Y. K. Sabharwal ( 1 ) RAM Parkash Pandey, the appellant, has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. for murder of his wife, namely. , Saloni and sentence of life imprisonment has been Imposed on him, Briefly the prosecution s case is as under: ( 2 ) ON 5th July, 1985 an Information was received from Satinder Kumar, resident of Village Ali that a dead body was floating In the tank of Pump House. A. S. I. Main Pal Singh along with Ram Avtar constable went to the said Pump House belonging to the Government and met Satlnder and Bhim Singh employees of the Pump House and found a dead body of a lady floating In the well tank of the Pump House. It was brought out. The dead body was not Identified by anyone. It was sent to the mortuary of All India Institute of Medical Science through constable Shri Bhagwan. Since the dead body was not identified within 72 hours, it was got photographed; post-martem was conducted on 8th July, 1985 and thereafter the dead body was handed over to Sewa Samitl for performing last rites. The clothes of the deceased and other articles were preserved. According to post- martem report, the death was caused due to drowning. ( 3 ) ON 27th September, 1985 Kumari Anita and her brother Anil Kumar came to the Police Station and showed letter written by the appellant. A. S. I. Main Pal Singh recorded the statement of Anita. She stated that Saloni was living with her parents at Shukla Ganj District Kummao and that Saloni was married to the appellant about 7 or 8 years earlier. She further stated that within three years of marriage a daughter was bom but the appellant alleged that she was not his daughter and started doubting the character of Saloni and stopped talking to her. When their father came to know about it. Anil was sent to bring Saloni to her parents house and for last about 4 years Saloni with her daughter Rashmi was living at her parents house. She further stated that about two and three months earlier the appellant came to their house and said that he has forgotten the fact about Rashmi and said that he wanted to take Saloni with him. Saloni was thus sent with the appellant. She further stated that about two and three months earlier the appellant came to their house and said that he has forgotten the fact about Rashmi and said that he wanted to take Saloni with him. Saloni was thus sent with the appellant. After about a month, her maternal grand mother Kalawati, resident of Village Nisgar, District Rai Barellly visited their home and gave a letter to her father, which had been sent by the appellant to her. In that letter appellant wrote that Saloni was attacked by two gundas at Ahmedabad and she was injured. On this, their father got perturbed and Anita and Anil were sent to Delhi to find out about the welfare of their sister - Saloni. They went to the house of Om Prakash, elder brother of the appellant at Village Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi. The appellant met them but he Immediately ran away from there without disclosing anything with the result that their suspicion increased and they came to the Police Station. After hearing their story police officials showed to Anita a photograph of a dead body of a lady which Anita said was that of her sister Saloni. Anita was taken to Court where she identified clothes and other articles of her deceased sister. On the basis of the statement of Anita, First Information Report for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. was recorded and investigation started. The appellant was arrested on 8th October, 1985. On the disclosure statement and pointing out by the appellant a the lla (Bag) containing old sari, one blouse, one set of plastic chappel and one paticot which he buried in the ground at a short distance from the manwhole was recovered. The appellant had led the police party to the place near canal and aforesaid clothes etc. of the deceased were taken only by him from a small heap of ashes near manwhole No. 10. It was seen by Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar Identified that the said articles belonged to his deceased sister Saloni. ( 4 ) IN support of its case, prosecution has examined near relatives of the deceased and certain police officers/officials to prove the circumstances which according to prosecution, conclusively proves the guilt of the appellant. It was seen by Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar Identified that the said articles belonged to his deceased sister Saloni. ( 4 ) IN support of its case, prosecution has examined near relatives of the deceased and certain police officers/officials to prove the circumstances which according to prosecution, conclusively proves the guilt of the appellant. The relatives examined as prosecution evidence are Anil Kumar (Public Witness-6) brother of the deceased, Anita (Public Witness-9) sister, Vidya Kumar (Public Witness-14) father, Kalawati (Public Witness-10) maternal grand mother and Shiv Nath (Public Witness-11) another relative of the deceased as main witnesses. The circumstances taken into consideration by learned Additional Sessions Judge as having been proved against the appellant are these:- 1. Shortly before the recovery of the dead body of the deceased appellant brought Saloni from his in-laws house pretending that he would take her to Ahmedabad. 2. Appellant did not bring his daughter Rashmi who continued to live in the house of parents of Saloni. 3. Appellant had sent a forged inland letter from Delhi purporting that the same had been sent from Ahmedabad containing therein also a ruled paper alleging that Saloni was attacked in Ahmedabad by two gundas and that she was not behaving decently. 4. He did not lodge any report at any point of time about missing of the deceased. 5. He ran away after seeing Anlta when she visited his brother s house and could not be arrested before 8th October, 1985. 6. Appellant made disclosure statement which led the police to recover clothes etc. of the deceased on his pointing out. ( 5 ) THERE are no eye witnesses of the crime. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person In a case based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. The circumstances relied upon must be fully established and chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances have. not only to be fully established but all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The circumstances have. not only to be fully established but all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. All the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistable conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. Bearing in mind these well settled principles, we would consider the contentions put forward by learned counsel for the appellant. ( 6 ) THE recovery of the body of the deceased as alleged by the prosecution stands conclusively established on record. It further stands established that the relations between the deceased and the appellant were strained and before recovery of the body, for a number of years she was living at her parents house. In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant also admitted that he had left deceased at her parents house and did not bring her back to his house for three years. Learned counsel for appellant, however, contends that the prosecution has failed toprove that soon before the death, the appellant had brought Saloni from the house other parents. We are unable to accept the contention. There is clinching evidence of brother, sister, father and another relative of the deceased (Public Witnesss-6, 9, 14 and 11) to establish that the accused had brought Saloni from her parents house few days before her dead body was recovered. The case of the prosecution is that there was brahm bhoj at the house of the maternal grand mother of the deceased and in the said function the accused was persuaded to take his wife with him. Two-three days thereafter the appellant went to the house of his in-laws and Saloni was sent with him. Public Witness-6 Anil Kumar, brother of Saloni made a categorical statement that he accompanied the appellant and his sister up to Kanpur Railway Station. On this aspect the. witness was not subjected to any cross-examination. On the other hand the witness was suggested in the cross-examination that Saloni was not wearing the clothes as deposed by the witness when she left with the appellant. On this aspect the. witness was not subjected to any cross-examination. On the other hand the witness was suggested in the cross-examination that Saloni was not wearing the clothes as deposed by the witness when she left with the appellant. It shows that it was almost admitted that the appellant had taken Saloni with him few days before the recovery of her dead body. Similarly, on this aspect, other witnesses were also not subjected to any cross-examination. In this state of affairs a vague suggestion put to the father of the deceased that the appellant never brought Saloni from the house of his in-laws cannot be permitted to built an argument that the appellant had not brought Saloni from the house other parents. The proof of all the circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt does not mean that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused howsoever fanciful it might be. The law only recognises a reasonable doubt to be taken in favour of the accused and not every doubt. The evidence of the prosecution is not liable to be rejected on negligible discrepancies which are natural and are likely to occur because of lapse of time and the fact that when same fact is deposed by the different witnesses, there cannot be any mathematical precision. We are unable to accept the contention that the prosecution has failed to prove that Saloni was brought by the appellant from her parents house few days before the recovery of her dead body. ( 7 ) NEXT, learned counsel contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. As noticed hereinbefore, it stands established and even admitted that Saloni was living in her parents house for last about 3 years and the relations between husband and wife were strained and the appellant had doubts about the character of Saloni. It also stands established that on being persuaded by the relatives the appellant was forced to take Saloni with him and he did not lodge any report about missing of his wife and the appellant, in fact, wanted to mislead the relatives of his wife that she was attacked by gundas at Ahmedabad and had received Injuries. In this view, we are unable to accept the contention that the motive of the crime has not been proved. In this view, we are unable to accept the contention that the motive of the crime has not been proved. It seems that the appellant having brought his wife from her parents house wanted to eliminate her for ever. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further contends that the circumstance that the appellant and his wife were last seen together when she was allegedly brought from her parents house is a weak circumstance and the said circumstance cannot be made the basis of conviction. The contention that the circumstance of last seen together Is a weak circumstance cannot be accepted in isolation without regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be a weak circumstance in one case but not so in another case. It would all depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased was not a stranger to the appellant. She was his wife. When it is established that the appellant had brought her from her parents house it is expected that in the ordinary course of the events, the appellant would have either reported the matter to the police If the deceased had disappeared or he would atleast get in touch with her relatives and Inform them that she had disappeared without his permission or was missing. In short, appellant would show some concern about the missing of his wife. Nothing of the kind was done. Under circumstances of the present case, we find it difficult to accept the contention that the last seen together is a weak circumstance. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the Identity of the deceased. After keeping the dead body for 72 hours, it was cremated as an unidentified body after taking the photograph. The said photograph had been identified by the sister of the deceased. Had it been a question of identification only by photograph, there may have been some substance in the contention that the said photograph was not properly proved by the prosecution as neither the negative was produced nor the seizure memo of photograph for the photographer was examined as a witness by the prosecution. Had it been a question of identification only by photograph, there may have been some substance in the contention that the said photograph was not properly proved by the prosecution as neither the negative was produced nor the seizure memo of photograph for the photographer was examined as a witness by the prosecution. The identity of the body was established by prosecution even from the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time when dead body was found and the clothes and other articles discovered on the disclosure statement made by the appellant and on his pointing out the place where the same were hidden. The clothes of the deceased were Identified by P. W. 9 - Anita, sister of the Saloni before P. W. 12 Mr. C. K. Chaturvedi, Metropolitan Magistrate. P. W. 6, brother of Saloni had also identified the clothes and other articles which deceased was wearing when she was sent with the appellant. It cannot be held that the Identity of the deceased had not been established. The fact that the disclosure statement was made six days after the arrest of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view does not throw any reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution. ( 10 ) IT has been established that on seeing the sister of the deceased, the appellant absconded and could be arrested only on 8th October, 1985. We have no difficulty In accepting the contention that the absconding by Itself is not sufficient to returna verdict of conviction and that It Is a weak circumstance. The absconding of the appellant has been taken only as one of the additional circumstance against the appellant on proof of other circumstances conclusively establishing his guilt. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also submits that in the evidence there is discrepancy as to the age of the deceased as according to the postmartem report her age at the time of death was about 30 years whereas according to her father Public Witness-14 her age was about 22 years. Public Witness-14 Is an illetrate villager. The learned Additional Sessions Judge In the impugned judgment has noticed that Public Witness-14 appeared to be a rustic villager when he made the statement. Public Witness-14 Is an illetrate villager. The learned Additional Sessions Judge In the impugned judgment has noticed that Public Witness-14 appeared to be a rustic villager when he made the statement. We cannot overlook the fact that illetrate villagers, at times, are unable to correctly and precisely state about the age of their children. The discrepancy about age on the facts and circumstances of the case does not cause any reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution. ( 12 ) THE prosecution has proved the letter Exhibit Public Witness-11/a. In the said letter, it was stated that deceased had met with some incident at Ahmedabad. The letter contains address of Ahmedabad and from the postal stamp it seems that it was posted from Delhi. The letter shows that the appellant wanted to mislead the relatives of the deceased. The defence was unable to shake the credibility of Public Witness-11. The witness denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused writing and signing or that he was not conversant with the writing and signatures of the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that "taking into consideration the signatures of Ram Parkash accused on his statement U/s 313 Cr. P. C. as well as charge framed against him and circumstances mentioned above I have no hesitation to hold that this letter had been forged by the accused Ram Parkash after killing the deceased to deceive and mislead her parents. " We do not find any infirmity in this approach of learned trial court. We are unable to accept the contention. that the appellant should have been asked to give a specimen writing or signatures when the admitted signatures of the appellant were available on record. ( 13 ) IN our view all the circumstances taken together conclusively prove the guilt of the appellant. The circumstances as discussed In the judgment under appeal form a complete chain to prove that the appellant alone has committed the murder of his wife and do not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the Innocence of the appellant. The circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and conclusively lead to irresistable conclusion that It was the appellant who had committed murder of his wife Saloni. The circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and conclusively lead to irresistable conclusion that It was the appellant who had committed murder of his wife Saloni. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit In the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.