JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed Under Section 374(2) Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 27.1.1987 whereby he has convicted the accused-appellants viz. Kishan Singh & Govind Singh for the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced both the appellants to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year's R.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that one Sohanlal s/o Budha Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P.22) before the S.H.O. P.S. Soorsagar on 24.2.1985 at 2.15 P.M. alleging that his sister Kalpana was married with one Govind Singh s/o Asu Singh on 7.6.77. It was alleged that for the last five years Kalpana was living with his father. Out of their wedlock one male child Azad Singh was borned, who is living with Govind Singh. It was also alleged that for the custody of child a case is pending in the court of Distt. Judge, Jodhpur wherein Rs. 250/- gave been awarded as interim maintenance and the arrears of that amount has gone upto Rs. 7000/-. It was further alleged that Govind Singh did not want to pay the amount, therefore, on 21.2.85 Govind Singh showed his willingness to take Kalpana with him, for which permission was granted by the Court. It was also alleged that on 22.2.85 at 4.P.M. he went to the house of Govind Singh to enquire about the welfare of Kalpana but Govind Singh and his brother etc. did not permit him to meet Kalpana and he returned back. It was further alleged that on 23.2.85 at 6-7 P.M. they came to know that Kalpana has been killed by Govind Singh, Kishan Singh, Prakash and the wife of Prakash. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that Govind Singh had left Kalpana for the last five years and he did not want to pay the amount of maintenance awarded by the court and further that he wanted to perform second marriage, therefore, Govind Singh and his brothers alongwith the wife of his brother Prakash have killed Kalpana by hatching a conspiracy. Thereupon an F.I.R. (Ex.P-22) was lodged on 24.2.85 and case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. Thereupon an F.I.R. (Ex.P-22) was lodged on 24.2.85 and case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered. Prior to that F.I.R., as per the prosecution on 23.2.85 at 6.15 P.M. accused Kishan Singh submitted a report (Ex.P-20) stating that Kalpana has committed suicide. On the basis of it, Narayan Singh, S.H.O. Soorsagar started investigation Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and sent P.W.16 Chandan Singh for investigation. P.W.16 Chandan Singh saw in a room of upper storey that a dead body of lady was lying on the floor and nearby dead body blood and pieces of glass were also lying. One broken glass was also found stabbed in the neck of the body of deceased Kalpana. One nylon cord and pieces of bangles were also lying there. P.W.16 Chanda Singh got the site plan (Ex.P.21) prepared by Madan Kumar. In the meantime Narayan Singh, S.H.O. reached there who signed the site inspection memo and also prepared 'Panchnama' (Ex.P-2) and Description Memo of Corpus (Ex.P-8). Boold stained part of floor was broken and seized vide Ex.P-3. Cord of 'Nylon', pieces of bangles of Kalpana, pieces of glass lying on the floor were also seized and sealed so also the glass which was found stabbed in the neck of Kalpana vide Ex.P-4. Thereafter, the dead body of Kalpana was sent to the M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur for post-mortem. Medical Board consisting of three Doctors. 1. J.K. Yadav, 2. S.P. Chauhan & 3. V.K. Malhotra conducted the post-mortem examination on 24.2.85 and submitted their report vide Ex.P-24. Narayan Singh, S.H.O. arrested the accused-appellant Kishan Singh vide Ex.P-5. At the time of arrest, the clothes viz. ('Pajama' and 'Baniyan' which were put-on by the accused Kishan Singh were found blood stained. These clothes were seized in the presence of Tej Singh and Lalit Kumar vide Ex.P-6. the accused Kishan Singh who had injuries on his body was also medically examined by Dr.S.K. Chouhan on 25.2.85 vide Ex.P-25. At the instance of the accused Kishan Singh, one knife was recovered vide Ex.P-16. The other accused Govind Singh was arrested on 1.3.85 vide Ex.P-26 in the presence of motbirs Rameshwar and Heeralal. The articles seized were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. F.S.L. reports were received vide Ex.P-28 to 31. After due investigation, police filed challan in the court of Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide order dated 24.6.1985. The articles seized were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. F.S.L. reports were received vide Ex.P-28 to 31. After due investigation, police filed challan in the court of Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide order dated 24.6.1985. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused-appellants under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on 13.8.85. Both the accused-appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in supports of its case produced 16 witnesses and 29 documents. The accused-appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation and produced Arjun Singh and Dr. Hargovind in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused-appellants Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them a mentioned here inabove. 3. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on number of grounds. Firstly he has contended that the death of Kalpana was suicidal and not homicidal. He has contended that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge hardly have any nexus with the alleged murder by the appellants. He has also contended that there was no motive for the appellants to do away with Kalpana. Mr. Purohit has contended that the allegation of strangulation was not specifically put to the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Mr. Purohit has further contended that the accused-appellant Govind Singh was not present at the place of occurrence and the prosecution has not been able to prove the alleged extra judicial confession. He has lastly prayed that the conviction of the accused appellants may be quashed. He has relied on and on a recent decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in 1992 Cri.L.R. 738. 4. Mr. Bohara, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that there was strong motive for the accused-appellants to kill deceased Kalpana as the relations between the parties were strained and she was not living with her husband for the last five years but only two days prior to the date of incident the deceased Kalpana came to her in-law's house with her husband, which is clear from the order of the Distt. Court dated 21.2.85. Court dated 21.2.85. He has also submitted that the question regarding strangulation was put to the accused-appellant Kishan Singh. He has further submitted that the circumstances relied by the learned Sessions Judge while convicting the accused appellants complete the chain of evidence against the accused and it is sufficient to hold them guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Mr. Charan counsel for the complainant has also adopted the agreements of Mr. Bohara. 5. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record carefully, so also the case law cited at Bar. 6. First of all to examine the contention as to whether the death was suicidal or homicidal, it would be proper to read post- mortem report (Ex.P-24) submitted by the Medical Board consisting of Dr. V.K. Malhotra, Dr.S.P. Chouhan, Members and Dr. J.K. Yadav, Chairman. The relevant post-mortem report runs as follows: 1. Legature mark 40.0 cm X 1.0 cm placed at middle of neck, traverse all around the neck, slightly depressed. There is bifurcation of the legature mark on the anterior part of Neck and each bifurcated legature mark measures 0.5 cm in breadth. The distance in between the birifurcated legature mark is 2.5 cm. There is abrasion 0.4 cm around the legature marks on the thyroid region. There is ecchymoses under the legatue mark. 2. Post mortem incised cutting wound of shape "C" placed on front of neck super imposing the legature mark measuring 14.0 cm X 8.0 cm. Trachea, Oesophagus carotid vessels and soft tissues have been cut right upto prevertebral region. There are no blood cloths adhering to the cut edges. The blood present on the neck is partially clotted but the clots are not adherent to the tissues and there is no standing of tissues. The legature mark has been cut as a result of above mentioned injury on right side. 3. Abrasion 1.0 cm. X 0.5 cm. on right frontal eminance region. 4. Abrasion 4.0 cm X 1.0 cm on right side mandibular region near angle of mouth lying traversely oblique. 5. Abrasion 4.0 X 0.2 cm and 2.0 cm antero inferior and parallel to injury No. 4 6. Abrasion 11.0 cm X 0.5 cm. running from left angle of mouth to the left angle of mandible. 7. Abrasion 1.0 cm. X 1.0 cm. 5. Abrasion 4.0 X 0.2 cm and 2.0 cm antero inferior and parallel to injury No. 4 6. Abrasion 11.0 cm X 0.5 cm. running from left angle of mouth to the left angle of mandible. 7. Abrasion 1.0 cm. X 1.0 cm. on the inner aspect of left elbow region. 7. From a bare perusal of post-mortem report there remains no room of doubt to come to the conclusion that the death of Kalpana was homicidal death. The Medical Board has clearly pointed that the cause of death is 'strangulation'. So far as the injuries found on the person of deceased is concerned, P.W.14 Dr. S.P. Chouhan has stated that the injuries No. 3 & 4 could be sustained by the deceased during struggle and the injury No. 2 found on the neck of the deceased was not antemortem but post-mortem one. He has also stated that in his opinion it was not possible that the lady might have tried to commit suicide by tieing a rope around her neck and in that process she fell down and due to which glass would have pierced into her neck. Under these circumstances when the legature mark found around her neck was suicidal. There was a distance in the legature mark around in front of her neck. This legature marks were found in front of the neck crossing each other which is suggestive of strangulation rather than suicide. Moreover, one piece of the cord was found at the spot was cut afresh at both ends which is not suggesting of tearing of the cord on account of her weight. The tear then will be irregular rather than clean cut. No suggestion was put to Narayan Singh and P.W. 16 Chandan Singh that the deceased had committed suicide. In our considered view, the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard that the deceased has died a homicidal death deserves to be maintained and thus the first contention of Mr. Purohit is not sustainable. 8. Now, we will consider the circumstances which have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and we have to see whether the circumstances so relied are sufficient to convict the accused-appellants for committing the murder of Kalpana. Purohit is not sustainable. 8. Now, we will consider the circumstances which have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and we have to see whether the circumstances so relied are sufficient to convict the accused-appellants for committing the murder of Kalpana. The following pieces of circumstances were found proved by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-appellant Govind Singh: i) that the relations between the deceased Kalpana and accused Govind Singh were strained and the litigation was also going on between them. (ii) that the Distt. Court ordered the accused-appellant Govind Singh to pay Rs. 250/- per month to Kalpana as maintenance from 9.2.82 against which he preferred a revision. iii) The revision preferred by Govind Singh was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 21.2.85 and there was no option left before the accused Govind Singh but to pay a sum of Rs. 9000/- to the deceased and with a view to avoid this liability he agreed to take away the deceased with him. iv) That it is clear from the evidence of Sohanlal and Budharam that Govind Singh took Kalpna with him directly from the court and he did not think it proper to have a talk with sohanlal and Budha Ram in this connection. v) That the order Ex.P-10 had become a hanging democleze sword for Govind Singh which could be used by Kalpana at any time on becoming angry. vi) That with a view to save himself from the said situation the only way out for him was to do away with Kalpana. vii) That the accused Govind Singh took Kalpana with him to his house, so there was sufficient opportunity for him to kill Kalpana himself or to get it done by his family members. viii) That on 22.2.85 when Sohanlal brother of Kalpana went to see Kalpana at the house of Govind Singh, accused Govind Singh did not allow him to meet with Kalpana. 9. Before we proceed to examine the contentions advanced, it would be proper to discuss the evidence of the relevant witnesses in brief. 10. P.W. 4 Sohanlal s/o Budharam, brother of the deceased stated that on 21.2.85 Govid Singh took Kalpana with him saying that he is ready to keep her. 9. Before we proceed to examine the contentions advanced, it would be proper to discuss the evidence of the relevant witnesses in brief. 10. P.W. 4 Sohanlal s/o Budharam, brother of the deceased stated that on 21.2.85 Govid Singh took Kalpana with him saying that he is ready to keep her. He has stated that on 22.2.85 at 4 P.M. he went to see and enquired about the welfare of his sister Kalpana at the house of Govind Singh but Govind Singh and his brother etc. did not permit him to meet Kalpana. He has also started that at that time Kalpana was standing there. He has further stated that on 23.2.85 at about 7.30 P.M. he came to know from Arjun Singh that Govind Singh, Kishan singh, Prakash and Kiran w/o Prakash has killed Kalpana. According to him the reason behind the murder of Kalpana was the payment of an amount of Rs. 9300/- i.e. arrears of maintenance which the accused did not want to pay. P.W.4 has also stated that a demand of dowry was raised by the family members of the in-laws of Kalpana. P.W.4 Sohanlal has also stated that on 21.2.85 he did not go to the Court with Kalpana and he was told by his father that Kalpana was prepared to go with Govind Singh and she has gone with him. 11. P.W.5 Budha Ram has stated that on 21.2.85 he came along with Kalpana and before the Court hearing Govind Singh had a talk with Kalpana and he persuaded Kalpana to go with him. He has also stated that on 23.2.85 at 8 P.M. Arjun Singh came to their house and informed them that Kalpana has been killed. He has stated that he was told by Arjun Singh that Govind Singh, Kishan Singh and Prakash have killed Kalpana. He has further stated that after the marriage Kalpana had lived at her in-law house for sometime i.e. till she gave birth to Azad Singh. Moreover, he has also stated that for the last about 5 years she was living at his (witness's) house and has filed cases for her maintenance but she was not paid the maintenance amount awarded to her. 12. P.W. 13 Narayan Singh, S.H.O. has stated that at 6.15 P.M. on 23.2.85 accused Kishan Singh submitted a report (Ex.P- 20). Moreover, he has also stated that for the last about 5 years she was living at his (witness's) house and has filed cases for her maintenance but she was not paid the maintenance amount awarded to her. 12. P.W. 13 Narayan Singh, S.H.O. has stated that at 6.15 P.M. on 23.2.85 accused Kishan Singh submitted a report (Ex.P- 20). He has stated that he delivered the same to Chandan Singh to proceed Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He has also stated that he visited the site and saw that Kalpana was lying dead in a room of upper storey in a pool of blood. Pieces of glass and Bangles were lying there which was strained with blood. He has stated that at the place of occurrence blood stained nylon cord was also lying. He has also stated that the accused Kishan Singh was arrested at 7.30 P.M. on 24.2.85 and as the 'Pajama' and 'Baniyan' of Kishan Singh were stained with boold as such they were seized by him vide Ex.P.6. He has further stated that at the time of arrest injuries were found on the person of Kishan Singh and he got the accused medically examined. P.W.13 has also stated that the accused Kishan Singh gave information that he can get the knife from which he cut the nylon cord recovered. He has further stated that blood stained knife was recovered vide Ex.P-16. P.W.13 has also stated that the accused Govind Singh was arrested on 1.3.85 but no recovery was made from him. He has further stated that the name of witnesses of extra judicial confession were disclosed to him by Sohanlal, brother of the deceased on the third day of the report. He has also stated that except these two' witnesses of extra judicial confession, there was no other proof against the accused Govind Singh. 13. P.W.8 Paras Ram has stated that before about more than a year accused Kishan Singh got a knife recovered at his own instance in his presence from 'Singoriyo ki Bari' near 'Killay Ki Ghati'. He has also stated that the knife was stained with blood. He has further stated that the knife was recovered vide Ex.P.16. 14. 13. P.W.8 Paras Ram has stated that before about more than a year accused Kishan Singh got a knife recovered at his own instance in his presence from 'Singoriyo ki Bari' near 'Killay Ki Ghati'. He has also stated that the knife was stained with blood. He has further stated that the knife was recovered vide Ex.P.16. 14. So far as the accused-appellant Govind Singh is concerned, it is clear from the evidence and material on record that Govind Singh was married to Kalpana d/o Budha Ram on 7.6.77 and he was living in joint family with his parents and brothers Kishan Singh and Prakash and Sister in law Kiran w/o Prakash. Out of their wedlock one male child viz. Azad Singh was born and thereafter Kalpana was turned out of her in-laws' house and since then she started living with her father Budha Ram. The prosecution has been able to prove the circumstances that Govind Singh preferred a petition against his wife Kalpana in the Distt. Court, Jodhpur for restitution of conjugal rights wherein Kalpana prayed for interim maintenance which was granted by the Distt. Court vide order dated 17.8.84 (Ex.P-10) to the tune of Rs. 250/- per month from 9.2.82 and she was awarded Rs. 300/- on account of litigation expenses. Kalpana in a separate proceedings initiated by her gave statement in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Jodhpur on 16.1.82 wherein she stated against her mother-in-law. Against the order dated 17.8.84 (Ex.P.10), Govind Singh preferred a civil revision before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 21.2.1985 (Ex.P-33). Looking to the non-payment of the arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 9000/-, on 21.2.85 Govind Singh made an offer to take his wife with him which was accepted by Kalpana and she went with him to her in-laws' house directly from Distt. Court on that very day with the permission of the Court. However, on 22.2.85 according to the prosecution witness P. W.4 Sohalnal visited the house of the accused Govind Singh and saw Kalpana standing there but he was not allowed to meet with his sister. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that accused Govind Singh had any evil design in mind. However, on 22.2.85 according to the prosecution witness P. W.4 Sohalnal visited the house of the accused Govind Singh and saw Kalpana standing there but he was not allowed to meet with his sister. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that accused Govind Singh had any evil design in mind. It is quite probable that he did not allow him to meet his sister so that he may not create a wedge in their relations by speaking to her against him. The leaned Sessions Judge has mainly relied on the circumstance of strained relations between husband and wife and existence of litigation between them and has further opined that with a view to avoid the liability to pay the amount of maintenance Govind Singh must have killed Kalpana. Of course, it is not in dispute that both the parties initiated legal proceedings against each other but this count alone is not sufficient to hold accused Govind singh guilty of the offence of killing Smt. Kalpana because Kalpana has always been asserting that it is her mother- in-law who is responsible for the strained relations existing between her and her husband. In her statement dated 16.1.1982 (Ex.P-13), which is on record she has stated that Govind Singh never quarreled with her nor turn her out from the house. She had also stated that she was willing to live with Govind Singh if mother-in-law does not quarrel with her. On 21.2.85 also the husband and wife agreed to live together and Govind Singh took Kalpana with him happily and with her consent. The circumstance which has been strongly relied by the learned Sessions Judge that just to avoid the liability of Rs. 9000/- of maintenance, the accused-appellant Govind Singh committed the offence, was not even put to the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In our opinion, on these counts no definite opinion can be formed against the accused as the above circumstance cannot be conclusive in the absence of any direct evidence to fasten guilt on accused Govind Singh. That apart as per the prosecution version Kalpana was killed by the accused-appellants on 23.2.85 but the presence of the accused Govind Singh at or near about the place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution. That apart as per the prosecution version Kalpana was killed by the accused-appellants on 23.2.85 but the presence of the accused Govind Singh at or near about the place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution. When he was arrested after 7 days' of the incident on 1.3.85 in absence of any evidence that he was present at the place of occurrence. Even P.W.16 Chandan Singh, who according to the Prosecution who reached first of all at the place of incident has not said even a....The only circumstance which is alleged against him by the prosecution which directly connects him with the crime in his extra judicial confession and the prove to same P.W.6 Sohanlal s/o Gulshanlal and P.W.7 Shyamlal were examined by the prosecution on 8.4.86. P.W.6 Sohanlal has stated that he does not know Govind Singh and that accused Govind Singh did not tell him anything about the murder of his wife. Likewise P.W.7 Shyamlal has also stated that on the date of occurrence Govind Singh did not meet him. Both these witnesses have-not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Moreso, P.W.13 Narayan Singh has also stated that except these two witnesses of extra-judicial confession, there was no other proof against the accused Govind Singh. Therefore, in the absence of any other incriminating circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be said conclusively that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to accused Govind Singh. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance proved on record must be such that they are not capable of any other explanation or any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused. If upon scrutiny, the several pices of circumstantial evidence are found to be incapable of forming a complete chain against the accused than no inference of guilt can legitimately be drawn against the accused. As already stated the chain of circumstances alleged against accused Govind Singh are not sufficient to establish his involvement in the crime. Mere evidence of a probable motive and strained relations do not furnish such a solid foundation on the basis of which the accused can be held guilty of murdering his wife. Actually, various links in the chain have not been conclusively established by cogent and credible evidence. This is a case where at best, grave suspicion can be raised against the accused-appellant Govind Singh. Actually, various links in the chain have not been conclusively established by cogent and credible evidence. This is a case where at best, grave suspicion can be raised against the accused-appellant Govind Singh. Suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of reliable evidence and proof of a fact beyond doubt. The prosecution has to travel the entire distance between two points namely, "accused may have committed" and "accused must have committed" the offence. May be it suspected that the accused might have committed the heinous crime but the prosecution has failed to establish this beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to benefit of this doubt and the conviction of the accused-appellant Govind Singh Under Section 302/34 IPC is liable to be set aside. 15. As regards the accused appellant Kishan Singh, the learned Sessions Judge while convicting him has found proved following circumstances in addition to aforesaid (eight) circumstances found proved by him against the other appellant: viii) That on 23.2.85 Kalpana was found dead in unnatural state in the house of accused persons and Kishan Singh submitted report Ex.P.20 at 6.15 in the evening of 23.2.85. ix) That in the report Ex. P-20 it was falsely mentioned that Kalpana had committed suicide. x) That at the time of arrest on the person of Kishan Singh two injuries were there which could be sustained by him during struggle and the 'Pajama' and 'Baniyan' put on by him were stained with AB Group human blood which is the blood group found on the clothes of the deceased. xi) That from the place of occurrence blood stained pieces of bangles of Kalpana were found and some of the injuries found on her body indicates that struggle took place. xii) That from the place of occurrence a cord of nylon which was clearly cut at both ends was found stained with human blood. Such a clear cut rope could not have been found in a case of suicidal if the rope was found torn on account of the weight of the deceased. The injury caused by the broken piece of glass has been opined to be a post-mortem injury by the Doctor. Such a injury was not possible in a suicidal death. 16. It was contended by Mr. The injury caused by the broken piece of glass has been opined to be a post-mortem injury by the Doctor. Such a injury was not possible in a suicidal death. 16. It was contended by Mr. Purohit that there was no motive for Kishan Singh to do away with Kalpana, suffice it to say that the relations of Kalpana with her mother-in-law i.e. the mother of the accused Kishan Singh were not cordial, which is clear from the statement of Kalpana herself (Ex.P.16) and the accused might not have happily reacted to the return of Kalpana to his house. How, were proceed to examine the circumstances found proved by the learned Sessions Judge against this accused. It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant Kishan Singh lives in the same house with his parents and brothers Govind Singh and prakash and sister-in-law Kiran w/o Prakash and he was the person who submitted First Information Report Ex.P-20 on 23.2.85 at 6.15 at P.S. Soorsagar which is admittedly given a false version about the death of Kalpana. Thereupon investigation Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was started. P.W.13 Narayan Singh has stated that after lodging of F.I.R on 24.2.85 by P.W.4 Sohanlal s/o Budha Ram the accused appellant Kishan Singh was arrested at the time of arrest the 'Pajama' and 'Baniyan' put on by the accused were blood stained. The accused-appellant in his statement Under Section 313 has also admitted that at the time of arrest he was wearing 'Pajama' and 'Baniyan'. He has also stated that the stains of blood were there on his clothes as he was beaten by Narayan Singh and other police personnel. From the defence side, no question was put in this regard to P.W.13 Narayan Singh. Apart from that the articles which were seized during the course of investigation were sent fro chemical examination to Forensic Lab. Jaipur. The reports of it are received vide Ex.P.28 to Ex.P.31. It is clear from Ex.P-30 that the pieces of floor stained with blood, nylon cord, boold stained pieces of bangles, blood stained pieces of glass, blood stained clothes of Kalpana, Pajama and Baniyan of accused Kishan Singh were found to be stained with human blood of AB Gruop. Stains of same blood group i.e. A.B. Group were found on the bed- sheet, blouse, bodice Ghaghra, Odna and Nylon cord, which is clear from Ex.P-31. Stains of same blood group i.e. A.B. Group were found on the bed- sheet, blouse, bodice Ghaghra, Odna and Nylon cord, which is clear from Ex.P-31. This evidence of blood grouping coupled with signs of struggle, existence of motive to kill Kalpana and false explanation given by Kishan Singh about the death of Kalpana when as per the evidence of Dr.S.P. Chouhan the death of Kalpana was result of strangulation clinches the issue and the inference is irresistible that he alone has committed the murder of Kalpana. Furthermore, at the time of arrest some injuries were found on the persons of accused which further corroborates the theory of struggle. P.W.13 Narayan Singh has categorically stated when he arrested the accused Kishan Singh there were injuries on the person of accused. The statement of P.W.13 Narayan Singh stands corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. S.P. Chouhan who examined the accused on 25.2.85 and has found as many as two injuries on the person of Kishan Singh. He has stated that the duration of injuries was one to two days. He has also stated that the injuries so sustained by the accused could be sustained in struggle. No question whatsoever was put forward by the accuses side to the prosecution witnesses P.W.13 Narayan Singh, Dr. S.P. Chouhan and P.W.16 Kishan Singh who was the first police personnel to reach the place of occurrence disputing these facts. Therefore, now it cannot be argued that the injuries were inflicted by the police personnel, particularly when number of injuries were found on the body of deceased Kalpana and according to medical evidence they could be sustained by her during struggle for life, which is clear from the pieces of bangles found scattered all around the place of occurrence. One more important circumstance which goes against the accused Kishan Singh is recovery of knife at his instance. P.W.13 Narayan Singh has stated that the accused Kishan Singh gave information that he is ready to get that knife from which he cut the nylon cord recovered from a given place. He has also stated that blood stained knife was recovered vide Ex.P-16. This testimony stands supported by the evidence of P.W.8 Paras Ram who has categorically stated that in his presence accused Kishan Singh got one knife recovered from 'Singoriyo Ki Bari' near 'Killay Ki Ghati'. 17. He has also stated that blood stained knife was recovered vide Ex.P-16. This testimony stands supported by the evidence of P.W.8 Paras Ram who has categorically stated that in his presence accused Kishan Singh got one knife recovered from 'Singoriyo Ki Bari' near 'Killay Ki Ghati'. 17. It is true that he got the knife recovered from a different place than mentioned in the information memo but that hardly matters because the recovery is at his instance. It has been proved by P. W.13 Narayan Singh that the rope found at the place of occurrence was not torn but was clear cut at both the ends and as per doctor P.W.14 S.P. Chouhan the legature mark found around the neck was a resulting strangulation. It was not a suicidal legature mark. Two parallel marks in front of neck are not found in case of suicide. Moreso, the accused-appellant mentioned in his report submitted by him on 23.2.85 before S.H.O. that his sister-in-law Kalpana has committed suicide but as discussed above the death of Kalpana was not suicidal one, therefore, false explanation by the accused Kishan Singh as regards cause of death of Kalpana is also one of the important circumstances found proved against him. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused-appellant Kishan Singh of the offence Under Section 302 IPC and we are unable to agree with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant Kishan Singh. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has not erred in convicting the accused-appellant Under Section 302 IPC. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant Govind Singh Under Section 302/34 IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant Govind Singh is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, the conviction of the accused-appellant Kishan Singh under Section 302 IPC as also the sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is maintained.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******