JUDGMENT 1. - Mst. Keli has preferred this appeal against her conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 2.8.1982. 2. Accused has been charged with the murder of her husband Onkarnath. The FIR Ex. P,/1 was lodged by Mangunath, uncle of deceased Onkarnath on 21.1.1982 at 1.00 p.m. in which it was stated that Onkarnath was repairing his spade when all of a sudden axe blows were inflicted on his neck by his wife causing his death. It was also stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Harji Gurjar and Nanda. On this report, a case under section 302 IPC was registered. The police after usual investigation, submitted a challan and charges under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Accused denied accusation. She stated that her husband had gone to field at about 7 in the morning and when she reached there at 10 she noticed Nagjinath running from there and when she reached near her husband he was lying dead and therefore, she took his head on her knees and she became unconscious. She also stated that there was no quarrel between her and her husband. She examined two witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge held that Onkarnath had met homicidal death. He further held that accused was the person who inflicted blows to Onkarnath. He eventually convicted and sentenced her as stated above. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record of the case. 4. Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds:- (i) The trial Court having disbelieved the statements of Raju PW 2 and Nathu PW 3 who according to Hazari reached the place of occurrence from his field along with him, has erred in believing the statement of Hazari. He cited the case of Ramjag v. State of U.P., 1974 SC 606 . (ii) Hazari (PW 1) has made significant improvements at the trial stage to rope the accused. He pointed out that Hazari had not stated at the investigation stage that deceased had shouted the words. He cited the case of Ramjag v. State of U.P., 1974 SC 606 . (ii) Hazari (PW 1) has made significant improvements at the trial stage to rope the accused. He pointed out that Hazari had not stated at the investigation stage that deceased had shouted the words. thtk vc esjk D;k gksxk\ (iii) The medical evidence does not corroborate the testimony of Hazari inasmuch as according to the Medical Officer the injuries suffered by Onkamath were lacerated wounds whereas Hazari wants the Court to believe that injuries were caused by the axe which is a sharp edged weapon. (iv) The police has introduced false eye-witnesses Nathu and Raju and this shows that the investigation was tainted. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused on the basis of statements of Hazari and Nandanath. Regarding medical evidence he submitted that the Medical Officer seems to be a confused person and therefore he mentioned the injuries as lacerated wounds though at the same time he stated that they were caused by sharp edged weapon. According to him, the accused should not get advantage of this mistake committed by the Medical Officer as no question was asked by him in the cross-examination of the Medical Officer seeking his clarification. 6. The finding of the trial Court that Onkarnath had met homicidal death is not assailable. Dr. Satyanarayan, who had held autopsy on the body of Onkarnath has deposed that there were following ante-mortem injuries on the person of Onkarnath:- 1. A liner L wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/r deep on back of scalp below occiput. 2. A L Lacerated wound 2" x 3/4" deep x 1/2" wide on scalp - behind on left side extending to left to cut left ear in mid position - only pinna. 3. A L. wound of 3" x 1/2" x 3/4" on back of neck. 4. A Lineral wound 4" X 1/2" X 1/4" size on the back of scalp with bleeding. 5. A curved shaped lacerated wound on face - anterior aspect cutting the mixilla & upper part of neck - 3" long 1" deep 3/4wide with teeth seen. 6. A superficial wound on back & anterior lateral aspect of thigh, upper part. 7. A superficial wound on palmer aspect of right hand high bleeding which was clotted. 5. A curved shaped lacerated wound on face - anterior aspect cutting the mixilla & upper part of neck - 3" long 1" deep 3/4wide with teeth seen. 6. A superficial wound on back & anterior lateral aspect of thigh, upper part. 7. A superficial wound on palmer aspect of right hand high bleeding which was clotted. He has further deposed that as a result of injury No. 3 cervical bone had cut and Onkamath had died because of this injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has proved postmortem-report Ex. P/4. By the evidence of Dr. Satyanaryan it is fully established that Onkarnath had met homicidal death. It has come in his cross-examination that Onkarnath was of very good health and all the injuries could be caused even by one weapon. There is nothing in his cross-examination as to doubt his this opinion that Onkarnath had died because f sustaining injuries. Thus, the trial Court's finding that Onkarnath had met homicidal death cannot be questioned. 7. The trial Court has disbelieved the two eye-witnesses PW 3 Nathu and PW 2 Raju and we think, rightly. The Court has recorded cogent reasons. The names of Raju and Nathu did not find place in the FIR Ex. P/1 which was lodged by Mangunath who was informed about the occurrence though Mangunath has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, Nathu and Raju were also present there and they had told him that they had witnessed the occurrence. His this explanation that he forgot to mention their names cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the FIR was written with all the possible details. Not only that, the name of the assailant was mentioned in the FIR but the names of the eye-witnesses and the condition of the accused were also stated therein. Mangunath even did not disclose their names to the police when his statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. All this shows that Mangunath was not informed that Raju and Nathu had seen the occurrence. The trial Court has also noticed the discrepancies appearing in the statements of Hazari, Nathu and Raju on the points as to what time they had reached the field of Hazari or what was the wages settled etc. The trial Court has also noticed the discrepancies appearing in the statements of Hazari, Nathu and Raju on the points as to what time they had reached the field of Hazari or what was the wages settled etc. It may also be noticed that according to Raju (PW 2) when he caught the accused and asked as to why did she kill her husband, she replied that she has did it, she might also be killed. However, this important fact neither finds place in the statement of Hazari nor in the statement of Nathu. Thus, this is again an important contradiction appearing in the statements of three witnesses. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved these two witnesses. 8. It is also relevant to State that according to Vithal Prasad, Head Constable (PW 13) though he reached the place of occurrence at 3.45 p.m. but he came to know about the names of Nathu and Raju for the first time at 5.55 p.m. as eye-witnesses, when Hazari disclosed their names. This clearly shows that up to 5.55 p.m. i.e. for two hours the names of Nathu and Raju had not appeared as eye-witnesses and they were introduced by Hazari to corroborate his testimony. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved them to be eye-witnesses. 9. Now remains the statement of Hazari (PW 1) who claims to have heard the shouting of the deceased and seen the accused causing axe blows to him. Hazari has deposed that on hearing the cry of the deceased he saw that the accused was giving axe blows to Onkarnath, and therefore, he along with Raju and Nathu rushed to the field of Onkarnath where they saw the accused running and therefore he asked Raju to catch hold of her and seeing that axe was in her hand, Raju picked up a stone and ran towards her on which accused threw away the axe in a pit and thereafter Raju caught hold of her and at that time accused cried. thtk vc esjk D;k gksxk\ It is further deposed by Hazari that at that time Nandanath also happened to reach there. There is no dispute that the field of Hazari is situate near the place of occurrence but the question to be considered is whether Hazari's testimony that he had himself seen the accused causing injuries to the deceased can be believed. There is no dispute that the field of Hazari is situate near the place of occurrence but the question to be considered is whether Hazari's testimony that he had himself seen the accused causing injuries to the deceased can be believed. In our opinion, there is obvious falsehood in the statement of Hazari. His statement indicates that Raju and Nathu were working in his field and on hearing cries he along with Raju and Nathu reached the place of occurrence. 10. We have already disbelieved the statements of Raju and Nathu. It may be noticed that according to Hazari, there was significant role of Raju as he is said to have caught hold of the accused. Once we disbelieve the facts that Raju was there, Hazari asked him to catch hold of the accused and then Raju chased the accused having a stone in his hand and after the accused threw the axe in the pit, he caught hold of her, it becomes difficult for us to give credence to the statement of Hazari. It is to be noticed that the names of Raju and Nathu were introduced by this very witness as eye-witnesses for the first time at 5.55 p.m. 11. In the case of Ramjag' (supra) cited by Mr. Doongar Singh, the facts were : One 'R' who claimed to be eye-witness, dictated the FIR to a boy called 'G' in which the name of one eye-witness 'RK' was not disclosed. 'RK' was examined as eye-witness but he was disbelieved holding that he was not a reliable witness. The High Court observed that on that ground R's statement could not be discarded as the principle of 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' does not apply in our country. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not agree with the observations of the High Court and observed that if 'R' had not compunction in creating an eye-witness his evidence has to be approached with great caution. It was further observed that the High Court was not justified in holding that the only impact of the false discovery of a prosecution witness was that 'R's evidence had to be rejected in part. In the instant case also the position of Hazari is same. He is the person who had asked Mangunath to lodge the FIR. It was further observed that the High Court was not justified in holding that the only impact of the false discovery of a prosecution witness was that 'R's evidence had to be rejected in part. In the instant case also the position of Hazari is same. He is the person who had asked Mangunath to lodge the FIR. Names of Raju and Nathu were not mentioned in the FIR, Hazari introduced these two witnesses for the first time at 5.55 p.m. though they had not seen the occurrence. If Hazari had no compunction in creating false eye-witnesses, it is difficult to place reliance on his testimony and great caution is required in approaching his evidence. 12. Hazari has made significant improvements in his statement when he stated that the deceased shouted " eq>s jkaM ekjrh gS " The words " eq>s jkaM ekjrh gS " do not find place in the statement of the witness recorded during investigation. His explanation that he had told the police about these words also but they were not written, cannot be accepted. There could not be any reason for the police not to write these important words in his statement which directly connected the accused with the crime. It is, obvious that the witness has made this improvement in his statement in order to fix is the accused in the case. 13. It is relevant to state that Nandanath (PW 9) who was grazing cattle near the place of occurrence has not deposed to have heard the cries of the deceased, though according to both the witnesses Nandanath and Hazari, he was comparatively at a lesser distance from the deceased. Had the deceased made cries, Nandanath would have also heard them. This further render the testimony of Hazari doubtful that he had heard Onkarnath saying that his wife was killing him. 14. This fact cannot be lost sight of that the deceased was not a weak person rather it has come on record that he was a stout man. It has appeared in evidence that Onkarnath was having spade in his hand and also there was a "Gainty" (formidable iron implement used to dig earth and hard surface) lying before him. 14. This fact cannot be lost sight of that the deceased was not a weak person rather it has come on record that he was a stout man. It has appeared in evidence that Onkarnath was having spade in his hand and also there was a "Gainty" (formidable iron implement used to dig earth and hard surface) lying before him. When the accused could make a cry in such loud words that he was being killed by the lady which Hazari heard from a distance of not less than 100 "Pawandas", it can definitely be inferred that having suffered the first blow Onkarnath had not become unconscious. He could have certainly used the spade or the "Gainty" which were available to him sitting there to guard himself. This did not happen. This shows that the deceased had no chance to make a cry and even to call Hazari by name. Hazari has obviously given false statement in order to implicate the accused in the case. 15. It is also to be noticed that according to Nandanath (PW 9) when he reached the place of occurrence, Hazari and Madhu also reached there. This statement indicates that Hazari reached the place of occurrence alongwith one Madhu. This Madhu has not been examined in the case. A reading of the FIR Ex. P/1 shows that some persons including Madhu had reached the place of occurrence on hearing scouting's of Hazari. When according to Nandanath both Hazari and Madhu reached the place of occurrence together and Nandanath himself neither heard cries of deceased nor saw the accused causing injuries to Onkarnath, it has to be inferred that Hazari also had not seen the occurrence. It seems that seeing that Onkarnath was lying in injured condition, he called Madhu and both of them reached the place of occurrence together. This falsifies the statement of Hazari that he had seen the accused causing injuries to the deceased. 16. This part of the statement of Hazari cannot be believed that he had seen axe in the hands of the accused because we have already disbelieved the statement of Raju who had claimed to have chased the accused and on his picking up a stone the accused had thrown the axe in the pit. It may be noted that even Nandanath (PW 9) has not deposed that he had seen the accused having axe in her hand. It may be noted that even Nandanath (PW 9) has not deposed that he had seen the accused having axe in her hand. What he has sated in this regard is that when he reached the place of occurrence on the call of Hazari, Raju informed him that there was axe in the hand of Keli which she had thrown in the pit. As already stated, the presence of Raju at the scene of occurrence is not established. That being so, the statement of Nandanath cannot be believed that Raju had told anything to him disclosing the incriminating circumstance against the accused. 17. It is also relevant to state that in the FIR Ex. P/1 Nandanath was cited as eye-witness along with Hazari but Nandanath has not deposed that he had seen the accused causing injuries to Onkarnath. It is, thus, obvious that Hazari from the very beginning tried to introduce false eye-witnesses. He first told Mangunath to lodge a report mentioning the name of Nandanath as eye-witness, and thereafter, when he realised that Nandanath was not going to oblige, him, he introduced Raju and Nathu as eye-witnesses. In our opinion, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Hazari in such circumstances. 18. The criticism of the medical evidence in relation to direct evidence also cannot be said to be without basis. Dr. Satyanaryan, who conducted postmortem, has deposed there were 7 injuries on the person of Onkarnath which all were lacerated wounds but at the same time he has stated that they were caused by sharp edged weapon like axe. It is not possible to accept his statement. If according to him there were lacerated wounds, they were not caused by a sharp edged weapon and if the injuries appeared to have been caused by sharp edged weapon like axe then they could not be lacerated wounds. In that case, there ought to have been incised wounds. The fact that the wounds have been described as lacerated wounds cannot be said to be a slip of pen. The medical Officer has described the wounds as lacerated wounds not at one or two places but all the injuries have been mentioned as lacerated wounds, obviously because the injuries were lacerated wounds. The fact that the wounds have been described as lacerated wounds cannot be said to be a slip of pen. The medical Officer has described the wounds as lacerated wounds not at one or two places but all the injuries have been mentioned as lacerated wounds, obviously because the injuries were lacerated wounds. It appears that he was informed by the police that the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and therefore, he stated that the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. However, when he did not categorise the injuries as incised wounds in his report, it cannot be found proved that the injuries were incised wounds. If we accept the statement of the medical officer that the injuries were lacerated wounds. Hazari's eye-witness account becomes false that the accused was cutting the neck of the deceased by axe. Obviously, there is inconsistency in the direct evidence and the medical evidence. 19. Having rejected the evidence of Hazari as eye-witness, there remains the following circumstances against the accused. (i) Accused was seen where the deceased was lying dead. (ii) There were blood stains on the clothes of the accused and on her hands. (iii) An axe was lying at some distance having blood stains. 20. The above facts are amply proved on record. Even the accused has not disputed these facts. Now, the question to be determined is whether on these facts it can be found proved that the accused had committed the murder of her husband Onkarnath. 21. The explanation of the accused is that her husband had left for the field at 7.00 a.m. and she reached there at 10.00 a.m., and as she reached there she saw Nagjinath running from her field, and seeing her husband she went nearer to him, took his head on her knees, only to find that he was dead. According to her, seeing this she became unconscious. She has stated that Hazari settled in the village before the people of Nath community went there to habitats, which Hazari did not like. She has further stated that Nathu, Raju and Hazari were the supporters of Nagjinath. She has stated that there was no quarrel between her and her husband. 22. It is natural that seeing the condition of Onkarnath, she being wife, Mrs. Keli would touch the body, lift his head and give support on her knees. She has further stated that Nathu, Raju and Hazari were the supporters of Nagjinath. She has stated that there was no quarrel between her and her husband. 22. It is natural that seeing the condition of Onkarnath, she being wife, Mrs. Keli would touch the body, lift his head and give support on her knees. In that process her hands and clothes were bound to be smeared with blood. In such circumstances, on the ground that her 'Lehanga' and hands were found blood stained, it cannot be inferred that she had caused injuries to her husband. 23. The prosecution has tried to take help of the recovery of the blood stained axe at her instance. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved this evidence as to connect the accused with the crime. The axe admittedly was lying in the pit near the place of occurrence. It is not the case for the prosecution that the pit where the axe was lying was situate at some distance from the dead body or that it was lying in hidden condition. The site plan of the place of recovery of the axe has not been produced. From the statements of the witnesses, it does not transpire that the pit where the axe was lying was at some distance from the field of Onkarnath. Obviously, it was known to everyone that an axe was lying there. Therefore, it cannot be said that the axe was recovered on the information supplied by the accused. The evidence of recovery of the axe at the instance of the accused, is nothing but a fabrication by the investigating agency. 24. One significant fact which appears on record deserves to be noticed. Hazari has deposed that the accused when caught, had shouted " gS thtk vc esjk D;k gksxk " The case for the accused is that she had seen Nagjinath running from the field. Nagjinath is none else than brother-in-law " thtk " of the accused. It has come in the statement of Hazari (PW 1) that Nagjinath and the deceased were the brother-in-law It is obvious that Nagjinath happened to be the brother-in-law " lkMw " of the accused. The fact that the accused shouted words " thtk vc esjk D;k gksxk\ " clearly indicates that she had suspected Nagjinath to have killed her husband. It has come in the statement of Hazari (PW 1) that Nagjinath and the deceased were the brother-in-law It is obvious that Nagjinath happened to be the brother-in-law " lkMw " of the accused. The fact that the accused shouted words " thtk vc esjk D;k gksxk\ " clearly indicates that she had suspected Nagjinath to have killed her husband. The words " thtk vc esjk D;k gksxk\ " mean that the accused was blaming Nagjinath for what had happened and for spoiling her future. 25. The version of the accused that Nagjinath was involved in the murder has not appeared for the first time in her statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. In the cross-examination of Hazari, the very first witness, questions were asked regarding the relations of Nagjinath and the deceased and that whether he had seen Nagjinath in the field before the occurrence. In our opinion, this circumstance is consistent with the innocence of the accused. 26. Accused has examined two witnesses in defence also. Ambalal DW 2 has deposed that when he was passing through the passage, he had seen a lady sitting and having head of a man on her knees and he had at the same time had seen a person of Nath community running at some distance. It is true that the name of Ambalal was not suggested to the prosecution witnesses but once we disbelieve the prosecution version, the defence evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside. Even if we ignore the statement of Ambalal, it is borne out by the statement of accused herself that she had seen Nagjinath running from her field. 27. The prosecution version cannot be accepted on this reason also that there was no motive for the accused to have killed her husband in such a manner. There is no evidence on record that the relations of husband and wife were not cordial or that any time the deceased had complained against the accused or vice-versa. Hazari claims to have heard the cries of Onkarnath when blows were inflicted on him. Had there been exchange of hot words, Hazari would have definitely heard them. There is no evidence on record that the relations of husband and wife were not cordial or that any time the deceased had complained against the accused or vice-versa. Hazari claims to have heard the cries of Onkarnath when blows were inflicted on him. Had there been exchange of hot words, Hazari would have definitely heard them. When there is no evidence that there was rift between the husband and wife; and there was even quarrel between them wife before the occurrence; it is difficult to believe that accused would have attacked her husband from behind and she would have repeated the blows to ensure that he was dead. 28. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, it is not possible for us to uphold the conviction of the appellant. In any case, the case is not free from doubt and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. 29. Consequently, we accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and acquit her of the offence under section 302 IPC. She is on bail. She shall not surrender to the bail bonds which stand cancelled. Fine if realised, shall be refunded to the appellant.Appeal allowed. *******