JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is a jail appeal by Satiya alias Sattu against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 8.5.1995 by which he convicted the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.1994 at about 2.10 p.m. Sohan Singh came to police station Vijaynagar and lodged report Ex. P/1 wherein he mentioned that on 1.9.1994 at about 8.30 a.m. Satiya accused appellant came to him and told that his wife had expired and asked whether he should bury her. (Dead bodies are buried amongst Meghwal community). Then Sohan Singh advised that her parents may be informed and she may be buried after her parents arrived. Thereafter Megh Singh and Balvir Singh went to the house -of Satiya and found that his wife Smt. Mooli was lying dead. There was an injury mark on her neck and a towel was found tied on her neck and head. It was further stated in the FIR that Satiya and his wife had quarreled in the night 2-3 days before and that after killing his wife Satiya had run away. The parents of Mst. Mooli had arrived and the dead body of Mooli was brought to Vijaynagar hospital. It was further stated in the FIR that Satiya was married to Mooli only 10-12 months before and that Satiya had strangulated her. The SHO of police station Vijay Nagar registered FIR No. 195/94 under section 302 IPC. Investigation started during which site plan Ex. P/3 and panchayatnama of dead body Ex. P/4 were prepared. Piece of towel was seized vide Ex. P/5. Post-mortem of Mooli was conducted by a board of doctors including PW 10 Dr. Devilal Bhakhar. After usual investigation, accused-appellant was charge-sheeted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 4.1.1995 framed charge under section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. Accused appellant, after hearing the charge, denied his indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 4.1.1995 framed charge under section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. Accused appellant, after hearing the charge, denied his indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Then accused-appellant Satiya was examined u /s. 313 Cr.P.C. Defence of the accused-appellant was that he was absent from his house on the fateful night and when he returned, he found that his wife was dead. He informed his in-laws and brought them. Accused-appellant did not produce any defence witness. After hearing both the parties learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. 3. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor at length. We have also gone through the entire record. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that only incriminating evidence against the accused appellant is of extra judicial confession as given by PW 4 Ganga Ram. According to him this is not sufficient to prove a case of murder against the accused-appellant. He submitted that defence of the accused-appellant is that he was out on the fateful night and that so many other persons live in the house, therefore, it could not be said that it was the accused and accused alone who could murder his wife. He also submitted that other witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution and that even Sohan Singh, PW 1, who informed to the police has turned hostile. He also submitted that though the case of the prosecution is that Mooli was strangulated by a towel and some of the witnesses have stated that when towel was recovered it was having blood stains but the towel recovered vide Ex. P/5 does not contain any blood stains. He submitted that the case has been cooked up against the accused-appellant with the help of parents of deceased Mooli whom the accused had himself informed and brought. He submitted that accused-appellant deserves acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. Let us first see if the death of Mst. Mooli was homicidal? Learned Amicus Curiae has not challenged this aspect of the case. PW 10 Dr. He submitted that accused-appellant deserves acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. Let us first see if the death of Mst. Mooli was homicidal? Learned Amicus Curiae has not challenged this aspect of the case. PW 10 Dr. Devilal Bhakhar, who was a member of the medical board which performed the post-mortem, has stated that post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 2.9.1994 and post-mortem report Ex. P/18 was prepared which bears the signatures of this witness as well as of Dr. Charan Jeet Singh. It was found that there was a ligature mark on the'neck of Smt. Mooli. It was about 5 ans. broad. Its details are that there was a groove around 5 cms. broad at the level of thyroid cartilege encircling neck horizontally. In the groove there was bruise 2" x 2" on and around neck mid region. There was another bruise of 5" x 3" on the left side of neck in the groove. These were antemortem in nature. According to the medical evidence the cause of death of Smt. Mooli was asphyxia due to strangulation. Thus the death of Smt. Mooli was homicidal. 7. Now we will see as to how the accused is tried to be connected with the crime by the prosecution? Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there was extra-ordinary delay in lodging the FIR because the accused-appellant, as per FIR Ex. P/1, came to Sohan Singh some time at 8.00 a.m. on 1.9.1994 when he advised the accused-appellant to inform the parents of the girl. It is submitted that when PW 1 had come to know about the death of the wife of the deceased he should have immediately informed the police on 1.9.1994 itself as the police station was only about 10 kms. away from village 43-G.B. where occurrence took place. He has submitted that no reason is coming forward as to why delay was caused and this delay has created addition/embellishment in the story of the prosecution. 8. We have scaled and examined the statement of PW 1 Sohan Singh who is the first informant. He has stated that accused-appellant came to him at 8.00 a.m. and told that his wife had died and asked if he could bury her. Then Sohan singh advised that he should go to the parents of the girl. 8. We have scaled and examined the statement of PW 1 Sohan Singh who is the first informant. He has stated that accused-appellant came to him at 8.00 a.m. and told that his wife had died and asked if he could bury her. Then Sohan singh advised that he should go to the parents of the girl. It is apparent from Ex. P/1 that the report was lodged after the parents of Smt. Mooli had arrived. Sohan Singh would not have ordinarily lodged the report on the very day because he had no suspicion about the murder of Mst. Mooli. The accused-appellant had just informed him that Mooli had expired and whether she should be buried and then the advise of the witness was that he should inform the parents of the girl. The witness has categorically stated that he did not know as to what was the cause of death of Smt. Mooli. We think that this is a sufficient and reasonable explanation of .the delay. 9. PW 2 Balvir Singh has stated that accused-appellant had come to him but he did not make any confession before him. According to PW 3 Smt. Kali she did not find the accused and Smt. Mooli quarrelling even once. She is the wife of the younger brother of accused-appellant and is living jointly in the family. Therefore, the circumstance that the accused-appellant and Smt. Mooli used to quarrel, is not proved by this witness. 10. Now we will take up the statements of Ganga Ram PW 4 and Ramu Ram PW 5 who are stated to be the star witnesses of the prosecution. PW 4 Ganga Ram is the real uncle of Smt. Mooli. He has stated that when he was going to village 43-G.B. at about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m., accused-appellant met in the way. He has stated that accused-appellant told him that he and Smt. Mooli had quarrelled and that he had strangulated Smt. Mooli with the help of a towel and killed her. When he wanted to further inquire as to why did he kill Mooli, accused-appellant ran away. The witness then went to the house of the accused-appellant and found that Mooli was lying on a bed and a towel was tied with her neck. He then went to call his brother Ramu Ram who is the father of deceased. When he wanted to further inquire as to why did he kill Mooli, accused-appellant ran away. The witness then went to the house of the accused-appellant and found that Mooli was lying on a bed and a towel was tied with her neck. He then went to call his brother Ramu Ram who is the father of deceased. After arrival of Ramu Ram the FIR was lodged by Sohan Singh. Ganga Ram was cross-examined at length. His statement does not appear to be natural. Firstly the accused-appellant could not have made a confession before him because Ganga Ram is the real uncle of the deceased. Appellant would not invite a noose for himself. It may be possible that the accused-appellant might have met him because PW 1 Sohan Singh had asked him to inform the parents of Mooli before her burial but ordinarily since the accused-appellant knew it very well that Ganga Ram was the real uncle of the deceased, he would not have made any confession before him. Secondly his statement appears to be unnatural because according to him the accused-appellant himself told that he and Mooli had quarrelled then question of asking as to why did he kill his wife, did not arise. The witness has stated that whatever accused-appellant told him, he narrated to Sohan Singh after reaching the residence of the accused-appellant. But this does not find mention in his statement Ex. D/1. Sohan Singh PW 1 also does not state so. Therefore, PW 4 Ganga Ram cannot be regarded as a truthful witness. According to him the Investigating Officer had come to the place of occurrence after the FIR was lodged but he did not tell him at that time that it was the accused who had made a confession before him. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not tell that the accused had made confession before him to Krishna Jat, Bhupendra Singh, Balvir Singh, Pema Ram or to the wife of Pema Ram. According to him some of them did not meet him and to others he did not disclose. Ordinarily if the accused would have confessed before him, he would tell so to the Investigating Officer as soon as he first met him or to other witnesses who were present at the house of the accused-appellant when he had reached there. According to him some of them did not meet him and to others he did not disclose. Ordinarily if the accused would have confessed before him, he would tell so to the Investigating Officer as soon as he first met him or to other witnesses who were present at the house of the accused-appellant when he had reached there. But his conduct is that he did not tell to anybody. It means that the accused-appellant had not made a clean breast disclosure before him. His behaviour is abnormal when he states that the accused-appellant in the way made a confession and then ran away. If it was so, ordinarily he would have tried to catch hold of the accused-appellant but he did not even try. So no reliance can be placed on his statement. Ordinarily an accused would confess his guilt before a person on whom he has faith. PW 4 Ganga Ram is not such a witness, he being the real uncle of the deceased would not have tried to save the accused-appellant and ordinarily the accused-appellant would not make any confession before him. Therefore, we hold that the accused-appellant would not have made confession before PW 4 Ganga Ram. Even if it was so made, he has not been able to prove the confession as discussed above. 11. PW 5 Ramu Ram is the father of deceased Mooli to whom his brother PW 4 Ganga Ram informed that the accused-appellant had murdered Mst. Mool i. He does not say that Ganga Ram told him about confession of the accused-appellant. He immediately came to the house of the accused-appellant and found that Mooli was lying on a cot in dead condition and her neck was tied with a towel. He also saw a mark on the neck of deceased. He has stated that towel was recovered before him by the police and it was blood smeared because the neck had some wounds. But from the recovery memo of towel Ex. P/5, which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, we find that the towel did contain even a stain of blood. Therefore, to say that the neck of deceased was strangulated by towel recovered vide Ex. P/5 is not correct. Recovery of towel does not connect the appellant with crime. 12. But from the recovery memo of towel Ex. P/5, which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, we find that the towel did contain even a stain of blood. Therefore, to say that the neck of deceased was strangulated by towel recovered vide Ex. P/5 is not correct. Recovery of towel does not connect the appellant with crime. 12. PW 6 Krishna Lal and PW 7 Bhupendra Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before them but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. There is no other incriminating evidence against the accused-appellant and we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on the basis of this extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant. The deceased was living in a joint family and there is no legal evidence against the accused-appellant. It cannot be ruled out that Mooli might have been killed by somebody else. Consequently the accused-appellant should be acquitted. 14. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Accused-appellant Satiya alias Sattu is acquitted from the charge of Section 302 IPC. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******