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay as fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment. 2. This case starts with the first information report, Ex. P/22-A, lodged by Alexander (PW 8) at police station Beawar City. In this written report Alexander stated that he was going towards the house of his brother-in-law George Welington at 1.30 p.m from Mission Compound There, near the house of George, he heard the cries of a women coming from the house of George Welington, hence he rushed to the place and entered to the house. Be saw that his brother-in-law George was repeatedly inflicting knife blows on his sister Snehlata. He inflicted injuries on the stomach and the throat. When he went near, George Welington ran away. Thereafter he raised an alarm, on which Ravindra Kumar, Jai Chand and Arvind also arrived there. His sister Snehlata had already succumbed to the injuries. There were some differences between his sister and brother-in law prior to the incident and for that reason finding her alone, his brother-in-law has mercilessly inflicted knife blows resulting in her death. This report was taken down by SHO (PW 9) at 1.45 p m. He rushed on the spot and started investigation. He prepared the inquest report Ex. P/i and got it signed by the 'motbirs'. The post-mortem of the dead body was got conducted and thereafter the corpse was handed over to the relations. Accused was arrested on the same day Site plan was also prepared and the blood stained cloths of the deceased were collected sealed. During investigation information was obtained from the accused and in pursuance of the same a knife was recovered. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the case in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions and the case was tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar. 3. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the case in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions and the case was tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7-12-1991, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused, framed charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case and the accused was asked to explain the circumstances appearing against him. 4. Learned trial Court found that most of the witnesses did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. They, therefore, were not relied upon He also disbelieved the recovery of the knife. He however, considered various special circumstances in this case and on the facts and circumstances relying upon surrounding circumstances, he held the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC, and convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred. 5. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no legal cogent evidence in the case to connect the accused with the crime. The submission is that even Alexander (PW 8), who was an eye witness and who is an author of the first information report, has not supported the prosecution version, and therefore, the conviction should not have been based. The submission is that in a case where prosecution has come with the direct evidence and direct evidence have not supported the prosecution case then it would amount to the travesty to the justice in case the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that it could not be conceived of that mother and brother of the deceased would be siding with the accused as against prosecution and since their statements have not correctly been recorded by the police, they have wrongly been declared hostile It is submitted that when the recovery of knife is not relied upon then main circumstance has not been brought forward. It is also submitted that nothing has been shown on record that there was bad blood between husband and wife or there was any such motive for which husband might have committed the murder of his wife. It is also submitted that nothing has been shown on record that there was bad blood between husband and wife or there was any such motive for which husband might have committed the murder of his wife. It is submitted that prosecution case is full of contradictions and accused is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment of the trial Court and submits that it is one of the rare case where despite the fact that witnesses have gone hostile, yet there are very strong circumstances to connect the accused with crime. It is submitted that in this case the first information report has been lodged without any loss of time and the brother of the deceased had given the report in writing in his own hand writing which is admitted in the Court and where the graphic description of the fact is mentioned. It is submitted that the incident took place at 1.30 p m. while the report has been lodged at 1.45 p.m i.e. only after fifteen minutes of the occurrence. Hence, there are no chances of any embroiding or a story being concocted. It is submitted that not only that it is clear from the form of Ex. P/23 that the report was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate on the same day at 2.00 p.m. Hence when with an half an hour the occurrence, the report is dispatched to the Magistrate, no manipulation can be conceived of. He submits that a heinous crime has been committed where there is ample evidence on record to sustain the conviction. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the entire record. 7. At the very outset, we may observe that there are always some glaring cases where despite the fact that all the eye-witnesses turn hostile, yet, they leave some trail and some such facts are left out with by which the prosecution story can be properly weaved and Court can come to a just conclusion without having any doubt in its mind and this case is no exception to such circumstances. A young wife aged 33 years was murdered on the fateful day of 17-9-1991 in the broad day light in her own house by her own husband. She sustained following injuries: 1. A young wife aged 33 years was murdered on the fateful day of 17-9-1991 in the broad day light in her own house by her own husband. She sustained following injuries: 1. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 9 cm on upper part right side of abdomn just below 12th rib in anterior auxilliary line horizentally placed bleed profusely, lateral and regged margins. 2. Stab wound 1.5 cm x 3 cm x 1.5 cm situated 3" above the medial end of right clevical obliquely placed tailing towards the chin. 3. Incised wound 4.5 cm x 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm on left forearm middle ⅔ obliquely placed tailing towards the elbow. All these injuries were caused by sharp weapon and ante mortem. According to Dr. H.C. Sharma (PW 6), the cause of death was synoope on account of injury to liver and internal haemorrhage due to stab wounds and all these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death. Thus, there is no dispute that Snehlata died a homicidal death due to the injuries caused to her by sharp edged weapon, on 17-9-1991 and she died instantaneously. It is also not in dispute that she was murdered in the house of accused George Welington near Mission Compound which is at a distance of half a kilometer from the police station She was found lying in pool of blood on a cot in her bed-room where the bed-sheets, pillows etc. were also found smeared with blood. The only question remains to be decided in the cases as to who is responsible for the death of Sneh-Lata and as to whether prosecution has succeeded in proving the same. Though elaborate discussion of the entire evidence has been done by the learned trial Court and reasons have been assigned in great details, yet, we deem it proper to highlight some of the important aspects of the case, though we are in agreement with the findings arrived at by him. J J. Chand (PW 1) was the person whose name was mentioned in the first information report and who had arrived at the spot immediately when an alarm was raised but he has resiled from his previous statement and has been declared hostile. He was confronted with various parts of his police statement Ex. J J. Chand (PW 1) was the person whose name was mentioned in the first information report and who had arrived at the spot immediately when an alarm was raised but he has resiled from his previous statement and has been declared hostile. He was confronted with various parts of his police statement Ex. P/8 which he denied This witness resiled to the extent that he denied even seeing the blood at the place of occurrence. Ravindra Kumar (PW 2) is yet another witness who had arrived on the spot soon after the cries were made and had also testified about the motive but he too has no respect for the truth and was declared hostile. Smt Mebal (PW 3) is the mother of the accused, deceased Snehlata was her daughter-in-law According to her, she does not know anything about the matter as she had gone to the market. There is, however, a very important fact mentioned in her examination-in-chief and i.e. that when she left the house at that time Snehlata and her husband had come home. She has also been declared hostile as she has not stated what she had stated in the police about the incident. Jai Ram Singh (PW 4) is a constable who had taken the blood stained articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory and so also Mittban Lal (PW 5) Alexander (PW 8) is the crucial witness in this case who is an eye-witness and is the author of the first information report He was the star witness of the prosecution whom the prosecution had got declared hostile as he resiled from the police statement In his examination-in-chief itself stated that when he heard the cries of a lady, he went to the house of George Welington and saw the mother of George standing outside. He stated that George's mother told him that accused has murdered his sister Snehlata and ran away. Thereafter, he went to police station and lodged the report Ex. P/22-A, on which he has signed 'A to B' He also stated that the report which was taken down at the police station in performa Ex. P/23 also bears his signature He, however, in his examination-in-chief, itself, made a statement that he had not seen the killing of Snehlata because by the time he reached there, George Welington had left the place. On his this statement, he was declared hostile. P/23 also bears his signature He, however, in his examination-in-chief, itself, made a statement that he had not seen the killing of Snehlata because by the time he reached there, George Welington had left the place. On his this statement, he was declared hostile. He was confronted with his previous statement wherein he has stated that he had seen the accused inflicting injuries by knife on the person of Snehlata. He has resiled other parts also, however, he stated that he gave a curious statement in cross-examination that when he reached the police station, George was also at the police station and it was 4 or 5 p.m. He wants to create belief that for the first time he reached the police station at 5.00 p.m., on that day, which statement of his runs counter to overwhelming evidence on record in shape of investigation documents. Man Singh (PW 9) is the Investigating Officer, who arrested the accused after completing the investigation on the same evening. He, however, admitted that regarding the character of the parties, he did not investigate into the matter and that more material could be collected, had he taken proper care. This is the total evidence in the case. 8. On the perusal of the aforesaid evidence apparently it appears that there is no evidence to connect the accused with crime but that is not so; there are few strong circumstances in the case which leads us to believe that all the circumstances ruled out the possibility of any other person involved in the murder other than the accused appellant. In this case it cannot be lost sight of that the incident had taken place at 1.30 p.m. at a place which is half a kilometre from the police station where he written report Ex P 22-A by Alexander wherein the details of the incident had been mentioned This first information report which was written in the hand writing of Alexander was immediately taken down in the register of first information report in the performa prescribed for it wherein the time noted was 45 p.m. and which also bears the signature of Alexander which he has admitted in his statement. This report was dispatched to the Court at 2.00 p.m. and was delivered next morning and was placed before the learned Magistrate on 18-9-1991 at 11.45 a.m. as it bears an endorsement to that effect by the learned Magistrate. This circumstance of immediately lodging the first information report wherein the name of the accused is mentioned as an accused, has to be taken as a corroborating piece of evidence to the circumstance of the presence of the accused with deceased inside the house at the time when Smt. Mebal (PW 3) had gone to the market. Accused who came with his wife on the same day from the place of posting, was not available even for receiving the corpse much less that he had neither gone to the police station nor was available when the investigation was going on. According to the arrest-memo Ex P 3, he was arrested at 8.30 p.m. and at the time of arrest he had a knife cut on his right arm which is again a strong circumstance to indicate his participation in the crime. This incident had taken place inside the house of the accused where there was no third person and no circumstance has been shown by the accused for his absence from 1.30 p m. to 8.30 p.m. when he was arrested by the police, in fact, the trial Court We may mention here that lacunae has been left out in investigation and carelessness is writ large on behalf of the prosecution in trial inasmuch as even the recovery of knife could not be properly proved despite the fact that the blood on the knife was of the same blood group which was found on the cloths of the deceased and we have ruled out its sanctity, yet, as mentioned above, the circumstance of last seen coupled with the circumstance of immediate lodging of first information report which has been admitted by the author of it and which has not been said to have manipulated, we find there are sufficient circumstance to conceive that there was a dispute in the matter between husband and wife when the murder of wife had taken place in the house where she was alone with her husband. There is strong circumstance against the latter unless there are reasons to show that it could be somebody else who could have committed the murder. 9. There is strong circumstance against the latter unless there are reasons to show that it could be somebody else who could have committed the murder. 9. In the instant case, besides his being in the house, according to the mother-in-law, yet, another important circumstance which we may mention at the cost of repeatation, is neither going to the police station nor to the hospital not return home till arrest, are circumstances to infer his guilt. As we are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial Court, no further discussion is required. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******