Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. Appellants Isaruddin and Jamaluddin were called upon to explain charges for committing murder of Safeda Khatoon on or about 11th July 1993 at Village-Sarswati with Pothia Police Station, District-Kishanganj. Both of them have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death by the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge. Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1994. Hence this appeal. 2. The prosecution case as narrated by informant Gaffar Ali (PW 10) on 12.7.1993 before the Officer-in-charge, Pothia Police Station at the house of accused Isaruddin, in short, is that his sister Safeda Khatoon was married to appellant Isaruddin. But unfortunately, shortly after the marriage, she started complaining cruelty and regular assault etc. by her husband and other family members. On the day preceding Moharrani, as Safeda was assaulted by her husband Isaruddin and Hamida Khatoon (wife of the second appellant), by means of Musal, she went to her parents house to narrate the story, but the family members after consoling her sent her back to the in-laws house. Unfortunately six to seven days thereafter, i.e. on 11.7.1993, the mother-in-law of his sister informed the informant that his sister was missing from the house. The informant immediately thereafter started searching his sister and reached village-Sarswati at the evening. He found the dead-body of his sister lying in a varundah of the appellants. The informant learnt from the villagers that appellant Isaruddin and his family members having murdered his sister, had kept the dead- body in the vurandah. 3. PW 8 (Rajendra Prasad Sinha) is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to him. on 12.7.1994 while he was on duty at the Pothia Police Station, he heard rumour about the murder of a woman in village-Sarswati He immediately reached village- Saraswati He recorded thefardbeyan of Gaffar Ali in presence of Mukhia Abdul Khalique and one Md. Hasan (PW 4). He inspected the dead-body and found bleeding injuries on the eyes, swelling on the neck, bleeding from the mouth and nose. He also found that entire body was swollen. Both hands had blister type injuries, both legs were also injured, tongue protruded. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead-body for post mortem through a constable, Chowkidar and one of the relatives of the deceased to Kishanganj Hospital. Thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested. 4. He also found that entire body was swollen. Both hands had blister type injuries, both legs were also injured, tongue protruded. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead-body for post mortem through a constable, Chowkidar and one of the relatives of the deceased to Kishanganj Hospital. Thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested. 4. PW 7 is Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, who has conducted post mortem examination on 13.7.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. According to him, the dead-body was in advance stage of decomposition, peeling of skin and muscles, abdomen were very much disturbed. Foul smell was coming from the body, mouth open, tongue protruded, eyes bulged out. black hairs, rigor mortis absent. He estimated that time elapsed since death was more than three days. But according to him. no definite cause of death could be given due to advance stage of decomposition of the body. 5. PW 1 Hasiruddin and PW 3 Khahl are the witnesses from Village-Sarswati and have stated that the dead-body of Safeda was, in fact, taken out from the water of a ditch, situated just by the side of the house of the appellants. Thus, on going through the evidence of these witnesses as also the evidence of Investigating Officer, collected during the investigation, it was discovered that dead-body of Safeda was in fact first taken out from the water of the ditch and then kept in the varandah of the appellants. 6. The defence, as would appear from the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is total denial and innocence about the occurrence. But there was no denial that Safeda was the newly wedded wife of appellant Isaruddin nor that the dead-body, which was lying in the varandah of the accused persons was that of Safeda. There is no explanation by Isaruddin as to how his wife Safeda was killed and her dead-body was recorded from the water of a ditch. 7. The prosecution, in fact, examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. It has already been noticed that PW 1 and PW 3 are the witnesses from village-Sarswati. PW 7 is the doctor, PW 8 has figured as Investigating Officer. PW 10 is the brother of the deceased, on whose information the case was lodged. 7. The prosecution, in fact, examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. It has already been noticed that PW 1 and PW 3 are the witnesses from village-Sarswati. PW 7 is the doctor, PW 8 has figured as Investigating Officer. PW 10 is the brother of the deceased, on whose information the case was lodged. PW 2 and PW 4 have been tendered by the prosecution. PW 5 Jalil Mohammed alias Abdul Gafoor, PW 6 Budhi Khatoon (mother of Safeda Khatoon) and PW 9 Dhan Mohammad are the residents of village-Jholkhuwadargapara. 8. At the very outset I must state that there is no eye-witness of the murder of Safeda Khatoon. The case against the appellants depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the standard of proof required to convict a person on such evidence is well established by various decisions of the Apex Court. As noticed by the Apex Court in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 , that circumstances relied upon in such cases must be fully established and that chain of evidence furnished by the circumstances should be complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 9. The trial Court having considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other surrounding circumstances, has held that it was the husband and close relatives of Safeda, who after committing her murder brutally, had concealed the dead-body in a ditch. 10. Before proceeding to have a detailed analysis of different circumstances, leading to the murder, I must indicate that a bare reference to the evidence of the witnesses, this is established beyond doubt that appellant Isaruddin and his family members used to torture and assault Safeda from time to time. PW 6, the mother of the deceased, has stated that her daughter was mercilessly beaten by the accused persons few days ago. She has also alleged that Isaruddin had illicit relation with Hafidan (sister-in-law). Therefore, whenever a protest was made by Safeda to her husband about such behaviour, she was assaulted. She also stated that on hearing about death she proceeded to her daughters house and saw the dead-body lying in the varandah. She also said that clothes of her daughter had blood stains. She also found several injuries on the body. 11. Therefore, whenever a protest was made by Safeda to her husband about such behaviour, she was assaulted. She also stated that on hearing about death she proceeded to her daughters house and saw the dead-body lying in the varandah. She also said that clothes of her daughter had blood stains. She also found several injuries on the body. 11. PW 5 is another witness, who having learnt that Safeda Khatoon was killed by her in-laws, arrived at the Darwaja of Isaruddin and found the dead-body lying at the varandah. He also found several injuries on the deceased. This witness is a close relation of both the families. He had also stated before the police that he saw the blood coming out from the mouth of the deceased and mark of injuries on her body. Similar was the evidence of PW 9 Dhan Mohammed. He also learnt from the co-villagers that after killing Safeda Khatoon, the appellants had thrown the dead-body in the water of ditch. He also saw the dead-body of Safeda lying in the varandah of the appellants and noticed several injuries on her person. 12. Attempt was made by the defence to make out a case that Safeda died because of drowning. Therefore, the allegation that the accused persons committed her murder was far from truth. It was further stated that even the doctor (PW 7) in his evidence has admitted that he could not find any sign of external or internal injury on the person of the deceased due to advance stage of decomposition. 13. But the defence version regarding drowning etc. is far from truth and concocted. Because a bare reference to the evidence, of the Investigating Officer (PW 8), Hasiruddin (PW 1) and the informant (PW 10), it would appear that there was only knee deep water in the ditch where the dead-body was lying. Therefore, it really appears absurd to imagine that Safeda Khatoon died because of drowning. 14. Mr. Md. Wasi Akhtar learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in absence of any medical evidence of the doctor that Safeda Khatoon had injuries on her person, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons merely on suspicion. He further contended that not a single witness from the village has claimed to have seen the appellants assaulting Safeda or throwing the dead-body in the ditch. He further contended that not a single witness from the village has claimed to have seen the appellants assaulting Safeda or throwing the dead-body in the ditch. He next contended that no value can be attached to the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 10 since they are highly interested witnesses. Being the family members of Safeda, it was always expected from then that they would try to implicate the appellants in such a false and concocted case. According to the learned counsel apart from aforesaid discrepancies, there were several contradictions in the statement of PWs 6 and 9. 15. In my view, heaving regard to the consistent evidence of PW 5 (Jalil Mohammad alias Abdul Gafoor), PW 6 (Budhi Khatoon), PW 8 (Investigating Officer), PW 9 (Dhan Mohammad) and PW 10 (the informant) that Safeda had several injuries on her eyes, neck, mouth, tongue protruded, blood stains on Sari, injuries on hands and legs, it would be difficult to hold that Safeda died due to drowning and nobody had assault her. There is no doubt that the doctor (PW 7) in his evidence has stated that he could not find any sign of external or internal injuries due to advance stage of decomposition of the dead-body. But a question arises whether in presence of evidence of other prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the inquest report, merely on a vague opinion of the doctor, the credibility of the prosecution case can be doubted? 16. In my view, in the peculiar background of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the opinion of the doctor has to be rejected since it can not be the only source to decide the issue. Because from his evidence itself it would appear that he had found blisters all over the body, mouth open, tongue protruded and eyes bulging out. Faced with more or less similar situation, it has already been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramavarma Thirumulpad v. State of Kerala, 1995 SCC (Cri.) 402, that the medical evidence is only opinion of the doctor. It is hardly decisive as it is often inconclusive. In case, therefore, if no infirmity is found in the oral testimony of the witnesses, the vague opinion of the doctor can not in any way affect the evidentiary value of oral testimony of the witnesses nor the credibility of prosecution case. It is hardly decisive as it is often inconclusive. In case, therefore, if no infirmity is found in the oral testimony of the witnesses, the vague opinion of the doctor can not in any way affect the evidentiary value of oral testimony of the witnesses nor the credibility of prosecution case. Thus, keeping in mind the facts, stated above, in my view, the prosecution in this case has Safeda was thrown in the water by the appellants after committing her murder. 17. True it is that in fact there is no eye-witness to the actual assault etc., on Safeda. But having regard to several circumstances, enumerated by the witnesses, one can safely hold beyond reasonable doubt that it was the husband of the victim and her family members, who has committed such murder. To support such view it would be useful to summarise some of the glaring circumstances which I have noticed from the evidence on record. There is no denial by the defence that nearly about six months prior to the unfortunate incident Safeda was married with appellant Isaruddin. This has also come in evidence that accused Isaruddin had illicit relation with his sister-in-law, therefore, time to time Safeda used to protest regarding those activities. This has also come in evidence that Safeda was being tortured and assaulted by the husband and family members prior to the date of occurrence to which she had complained to her parents. 18. As per medical evidence the death of Safeda had taken place nearly about three days prior to the date of post mortem. This has also come in evidence that after taking out the dead- body from the ditch, it was kept in the varandah of the appellants. But no attempt was made to inform the police or the parents of Safeda about such death. The mother-in-law of Safeda only informed her parents that Safeda was missing from the house. But this lady also did not disclose that the dead-body of Safeda was recovered from the ditch and kept in the varandah. 19. Attempt was made by the defence to establish that Safeda died on account of drowning, but as per evidence on record only knee deep water was found in the ditch. But this lady also did not disclose that the dead-body of Safeda was recovered from the ditch and kept in the varandah. 19. Attempt was made by the defence to establish that Safeda died on account of drowning, but as per evidence on record only knee deep water was found in the ditch. Therefore, it is unbelievable that one can commit suicide in such ditch, particularly when the Investigating Officer and other witnesses had found several injuries on her person, details of which I have already noticed in the foregoing paragraphs. 20. That apart this being admitted case of the defence that at the time of death Safeda was residing with them, it was the duty of the husband and family members to explain and disclose the manner and circumstance under which she died. 21. Therefore, in my view, the above-mentioned circumstances, taken together, establish very much beyond suspicion that in fact, the appellants have committed the murder of Safeda. To make it more clear and specific under that circumstances, the value of such evidence is required to be considered, I am tempted to quote a passage from a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801 . "It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definite-ness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." 22. Thus having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances brought on record, I am of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the standard of test for conviction on circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which one can safely hold beyond all reasonable doubts that appellants have committed the murder of Safeda. 23. Thus having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances brought on record, I am of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the standard of test for conviction on circumstantial evidence, on the basis of which one can safely hold beyond all reasonable doubts that appellants have committed the murder of Safeda. 23. But in my view, the sentence of death as awarded by the Court below appears excessive. Therefore, for the ends of justice, I convert the death sentence of appellants to the imprisonment of life. 24. With the aforesaid modification of the sentences, the appeal is dismissed and reference is answered in negative. N.N.Singh, J. 25 I agree.