Judgment SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public prosecutor for the State and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case may be summarised as below :-SMT. Savitri was the wife of the appellant. Since no child was born to her the appellant married another woman. On account of second marriage the relations between Savitri and the appellant became tense. On the night intervening 8th and 9th February, 1974 Smt. Savitri died in unnatural circumstances. Information about her death was given at the Police Station Bhadra by the appellant himself at about 10 a. m. on 9th February, 1974. In the first information report the appellant stated that on the preceding night at about 3 a. m. he woke up in order to help his father to go to urinal, and after his father replied to the call of nature, the appellant heard the sound of throwing of something coming from the room on the first floor. He, therefore, went to the room in which his first wife Smt. Savitri was living and found that the body of Smt. Savitri was hanging from the ceiling to which it was tied with a rope. Just below the body there was a stool which was in a dislocated position. It was further stated in the first information report that the appellant tried to lift the body of Smt. Savitri but failed. Therefore, he pulled the rope with which Smt. Savitri was hanging so that rope might get broken but in place of breaking of the rope the hook to which the rope was tied came out of the ceiling and the body of Smt. Savitri fell on the ground. It was also stated that after the body of Smt. Savitri fell on the ground the appellant cut the rope with a blade and placed the body of Savitri on a cot. Thereafter Savitri inhaled one or two breaths and died: It was also stated that the appellant called Phoola Ram, Kurda Ram and Prabhu Ram who lived in the neighbourhood and told them that Smt. Savitri had committed suicide because the appellant had celebrated a second marriage. Police registered a case on the basis of the first information report submitted by the appellant and started proceedings under S. 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Police registered a case on the basis of the first information report submitted by the appellant and started proceedings under S. 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Station House Officer of the police station, Bhadra inspected site on which dead body of Smt. Savitri was lying. He found that there were injuries on the dead body. Pieces of four beedis and some match-sticks were also found near the dead body. At the time of inspection of the room where the dead body was lying the Station House Officer of the Police Station found that one hook made of iron was fastened to the ceiling and two pieces of rope were hanging from the hook, one of them was four feet long and the other was three feet long. Another hook was lying on the ground, both the hooks appeared to have been fastened to the hook without any twisting at the other end. None of them was sufficient to bear the weight of a human being and when some pressure was applied to the hook which was fastened to the ceiling it easily came out with the two pieces of rope fastened to it. Inquest, report was prepared in which it was opined that Smt. Savitri died an unnatural death and her death was not on account of suicide and that the first information report given by the appellant at the police station was not correct. ( 3 ) POST-MORTEM examination of the dead body of Smt. Savitri was conducted. It was found that she died on account of strangulation. On 10th February, 1974 Police registered the case under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was arrested and it was found that he had injuries on his hands and legs and he was medically examined, 9 abrasions were found on his body which are entered in the Medico Legal Report Ex. P-10. After investigation a challan was submitted in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra who committed the case to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Later on the case was made over to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh who tried the case. The charge under S. 302 of the IPC was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charge. Later on the case was made over to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh who tried the case. The charge under S. 302 of the IPC was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charge. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, namely, Kurda Ram (PW- 1), Kurda Ram (PW. 2), Jot Ram (PW-3), Baldev Kishan (PW-4), Ramjas (PW-5) and Prahalad Ram (PW-6) in support of the prosecution story. The statement of the appellant was recorded under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After hearing both the parties the learned Additional District and. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the appellant under S. 302 of the IPC as mentioned above. ( 5 ) THE evidence in the case was circumstantial. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh held that on the night of occurrence the appellant was present inside the house in which his first wife Smt. Savitri was murdered. And that as many as 9 abrasions were found on the body of the appellant by the Doctor who examined appellants injuries and they were of 24 hours duration and in the opinion of the Doctor those abrasions could have been caused during a struggle between the appellant and the deceased and the version of the appellant was not probable. It was also held by him that the prosecution evidence proved that rope was cut with a knife and the manner in which it was cut ruled out the story of suicide and that it was also proved by the evidence of Jot Ram (PW-3) that on the night of occurrence Jot Ram heard some woman saying in the house of the appellant dont kill. Jot Ram had also proved that he heard the accused addressing Phoola Ram asking him to leave as the work had been done. Jot Ram had also proved that he heard the accused addressing Phoola Ram asking him to leave as the work had been done. It was also proved that the story of suicide was improbable because the hooks from which the dead body was alleged to have been hanging when the appellant entered the room was not capable of bearing the weight of a person, and that the Station House Officer of the Police Station found one of the hooks already lying on the ground near the dead body and the other hook which was fastened to the ceiling easily came out when some force was applied to the rope for pulling down. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge also considered the circumstance that relations between the appellant and the deceased were strained because the appellant had contracted second marriage. On the basis of above mentioned circumstances the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was proved that the appellant had intentionally caused the death of Smt. Savitri and there by committed the offence punishable under S. 302 of the IPC. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to bring guilt home to the appellant and the findings of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge are not correct and the circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge for convicting the appellant are not of such nature as to justify the conclusion of guilt in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the circumstances proved by the prosecution are not individually or collectively sufficient to lead to the inference that the appellant committed murder of his first wife Smt. Savitri and that in this case the story given by the appellant that Smt. Savitri committed suicide is probable and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt and, therefore, the appeal should be accepted and the verdict of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that the prosecution evidence in the facts and circumstances of this case proves it beyond reasonable doubt that it is appellant and appellant alone who committed the murder of Smt. Savitri and that the story of suicide was concocted with a view to save himself from law and that story of suicide is completely improbable. ( 8 ) WE have carefully considered, the rival arguments, the evidence produced by the prosecution and the reason given by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge for convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is not disputed that Smt. Saviti was the first legally wedded wife of the appellant and that the relations between appellant and Smt. Savitri were strained because the appellant had contracted a second marriage. In his statement recorded under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appellant clearly admitted that because he had contracted second marriage Smt. Savitri was unhappy with him. It is also not disputed that on the night of occurrence Smt. Savitri was living in the same house in which the appellant was living. ( 9 ) THE testimony of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6) proves that when he inspected the site the dead body of Smt. Savitri was lying in the house of the appellant. It is also not disputed that on 9th February, 1974 the appellant gave information at the Police Station, Bhadra about the death of his first wife Smt. Savitri and that information was recorded on Ex. P-1 in the pro forma prescribed for recording information for the unnatural deaths. Regarding Ex. P-1 the appellant has admitted in his statement under S. 311 of the Cr. P. C. that he had given information at the police station about the death of his first wife and that information is Ex. P-1. In Ex. P-1 he gave the version that on the night of occurrence his first wife Smt. Savitri was sleeping in the chobara situated in the first floor and that at about 3-00 a. m. he heard some sound of falling of something and on hearing that sound he went to the chobara in which Smt. Savitri was sleeping and that the dead body of smt. Savitri was hanging from the ceiling with a rope and that just below the hanging body of Savitri there was a stool in dislocated position and that he tried to lift up the body of Savitri but failed he, therefore, tried to break the rope by pulling the same but the rope was not broken and the hook which was fastened to the ceiling came out of the ceiling and Smt. Savitris body fell on the ground. It was also stated in the information that the appellant cut the rope with a blade and placed the body of Savitri on a carpet and thereafter Smt. Sarvitri died and then he called Phoola Ram, Kurda Ram and Prahhu Ram and told them that his wife had committed suicide. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the information Ex. P-1 is not admissible in evidence because it is not a substantive piece of evidence and it was made to a Police Officer. In our opinion both these objections are not sustainable. Information of Ex. P-1 is not covered by S. 25 of the Evidence Act because it does not contain any confession. This information is not hit by S. 162 of the Cr. P. C. because at the time when this information was given no investigation about the murder of Smt. Savitri was in progress. Under S. 8 of the Evidence Act the conduct of the appellant is admissible because S. 8 of the Evidence Act expressly provides "that conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant there to, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and whether it was previous or subsequent there to. "illustration (e) given below S. 8 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that "the fact that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed, or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence of procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant. " In the instant case the accused-appellant after the murder of Smt. Savitri gave information at the Police Station that Smt. Savitri had committed suicide and he thereby gave a version favourable to himself. Therefore, the information contained in Ex. P-1 is relevant under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. To what extent this information can prove the charge of murder against the appellant is quite a different issue. The objection against the admissibility of Ex. P-1 must, therefore, be held to be groundless. It is established by the evidence of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6) that when he visited the site one hook was lying on the ground and the other hook was fastened to the ceiling and two pieces of rope were hanging on it and when he pulled the rope the hook easily came out of the ceiling and that both the hooks were not bent or twisted to other corner and they were unable to bear the weight of a person. This statement of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6) has not been shaken in the cross-examination. In the Report Ex. P-2 which bears the signatures and thumb impression of the "panchas" it is clearly mentioned that the hook which was fastened to ceiling came out of the ceiling when the rope was pulled and none of the two hooks were strong enough to bare the weight of a person. Ex. P-2, therefore, corroborates the statement of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6 ). The statement of Kurda Ram (PW. 1) also supports the statement of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6 ). Ex. P-2, therefore, corroborates the statement of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6 ). The statement of Kurda Ram (PW. 1) also supports the statement of Prahalad Ram (PW. 6 ). We, therefore, hold that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was justified in holding that it has been proved by the prosecution that none of the two hooks which were fastened to the ceiling were strong enough to bear the weight of a person and that the other hook which was fastened to the ceiling came out of the ceiling when Prahalad Ram (PW. 6) pulled the rope. This circumstance is very important because, it rules out the possibility of the story of suicide being probable. If both the hooks were so loosely fitted to the ceiling that they came out easily when the rope was pulled, the story that the deceased committed suicide by hanging with the rope tied to those hooks must be rejected as completely improbable. ( 11 ) JOT Ram (PW. 3) has deposed that on the night of occurrence his father was ill, therefore, he along with Kurda Ram, Khem Chand and others were present in his house and at night when his fathers condition became serious he went to the house of Kurda Ram and Rawata and called Rawata but he was not available. Near the house of Rawata there was the house of appellant and at that time he heard someone speaking in the house "maro Na, Maro Na"which means "dont kill, dont kill" and these words were of some woman. Jot Ram (PW. 3) has added that on hearing these words he knocked at the door of the appellant and at that time he heard the appellant saying "phoola Chad Re Sar Gaya Kaam" which means "phoola leave it the work is done". And thereafter the appellant opened the door of his house and from inside the house of appellant Phoola Ram came out and went away. Jot Ram (PW. 3) has further added that he asked Phoola Ram as to what he had done but Phoola did not reply and went away and thereafter he along with Kurda Ram returned to his house and thereafter he heard that appellants wife had died. The statement of Jot Ram (PW. 3) could not be shaken in the lengthy cross-examination. 3) has further added that he asked Phoola Ram as to what he had done but Phoola did not reply and went away and thereafter he along with Kurda Ram returned to his house and thereafter he heard that appellants wife had died. The statement of Jot Ram (PW. 3) could not be shaken in the lengthy cross-examination. We are, therefore, of the opinion that learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake by placing reliance on the statement given by Jot Ram (PW. 3 ). ( 12 ) DR. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Savitri. He found 4-5 abrasions over the left knee, 3 abrasions over the anterior surface of right knee, 2 abrasions over the past aspect of right elbow, 3 small abrasions over the past aspect of left elbow and one abrasion just lateral to right eye. There was a mark over the neck which was quite broad and in front it extended from lower border of mandible upto cricoid cartilage it was directed obliquely upward extending from left mastoid process to right ear lobule and it was interrupted at the back. Muscles of the neck under mark were contused. Left carotid artery was lacerated and blood had come out from mouth, tongue and at one place there was laceration. The cause of death was asphyxia on account of strangulation. Dr. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4) has proved the Post-mortem Report Ex. P-9. He has also proved the medico-legal report of the injuries of the appellant. The testimony of this witness shows that the appellant had as many as 9 injuries on his body when he was medically examined. The medico-legal report is Ex. P-10. Dr. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4) has stated that the abrasions found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by struggle and the injuries of the appellant could also be possible by struggle. Dr. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4) was specifically asked if the injuries found on the deceased could be caused in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant and the answer was in the negative. The testimony of Dr. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4) clearly rules out the possibility of the injuries found on the deceased having been caused by an attempt to commit suicide as was suggested to him. The testimony of Dr. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4) clearly rules out the possibility of the injuries found on the deceased having been caused by an attempt to commit suicide as was suggested to him. We, therefore, find no reason for not relying upon the testimony given by Dr. Baldev Kishan (PW. 4 ). ( 13 ) FOR reasons mentioned above we generally agree with the findings given by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and we come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the only inference that can be drawn is that it was the appellant who intentionally caused the death of his first wife Smt. Savitri by strangulating her and thereafter gave a false version to the effect that Smt. Savitri had committed suicide. The fact that Phoola Ram was found coming out of the house soon after the occurrence and that the parents of appellant were also residing in the house, is not sufficient to arrive at any different conclusion. May be that Phoola Ram might have assisted the appellant in committing the murder of Smt. Savitri and the appellants mother might have been a witness to the whole occurrence but that does not justify the conclusion that the accused was innocent and he did not commit the murder of his first wife. Appellants father as was indicated by Report Ex. P-1 was not even in a position to go to the urinal without the assistance of the appellant. Besides there is no reason why any other person should commit the murder of Smt. Savitri. In any case the inference of active involvement of the appellant in murder of Smt. Savitri fully established in the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge deserve to be upheld. ( 14 ) FOR reasons mentioned above we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction as well as the sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, are hereby upheld. The appellant is on bail his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. ( 14 ) FOR reasons mentioned above we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction as well as the sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, are hereby upheld. The appellant is on bail his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He is hereby given 15 days time to surrender before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, failing which the District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh shall issue a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the appellant and after admission of the warrant of arrest or the surrender of the appellant as the case may be, commit the appellant in jail so that he may serve out the sentence awarded to him. Appeal dismissed. .