JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar camp, Karanpur under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days R.I. He has come in appeal to this Court, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the entire record. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Manglaram gave statement to police on 7.5.1990 at 6.30 p.m. to the effect that his daughter Vidhyadevi was married to the appellant 11 years ago. At the time of marriage accused-appellant was living in village 8 A. After some time the husband and wife started living in village 8 EEA where husband worked as labourer. Accused-appellant used to beat and harass his wife. Panchayats were held many a time and even compromise was arrived at. For the last one year accused appellant was working as an agricultural labourer with Manjeetsingh of village 41 RB. Vidhyadevi was also living with the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant used to maltreat even in this village. On 7.5.1995 Manglaram received an information that the accused appellant had murdered his wife Vidhyadevi by strangulation. On this information Manglaram and his son Devilal reached to village 41 RB. They found that the police was already present there. He (Manglaram) enquired from the villagers and was informed that it was the accused-appellant who murdered Vidhyadevi at 3.30 p.m. Statement of Manglaram Ex. P/6 was recorded by AST Shiv Karan and was sent to Police Station Padampur where a case under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered. After usual investigation, challah was presented against the accused-appellant and he was tried and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar camp Shri Karanpur for the offence under section 302 Procedure Code as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant by which it may be concluded that it was he who committed the murder. He submitted that the accused-appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the evidence of the prosecution is unreliable, he therefore, prayed that the appellant should be acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant by which it may be concluded that it was he who committed the murder. He submitted that the accused-appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the evidence of the prosecution is unreliable, he therefore, prayed that the appellant should be acquitted. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that circumstances against the accused-appellant are such in which a conclusion to be drawn is that it is he who has murdered his wife. He tried to support the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is Dr. Harbans Khanna PW 5 who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the postmortem report Ex. P/15. According to him the following injuries were found on the body of Mst. Vidhyadevi which were ante mortem in nature : 1. Bruise 4 cm x 1 cm intempted (four 1cm x 1 cm) on right side of neck posto-lateral side. 2. Bruise 1 cm x 1/2cm on lateral side to right side of neck just above injury no. 1 3. Bruise 8 cm x 1 cm intempted multiple on left side of neck posto-lateral aspect. 4. After doing postmortem, the Board of Doctors which was constituted for the purpose gave an opinion that the lady Vidhyadevi died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation (throttling). So the conclusion is that the death was homicidal. 5. The case of the prosecution is that it was the accused-appellant who committed murder of his wife at 3.30 p.m. on 7.5.1995. There is no direct evidence to this effect. The circumstances relied by the prosecution are that the accused was having illicit relations with his brother's wife, that it was he who informed PW 6 Sukhram that he had committed murder and the same information was recorded in Rojnamacha. 6. PW 6 Sukhram has stated that on 7.5.1995 accused-appellant came to him at 5.30 p.m. and informed that he had murdered his wife by strangulation and the dead body was lying in the Kotha. ASI Ratiram recorded the information in the Rojnamacha and sent information to the Circle Officer by a wireless. He went to the site thereafter. Then Ex. P/6 was recorded which was later on sent to Police Station, Padampur. ASI Ratiram recorded the information in the Rojnamacha and sent information to the Circle Officer by a wireless. He went to the site thereafter. Then Ex. P/6 was recorded which was later on sent to Police Station, Padampur. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that any confession made to a police officer is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore he has submitted that the statement given by the accused-appellant Ratiram is inadmissible in evidence. To this learned Public Prosecutor replied that the accused had surrendered before this witness and evidence of this circumstance is admissible. There is no doubt that any admission about a guilt made before a Police Officer is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, so far as Rojnamacha in which the entry was made, has not been produced and no reason has been explained as to why it was withheld. It's entry has not been proved. The conclusion is that had it been produced it would not have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore non production of Rojnamacha and non proof of entry in it are fatal to the prosecution. The next circumstance relied by the prosecution is that the accused-appellant was having illicit relations with his brother's wife. There is no reliable evidence about it on record. The only evidence is of Manglaram PW 3 who is the father of deceased Vidhyadevi. He has stated in the cross-examination that the accused-appellant was having illicit relations with his brother's wife and therefore he used to give beatings to his wife. He did not say so even in examination in chief. This was not told by him even during investigation as Ex. D/1 statement does not contain this fact. So it can very well be concluded that it is an after-thought story in order to implicate the accused-appellant. Thus, the two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution fall to the ground. 7. Now an important question arises whether Ratiram was present in the Kotha at about 3.30 p.m. when the offence is said to have been committed. PW 1 Ma njeetsingh has stated that Vidhyadevi and Ratiram used to live in Kotha of his house. He stated that Ratiram had gone to work in the field and he did not know if Ratiram had come to his Kotha during the day time. PW 1 Ma njeetsingh has stated that Vidhyadevi and Ratiram used to live in Kotha of his house. He stated that Ratiram had gone to work in the field and he did not know if Ratiram had come to his Kotha during the day time. According to PW 2 Satnam Singh, accused-appellant and his wife were residing in a Kotha in Nohra of Manjeet Singh alongwith their children. He does not know if the accused-appellant was present in Kotha on the day of incident. So there is no evidence to the effect that the accused was present in the Kotha during the day time. Prosecution is silent as to where the children of the couple had gone. Bhuraram used to live near the Kotha of the accused-appellant. He was not present and had gone with the accused-appellant to the fields. The case of the prosecution was that accused-appellant had come from the field during the day time. It was Bhuraram who had seen him coming back to his residence. The accused-appellant is also said to have made extra-judicial confession before Bhuraram. But Bhura Ram has not been produced by the prosecution. He was a material witness. When the prosecution has withheld this material witness, it gives another serious blow to the prosecution. Now the only circumstance against the appellant that remains is with regard to bad relations with his wife. There is no apparent reason as to why he used to maltreat his wife. PW 3 Manglaram the father, PW 4 Devilal the brother of deceased Vidhyadevi have stated that the accused-appellant was having bad relations with his wife and used to beat her sometimes. These two witnesses were not living with appellant and his wife. PW 1 Manjeet Singh is the owner of Kotha as well as the employer of accused-appellant. He does not state about ill treatment of his wife by appellant. Therefore this circumstance of accused having bad relations with his wife is not proved. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must create a strong chain and the only conclusion must be to the hypothesis that it was the accused and accused alone who committed the murder. There is no such chain of circumstances. There is no evidence about motive as well. Prosecution has not been able to prove its case and accused-appellant deserves acquittal. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. There is no such chain of circumstances. There is no evidence about motive as well. Prosecution has not been able to prove its case and accused-appellant deserves acquittal. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code The accused-appellant is in jail he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******