JUDGMENT A.L.Vaidya, J.: Nikka Ram appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Under Section 201, the appellant was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/— default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The present appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of his wife Manjit Kaur. The prosecution case as put up against the appellant has been that on 21.7.1994 at about 8.45 in the morning, Partap Singh, Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Palohra, Teh. Jawali, Distt. Kangra made a preport to the police. It was reported that a deed body of a lady in a gunny bag was lying near the Khad. The dead body was de-composed and; probably on account of the flow of the water stopped there. It was also reported that the informant did not know from where that has come. On this report, the S.H.O. alongwith other police officials went to the spot and noticed the dead body lying in the water which was in a gunny bag. Photographs of the dead body were taken at the spot. The dead body was taken out of the gunny bag. and again its photographs was taken. It was revealed that the dead body was of a lady aged about 28 to 30 years which was dc-composed. At that time, the dead body was having a Salwar, Kameej and Dupatta of Bhagwan colour and those clothes appeared to be* ready-made- The dead body could not be identified. A golden ring and a chhala alongwith Kara were there which were taken into possession. The Deputy Superintendent of Poli6e reached the spot, who also inspected the dead body. It appeared that the lady was murdered and thereafter put in the gunny bag and then thrown in the khad water: On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the present case under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered. 3. After making the inquest. The dead body was sent for post mortem at Civil Hospital, Nurpur. It appeared that the lady was murdered and thereafter put in the gunny bag and then thrown in the khad water: On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the present case under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered. 3. After making the inquest. The dead body was sent for post mortem at Civil Hospital, Nurpur. The doctor opined that the cause of the death was cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia, due to throttling." the dead body was thereafter cremated, by the police, as the dead body, at that time, had not been identified. 4. Further case of the prosecution has been that on 23.7.1994, Ramesh Chand, PW-2, son of Shri Mehta Ram, the father of the deceased made a statement to the .police at the Police Station that he was working as a Lineman in P.S.E.B. Ludhiana; and he had two daughters, the elder being Manju alias Manjit Kaur who was aged about 22 years. He also stated that the accused Nikka Ram was also working in Ludhiana in some private company and he fell in love with Manju and she was as such married to the accused on 16.4.1991. According to him, for some period, the relations between his daughter and son-in-law were quits normal, but later on, the father was informed by Nikka Ram that Manju was visiting Kawaries and on account of that she was not having good character. The father also stated before the police that on 23.7.1994, at about 6:30 in the evening son-in-law Nikka Ram accused came to his quarter and informed him that1Manju since Sunday was missing and at that time, S/Sh. Darshan and Rakesh Kumar were also sitting in his quarter. The father also informed the police that when they seriously asked the accused, then the accused informed that after killing Manjit Kaur, he took the dead body in a cycle and throw it in the Sutlej and thereafter, according to the father of the deceased, Ramesh Chand called Pradhan Gurmeet Singh and informed him about the said fact and thereafter Pradhan Asked Nikka Ram, after taking him to some distance and thereafter, Nikka Ram accused disclosed that on 15.7.1994, ho took his wife Manjit Kaur from his house and they got down at Junta and thereafter walked on foot and reached. a village and staved for the night in the house, of an un-known person and thereafter on 16.7.1994 in the morning, both of them left and in the way, Nikka Ram, after putting Dupatta in the mouth of Manju,: killed her by throttling and thereafter put the dead body in a gunny bag and kept the same on the bank of the khad. Thereafter, Ramesh, the father of the deceased came. To his house in Himachal. There he came to know that dead body of a lady. In a gunny bag, was found in the water of khad and thereafter Ramesh went to the Police Station. The ear rings and chhala recovered from the dead body of the deceased by the Police were shown to Ramesh, who identified the same to be that of his daughter deceased Manju. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. 5. During investigation, some photographs of the deceased at the time of her marriage were taken into possession alongwith other articles. The statement of Smt. Swaroop Rani was recorded where the deceased and her husband-accused spent night and next morning in the early hours, left the house. The identification of the various articles of the deceased was conducted before a judicial Magistrate. 6. It was on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances that the challan was put up against the accused. 7. The conviction and sentences passed against the appellant have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been scrutinized minutely. 9. The present case is entirely dependent upon circumstantial evidence. 1 In a case of present nature, in order to secure the conviction, the prosecution | has, first of all, to establish each circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt and thereafter, all such legally established circumstances have to be taken together and by doing so, the entire chain of circumstances must lead to the sole inference that it was accused and none else who has committed the crime. In case the aforesaid test is qualified by the prosecution evidence, it can be legally said that prosecution has been successful in discharging the onus of proving the guilt against the accused successfully. 10. 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 259 Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, at this stage, can safely be referred. In case the aforesaid test is qualified by the prosecution evidence, it can be legally said that prosecution has been successful in discharging the onus of proving the guilt against the accused successfully. 10. 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 259 Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, at this stage, can safely be referred. In this reported case, their Lordships of the Apex Court have dealt with the case of present nature depending upon circumstantial evidence alone. The following observations are very much relevant: "It is now well-settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof." 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle in mind, the circumstances brought on record during the trial of the present case have, first of all, to be taken note of. The prosecution, in the present trial, has tried to bring on record the following circumstances; (i) Identity of the deceased and her ornaments and wearing apparels; (ii) Medical evidence; (iii) Accused taking leave from his employer on the relevant date; (iv) Accused, staying along with the deceased, for, the night prior to the occurrence in the house of PW-16 Swaroop Rani; (v) Recoveries; (vi) extra-judicial confession made by the accused, and 12. The aforesaid circumstances, according to prosecution, have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The aforesaid circumstances, according to prosecution, have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to come to that conclusion, the evidence touching every circumstance has to be appreciated in a legal meaner which is being done as under: (i) Identity of the deceased and her .ornaments and wearing apparels: In order to prove that the dead body recovered was that of Manjeet Kaur alias Manju, daughter of Ramesh Chand, PW-2 various types of evidence has been examined during the trial, which can be referred as under: (a) The photographs of the dead body; (b) Photographs of Manjit Kaur alias Manju when she was stated to be alive, (c) Ring Ex.P-l, Shirt Ex.P-2, Salwar Ex.P-3, Dupatta Ex.PT4, Kara Ex.P-5 and Chhala Ex.P-7 which were alleged to have been recovered from the dead body. 13. It is an admitted fact that when the dead body was recovered by the police, it was not identified by anybody and according to-the investigating Officer who was examined as PW-19, Inspector. Gulab. Singh, the dead body was in a de-composed state and beyond identification, but again said that the dead body could have been identified by seeing the same, although it was decomposed, meaning thereby that the dead body, at the time of recover}, was found to be de-composed but could be identified. The persons who could identify such dead body so far as the present case was concerned, were the close relatives of the deceased and in. the present case, nobody else than her father who appeared as PW- couId be the person who could be the same. 14. The.doctor.who conducted the post mortem was examined as PW-1. He stated that he has conducted the post mortem examination of a female adult unknown, resident of unknown, brought by constable .Vinod Kumar No.842 and Shri Chuni lal No. 11, Police Station. Jawali. The doctor also stated that the body was brought from Buhal and Nahadh Khad of Police Station, Jawali. So, at the time of post mortem, the identity of the deceased was not at all fixed. 15. During investigation, the photographs of the dead body were taken. Ex.PQ /I and Ex.PQ/2 were, the photographs ofthe dead body when the dead body had been taken-out of the bag, while photographs Ex.PQ/3 and Ex.PQ/4 were the photographs when the. dead body. was in the bag itself. 15. During investigation, the photographs of the dead body were taken. Ex.PQ /I and Ex.PQ/2 were, the photographs ofthe dead body when the dead body had been taken-out of the bag, while photographs Ex.PQ/3 and Ex.PQ/4 were the photographs when the. dead body. was in the bag itself. The photographs of the dead body brought on record, could lead to the identification of the dead body, had these photographs been shown to the close relatives of the deceased. Those photographs were taken by PW?4, police photographer. 16. At this stage, the statement of the father of the deceased who was examined as PW-2 Shri Ramesh Chand, in this particular behalf, can safely be referred. Admittedly, the deed body had been cremated before the father joined the investigation. The father stated on oath that four photographs were handed over by him to the police which were taken at the time of the marriage of his daughter with accused and those photographs were Ex.PD/I to Ex.PD/3. It is really very strange to note that photographs Ex.PQ/1 and Ex.PQ/2 of the dead body were not shown to this witness for identification of the dead body. He was the person who could identify even from the photographs of the dead body, if it was that of deceased Manju, his daughter. By not putting the photographs of the dead body to this witness for identification purposes, is a circumstances which adversely affects the prosecution case. No explanation in this behalf has been rendered on behalf of the prosecution. 17. It is the prosecution case that the deceased along with her husband, the accused, stayed for the night in the house of PW -16 Smt. Sarup Rani. Smt. Sarup Rani was, again, an important witness to identify the dead body. As per prosecution story, a day prior to the occurrence, the accused and his wife Manju stayed with Sarup • Rani in her house. Sarup Rani, while appearing as PW-16, stated that she could identify the photographs of the said lady and according to her, Ex.PG was the photograph of the said lady filong with the accused. Ex.PG is stated to be the photograph of the accused and his wife Manju when she was alleged to be alive. Sarup Rani, while appearing as PW-16, stated that she could identify the photographs of the said lady and according to her, Ex.PG was the photograph of the said lady filong with the accused. Ex.PG is stated to be the photograph of the accused and his wife Manju when she was alleged to be alive. Again, it is sorry to note, that as per prosecution evidence this PW-16 was the person who had seen Manju with the accused last, was not shown the photographs of the dead body so as to connect the same with Manju. It is correct that the body was de-composed, but not to that extent as stated by the investigating officer, to be beyond the scope of identification. By not putting the photographs of the dead body Ex.PQ/1 Ex.PQ/2 to this lady PW-16, again, a circumstance adverse to the prosecutions has come up during the present trial. 18. There is absolutely no explanation coining from the prosecution side as to why the photographs of the dead body were not shown to the persons who, knew Manju personally so as to connect the dead body with the person of Manju in order to confirm the fact that the dead body was that of Manju and none else. This is such a circumstances which goes’ to the root of the case and creates doubt in the prosecution case. 19. .The other photographs brought on record and as referred to above, were that of Manju at time of her Marriage and along with her. Husband. Those have been identified to be that of Manju, but that win not serve the purpose of the prosecution in establishing the identity of dead body with Manju. The father has identified his daughter in these photographs. Similarly, PW-16 identified that lady in Ex. PG. 20. Regarding the identification that the dead body belonged to Manju daughter of PW-2, the wearing apparels alongwith ring, chhala etc. recovered from the body of the deceased were put to the witnesses for identification purposes so as to connect the dead body with the person of Manju. 21. In this behalf, the father of Manju PW-2 Shri Ramesh Chand, deposed that he identified the dead body of his daughter on the basis of ring, chhala kara shown to him by the police. 21. In this behalf, the father of Manju PW-2 Shri Ramesh Chand, deposed that he identified the dead body of his daughter on the basis of ring, chhala kara shown to him by the police. He further added that kara Ex.P.5, ring Ex.P.6 and chhala Ex.P.7 belonged to his daughter on the basis of which he was identified the dead body to be that of his daughter. He also stated that he had identified the shirt Ex.P.2, salwar Ex.P.3 and Dupatta Ex.P-4 which had been mixed with similar types of two salwars and dupattas and the ear ring Ex.P-1 which was mixed with similar types of rings in the presence of Magistrate. He further added that he had identified the clothes of his daughter on the basis of the embroidery, thereon and since she had. come to his house twice or thrice by wearing those clothes. He also stated that the clothes were, of Bhagwan colour. 22. Similarly, PW-16 Smt. Sarup Rani stated that the lady accompanying the accused was wearing the clothes of Bhagwan colour and she could identify the said clothes. She further stated that the clothes Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 were the same which the lady accompanying the accused, was wearing on the relevant day. According to her, the accused was brought to her by the police after about 12-13 days when he along with his wife had stayed with her and at that time she had recognised the accused. This lady also stated that no identification parade was conducted in which she was called to identify the clothes. She also stated that the lady accompanying the accused, apart from the clothes, was wearing high healed sandals. According to the witness^-she was not wearing any ornaments. 23. PW-12 is the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the identification and proceedings pertaining to me identification of shirt Ex.P-2, SalwarEx.P-3, dupatta Ex.P-4 and ear rings Ex.P-1 which were put on by the deceased. The Magistrate Has given his report Ex.P-N. According -to him PW Ramesh Chand had correctly identified all these articles belonging to his daughter. The cross-examination of this witness" makes the entire proceedings of doubtful nature, which will riot serve the purpose of the prosecution at all. He stated During cross-examination that the clothes, namely, Salwars, Shirts, dupattas for being mixed with Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-4 were brought from the market and the ear rings were also arranged from the market. The cross-examination of this witness" makes the entire proceedings of doubtful nature, which will riot serve the purpose of the prosecution at all. He stated During cross-examination that the clothes, namely, Salwars, Shirts, dupattas for being mixed with Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-4 were brought from the market and the ear rings were also arranged from the market. He added that the clothes were not brand new and he did not remember as to whether the "ear rings were new or were! used one. According to him, while mixing the clothes with Ex. ?-2 to.Ex.P-4,they) 24. Thus from the statement of the magistrate, it cannot be inferred specifically that at the time of identification of the clothes and the rings, almost similar, types, of articles were mixed with these exhibits. In a case of present nature where similar types, of articles of the same shade and age were not mixed, it could not be easy, to identify those clothes and rings. P W-2 is the person who is alleged to have identified these article^ before the Magistrate. So far as PW-16 was concerned, she was not at all associated with these identification proceedings. Moreover. This PW 16 was very specific in deposing that the lady who visited her houses was not wearing any ornaments. 25. At this stage statement of PW-2, the father of the deceased can be again referred, wherein he deposed that he had. Identified the dead body of his daughter on the basis of ring, chhala and Kara. He further added that Ex.PC was prepared at the time, of identification of dead body by him and Om Parkash on the basis of Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-7. Ex.PD is the document pertaining to the recovery of iron chhala, one ring, which was coloring like gold. There two articles were taken into possession at the time of recovery of the dead body as These articles had fallen from the dead body at that time as has been mentioned in Ex.PC. This Ex.PC is dated 21.7.1994, meaning thereby that the ring was taken into possession on, 21.7.1994, there is a foot note on Ex.PC which recorded that these articles were not sealed as the dead body was still to be identified. That means ring was not at all scaled and it had been shown to PW-2 alongwith chhala and Kara. The identification was conducted on. That means ring was not at all scaled and it had been shown to PW-2 alongwith chhala and Kara. The identification was conducted on. 4.8.1994, when this ring, by the Magistrate, was opened from a sealed parcel. So, the likelihood of the ring having been shown to the father prior to the identification proceedings could not be ruled out. 26. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence examined during the trial, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been successful in connecting the dead body recovered to be that of Manju, the daughter of PW-2 beyond all reasonable doubt, especially when the photographs of die dead body were not at all shown to the father or nearest relatives of Manju for its identifications. : (ii) MEDICAL EVIDENCE. - - 27. PW. l is Dr. Vijay Kumar. Who conducted post mortem on the female body of an adult lady on 21.7.1994. As pointed out above, at the time of post mortem, the dead body was not identified at all. According to doctor, the causes of death was cardio-respiratory failure duo to asphyxia due to throttling and die probable duration between injury and death was within 5 to 10 minutes and between death and post mortem within 3 to 7 days. Ex.PA is the post mortem report prepared by the doctor which according to him was signed by him and by Dr. D.R. Rayal, whose signatures have been identified. The ear rings ExJP-1 and the Shirts Ex.P-2, Salwar Ex.P-3 and Dupatta Ex. P- 4, according to the doctor, were the same which were removed from the person of the deceased by him at the time of post mortem and handed over to the police in a sealed packet. 28. The doctors opinion clearly reflected that the death caused was due to throttling, meaning thereby, it could be a homicidal death. This opinion, in a way, is not being disputed, but it would be relevant only in case the dead body which was put under post mortem, was identified to bs that of Manju alias Manjit Kaur, the daughter of PW-2. Otherwise, this opinion will not bo of much help to the case of the prosecution in connecting the accused with the alleged occurrence of committing murder of Manju. . (iii)ACCUSED TAKING LEAVE FROM HIS EMPLOYER ON THE RELEVANT DATE: - 29. Otherwise, this opinion will not bo of much help to the case of the prosecution in connecting the accused with the alleged occurrence of committing murder of Manju. . (iii)ACCUSED TAKING LEAVE FROM HIS EMPLOYER ON THE RELEVANT DATE: - 29. PW-11 Shri Harinder Kumar stated on oath that he was working as a time keeper in freeman Measure Limited, Ludhiana for the last 15 years and he used to mark the attendance of the workers in the said factory. According to him, the accused was working in the said factory. The witnesses further added that Nikka Ram accused had applied for leave for 15th and 16th day of July, 1994 and he had submitted leave application. The original leave application was brought by the witness and he has identified the signatures of Nikka Ram on the application because he had seen him signing. According to him, he handed over attested copy Ex.PL to the police which was correct to the original brought before the Court. The witness produce ExlPL/1, the photo copy of attendance register. He further stated that he maked Nikka Ram as on leave on 15th and 16th July, 1994. 30. Ex. PL is the application addressed by Nikka Ram to the Manager of the Company praying for leave on 15th and 16th, as according to the applicant his nephew had expired. The application is dated 15.7.1994. Ex.PL/1 is the certified copy of the attendance register and the name of Nikka Ram accused is entered at Sr. No. 256 and in this Register, in July 1994, for 15th and 16th, he has been marked on leave. 31. This Nikka Ram accused in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied that he was on leave on 15th and 16th July, 1994 from the factory. He has also denied to have made an application for leave in that behalf. 32. The prosecution, in a way, has proved on record that this Nikka Ram was on leave on 15th, and 16th, July,. 1994 and had applied for the same in writing. This circumstances has to be taken alongwith other circumstances proved on record. (iv)ACCUSED STAYING ALONGWITH THE DECEASED FOR THE NIGHT PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCE IN THE HOUSE OF PW16 SARUP RANI 33. 1994 and had applied for the same in writing. This circumstances has to be taken alongwith other circumstances proved on record. (iv)ACCUSED STAYING ALONGWITH THE DECEASED FOR THE NIGHT PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCE IN THE HOUSE OF PW16 SARUP RANI 33. PW-16 Sarup Rani, while examined during the trial, stated on oath that about one year back at about 9 P.M., accused Nikka Ram present in the Court had cone to her house. She was’ examined on 28.8.1995. Shr further added that she was accompanied by a lady and that lady was introduced by Nikka Ram to bo his wife. She further stated that he told her that he had gone to Kangra and was to go to Thangar and thereafter she asked the lady accompanying the accused, which village her parents belonged the accused told that her parents belonged to village Talara. The witnesses further added that they stayed for the night at her house. According to the witness, the lady accompanying the accused slept with her hi her room and the accused slept in the verandah with her father-in-law. According to her, in the morning at about 5.30 AM, the mother of the witness asked the accused to wash his hands and face as the tea was ready, whereupon the accused called the lady accompanying him and told her that since it was already sunrise, they should move and thereafter, both left 34. This-Sarup Rani further I stated that after 12/13 days .thereafter the accused was brought to her house by the police, when she recognised the accused. The witness further stated that the lady accompanying the accused was wearing clothes of Bhagwan colour and she could identify the said clothes. She identified clothes Ex?-2-cadP-3 to be the same which the lady accompanying the accused was wearing on the relevant day. She identified the photographs Ex. PG, which has already been referred to earlier. During cross-examination, this lady deposed that police came to her house alongwith the accused on 24.4.1994. This date does not coincide with the prosecution story, as according to the prosecution, it was in July 1994 that accused alongwith some lady stayed in the house of this witness. According to her, her father-in-law was not examined by the police. She stated that the colour of the thread used in the embroidery was white in shirt Ex.P-2 and the clothes were not torn at that time. According to her, her father-in-law was not examined by the police. She stated that the colour of the thread used in the embroidery was white in shirt Ex.P-2 and the clothes were not torn at that time. She stated that it was correct that the clothes Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 shown to her in the Court were both dirty and torn. She further added that she did not state to the police about the colour of the clothes which the accused was wearing. She stated that no identification proceeding was conducted in which she was called to identify the clothes. She has been specific in deposing that the lady accompanying the accused, was not seen the accused prior to the date he had come to her house. 35. The statement of this witness has been assailed on behalf of the appellant on two grounds; firstly, that she was not joined to identify the clothes in the identification proceedings and secondly, no identification parade of the accused was conducted wherein the witness was associated and that some ornaments, according to prosecution, were recovered from the body of the deceased which were ear rings Ex.P-1, but according to this witness, the lady who stayed in her house, was not wearing any ornaments. 36. It may not be out of place to mention here that there was no necessity of conducting the identification proceedings so far as this witness was concerned, in order to identify the clothes of that lady. It could be so done otherwise as the lady stayed in the house of this witness and slept with her for the night and the witness had sufficient time to observe the clothes worn by the said lady. The identification parade of the accused was also not-essential on the sane ground, as the accused remained in the house of the lady for a pretty long time and she could otherwise identify the accused, as she had sufficient time: to remember the identity of the accused. 37. It is correct that ear rings Ex.P-1 were recovered from the dead body of that lady, but this witness has not connected the said lady who stayed in her house with Ex.P-1 in as much as, according to the witness, that lady was not wearing any ornaments. 37. It is correct that ear rings Ex.P-1 were recovered from the dead body of that lady, but this witness has not connected the said lady who stayed in her house with Ex.P-1 in as much as, according to the witness, that lady was not wearing any ornaments. This aspect of the matter may cast some doubt in the version of this witness, but the fact remains that the version given by iis witness would be relevant and helpful to the prosecution case, if the dead body recovered in the present case, was connected with the lady who stayed in the house of this witness. (v) RECOVERIES - 38. Various recoveries during the investigation were got effected. The house of PW-16 was appointed out by the accused where he alongwith his wife were alleged to have stayed for the night. The clothes, kara, chhala alongwith ear rings were recovered from the dead body. The gunny bag was also recovered. Some evidence has been led regarding the purchase of gunny bag. Again, all these recoveries would be very much material and helpful to the case of the prosecution and would be an important circumstance to prove the guilt against the accused in case, as pointed out above the dead body was connected with Manju alias Manjit Kaur. (vi)EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION MADE BY THE ACCUSED 39. According to prosecution, the accused confessed his guilt before PW-2 Ramesh Chand, and PW-4 Gurmit Singh and PW-6 Rakesh Kumar PW-2 Ramesh Chand, the father of the wife of the accused, stated on oath that accused came to him at Ludhiana on 23.7.1994 at about 6 in the evening and he reported that his wife Manjeet Kaur was missing since Thursday. According to this witness, the accused had come to him on Saturday and thereafter, he asked the accused that if his wife was missing since Thursday why Information so late. The witnesses further added that the accused did not given any reply and at that time his brother Rakesh Kumar and nephew Darshan Kumar were staying with him. The witness further added that his brother and nephew enquired as of right about his brother and nephew inquired as of right about his wife and the accused replied that he had killed her and had thrown her body in Sutlej. The witness further added that his brother and nephew enquired as of right about his brother and nephew inquired as of right about his wife and the accused replied that he had killed her and had thrown her body in Sutlej. The witness also stated that as they were not having any "suspicion on the accused even at that time, they called Pradhan Gurmit Singh. The said Gurmit Singh, Pradhan, came there at about 7 P.M. The witness also stated the accused before the Pradhan also repeated that after killing his wife, he has thrown the body in the Sutlej and thereafter Pradhan took accused on one side and he inquired from the accused. The witness also disclosed that Pradhan told him after wards that the accused informed him that the accused had first taken his wife to Pathankot and thereafter to Jhonta and then he went to one village and stayed for the night in somebodys house and next days, after killing his wife, he put the dead body in a jute bag and kept that by the side of the khad. Thereafter, according to the witness, Pradhan Gurmeet advised the witness that the police station be contacted. The witness further added that on 25.7.1994, he went to village Talara to inquire about his daughter and there, he heard that within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jawali, a dead body has been recovered in a jute bag and thereafter, this witness along with Om Park ash went to Police Station, Jawali. 40. PW-4 Shri Gurmeet Singh disclosed that on 23.7.1994, PW-2 had come to his house at about 7 in the evening and told him that his son-in-law had informed him that he had killed his wife and thrown the dead body in Sutlej. According to this witness, he then went to the house of PW-2 and when he reached mere, besides PW-2, there were two other persons who were related to this PW-2. The witness stated that he asked the accused and he told the witness that he had taken his wife to the bank of river Sutlej on a cycle and had pushed her and thrown her into the river. The witness also stated that on his further probing, the accused told that he was all alone. The witness stated that he asked the accused and he told the witness that he had taken his wife to the bank of river Sutlej on a cycle and had pushed her and thrown her into the river. The witness also stated that on his further probing, the accused told that he was all alone. Thereafter, this witness told die accused that he could not be alone and he should tell the witness the truth and, thus, the witness took the accused aside and told him to come out with the truth and the witness also assured him that he would render him all possible help: The witness further added that the accused then told him that he had taken his wife to Pathankot and then to Jaunta and from Jaunta he had gone to a village and stayed there for the night. The witness further added that the accused also informed that from Jaunta he had taken his wife to a khad where he strangulated her and thereafter after putting the dead body in a gunny bag he had kept the gunny bag in the Khad. Thereafter, this witness disclosed to PW-2 whatever, the accused had stated before him. The witness further added that he advised PW-2 to verify the facts from Jaunta and then to report the matter to police. The witness, during cross-examination, stated that no report was made by him to the police at Ludhiana about what the accused had stated to him and nothing was reduced into writing by the witness. The witness also stated that it was correct that the accused had stated that his wife was missing for the last two days. 41. PW-6 is Shri Rakesh Kumar, who is the brother of PW-2. He stated that on 23.7.1994 at about 6.30 P.M. at Ludhiana. he was present in the house of PW -2 where the accused came there and the accused was asked why he had come alone. The accused initially did not given any reply but later on replied that his wife was missing since Thursday. He stated that on 23.7.1994 at about 6.30 P.M. at Ludhiana. he was present in the house of PW -2 where the accused came there and the accused was asked why he had come alone. The accused initially did not given any reply but later on replied that his wife was missing since Thursday. The witness further added that they told the accused that Manjeet Kaur could not have run away from the house of her own and thereafter the} repeatedly asked the accused as to what was the matter, whereupon the accused told that on the previous night, after having killed his wife and having wrapped her body in the chaddar, he had carried the dead body on his cycle to the railway track and had thrown the dead body in the Sutlej. The witness further added that on being asked as to why he had killed his wife, the accused firstly kept quiet and then told that he was suspecting her character and that an altercation had taken place between him " and his wife during the night. The witness also stated that he also told that his wife was in the habit of visiting the houses in the neighborhood and thereafter PW-2 went to call Gurmeet Singh (PW-4). 42. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid extra-judicial confession on venous grounds. It has been contended that the alleged confession was got from accused under duress and secondly, there was no occasion to have confessed the guilt by the accused, especially in the presence of PW-4 Gurmeet Singh, Pradhan. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that this type of. evidence is not of very strong nature and accordingly in order to prove such a confession, not only the actual words used by the accused have to be proved, but the same should come from a person voluntarily. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid aspects do not stand established and accordingly, the alleged extra judicial confession appeared to be a made up story and has to be ignored in its totality. 42-A Learned counsel, in support of his submission has cited some case law which can be referred at this stage. 43. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid aspects do not stand established and accordingly, the alleged extra judicial confession appeared to be a made up story and has to be ignored in its totality. 42-A Learned counsel, in support of his submission has cited some case law which can be referred at this stage. 43. In (1997) 1 SCC 9\0 Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab has been held that in the absence of any reason to show as to why and how the accused had reposed such a confidence that Sarpanch as to confess their guilt before him, such confession, held, was improbable. On the basis of this ruling, it has been contended that there was no occasion for the accused to have confessed the guilt before PW-4 Gurmeet Singh, who happened to be the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat wherefrom the in-laws of the accused, hailed. - 44. In (1997) 3 SCC 721, K.I. Pannny v. Assistant Collector (HO), Central Excise Collectorate. Cochin it has been held that confession of accused by inducement, threat or promise is not voluntarily. There is no dispute to this proposition. An extra-judicial confession, in order to be acted upon, should be made voluntarily and without any threat or pressure. 45. In 1988 Cri.L.J. 1086 Arjun Sahu v. State of Orissa, it has been held asunder: "Evidence with regard to an extra-judicial confession, in order to be acted upon, must stand the test of reproduction of exact words and it must be shown by the prosecution as to what was the reason or motive for an accused to make an extra -judicial confession and as to whether the accused would repose confidence in the person before whom such a confession is made." 46. In AIR 1982 SC 1595 Heramba Brahama & Anr. In AIR 1982 SC 1595 Heramba Brahama & Anr. v. State of Assam, the following observations of the Apex Court are very much relevant: "When it is claimed that the accused persons made confession to an under trial in jail waiting jail for dacoity and the High Court accepted the evidence of extra -judicial confession without examining the credentials of the witness: without ascertaining the words used; without referring to the decision of Supreme Court wherein it is succinctly stated that extra- judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed. Held that the evidence of extra - judicial confession was unworthy of belief and it cannot be taken to corroborate any other evidence." 47. In (1996) 8 SCC 77 Stale of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh, it was a case of dowry death. Para 4 of the said judgment, for the sake of convenience is being reproduced hereunder: "In so far as the acquittal under Sections 302/34 and 498-A are concerned, we find that the High Court disbelieved the making of the extra-judicial confession because the same had been allegedly made even to the father of the deceased and that too in the presence of two co-villagers. The High Court, has. therefore, observed, and rightly, that it is not acceptable that the respondent would make a confession of such a heinous crime in the presence of so many persons..........." 48. The evidence of oral confession of the guilt by the accused is generally received with great care and caution. In such type of cases, the witnesses are led away by their impressions against the accused and generally, there is an inclination to put the things in an exaggerated manner. The value, as such, of this kind of evidence, on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, may be reduced. In the present case, the alleged extra-judicial creafcssion was made to the father of the lady in the presence of his two close relatives and of course to PW-4 Gurmeet Singh, the Pradhan of the Panchayat. It may not be out of place to mention here that the words used by the accused before the father of PW-2, were that he had thrown her body in river Sutlej after having killed her". It may not be out of place to mention here that the words used by the accused before the father of PW-2, were that he had thrown her body in river Sutlej after having killed her". That means before the PW-2, the accused was alleged to have stated to have thrown the dead body after killing the same in river Sutlej. The other witness PW-4 was informed by the father that his son-in-law had informed that he had killed his wife and had thrown the body in Sutlej, meaning thereby, almost the same words were conveyed by the father to this PW-4. But this Gurmeet Singh has further disclosed something extra or something in variance what has been told to the father. At the cost of repetition, the statement of PW-4 in this particular behalf, can safely be referred. He deposed that he asked the accused who told, that he had taken his wife to the bank of river Sutlej on a cycle and had .-pushed her, and thrown her into the river. There is some improvement in the so called extra judicial confession made by the accused before this witness at first instance. Here the accused stated that he pushed his wife and threw her into the river Sutlej where he had taken her on a cycle. Again, the so called extra -judicial confession .is improved when this witness further added that after giving assurance by him to the accused, he further disclosed that he had taken his wife to Pathankot and then to Jaunta and from Jaunta, he had gone to village and stayed there for the night and from Junta, he took his wife to a khad where he strangulated her and thereafter after putting the dead body in a gunny bag he had kept the gunny bag in the khad. This latest extra judicial confession coincides with the prosecution story. 49. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, revealed by these two witnesses PW-2 and PW-4, the actual words of the alleged extra-judicial Confession have not been proved. It may not be the actual words, but the entire story is revealed in a different manner. It may not be out of place to mention here that river Sutlej is nowhere near the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered. This PW-2 and PW-4, at first instance, disclosed that the dead body was thrown in river Sutlej. It may not be the actual words, but the entire story is revealed in a different manner. It may not be out of place to mention here that river Sutlej is nowhere near the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered. This PW-2 and PW-4, at first instance, disclosed that the dead body was thrown in river Sutlej. The situation of the river, admittedly, is not there is lateron one dead body from a gunny bag was recovered from a khad which has I been stated to be so by PW-4, as pointed out above. PW-6. again, has improved upon the alleged extra-judicial confession. According to him, the accused stated on 23.7.1994 that on the previous night after having killed his wife and having wrapped her body in the chaddar he had carried the dead body on the cycle to the railway track and had thrown the dead body in the Sutlej. It may not be out of place to mention here that the previous night could be the intervening night of 22/23.7.1994. which aspect is not at all correct. As per the prosecution story, the occurrence took place on 16.7.1994. Thus, the variance in the alleged extra-judicial confession given by the aforesaid three witnesses makes this circumstances to be of doubtful nature. Moreover, in the present case even if for arguments sake it is accepted and established circumstances, it will not, in any manner, help the prosecution at all, especially when the dead body recovered has not been identified and connected with Manjit Kaur, the wife of the accused and daughter of PW-2. (vii)MOTIVE 50. Motive, in itself, is not an ingredient of an offence. However, in a case solely depending upon circumstantial evidence, the motive, if established, is an important circumstance to be taken for consideration in the chain of circumstances provided against the accused. In the present case, the motive attributed to the accused, as per prosecution, was stated by PW-2 to the police that form some period relations between his daughter and son-in- law were quite normal, but later on, the father was informed by accused that Manju was visiting Kawaries and on account of that she was not having good character. Thus, the bad character of the wife of the accused was attributed to be the motive of the offence. 51. Thus, the bad character of the wife of the accused was attributed to be the motive of the offence. 51. PW-2 when examined on oath, nowhere stated that the accused had informed him about the character of his daughter, as she was visiting some Kawaries. Not a single word, in this behalf, was stated on oath before the Court This PW-2 stated on oath that the accused and his daughter were having cordial relations. He further added that accused was living at Ludhiana just near his house with his daughter and his daughter had never complained to him against the accused. Thus, whatever was alleged to have been informed by this PW-2 to the police was not stated to be so when examined on oath before the trial Court. Apart from that PW-6. the brother of PW-2 when examined on oath, stated that at the time when accused admitted his guilt before the witness, the accused had disclosed that he was suspecting his wifes character and that an altercation had taken place between him and his wife during the night. According to this witness, the accused also told that his wife was in the habit of visiting the houses in the neighborhood. It may not be out of place to mention here that no other evidence in this particular behalf has been examined so as to reflect the said character of the wife of the accused. It is during the alleged extra-judicial confession that, according to this witness, the accused stated so. It may also not be out of place to mention that the father, as pointed out above, was silent in this particular regard. Thus, the version given by this PW-6, on the basis of the information given by the accused, cannot be accepted as a fact legally established beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the motive in the present case is not established through a legally competent evidence. 52. There are other circumstances brought on record by the prosecutor and in that behalf, some witnesses have been examined. PW-3 is one Partap Chand who stated on oath that on 21.7.1994 at about 8 A.M. he came to know regarding the presence of one gunny bag containing the dead body on the banks of Buhal and Nahad Khad and thereafter he reported the matter to Police Station, Jawali. The report made by him is Ex.PF on record. PW-3 is one Partap Chand who stated on oath that on 21.7.1994 at about 8 A.M. he came to know regarding the presence of one gunny bag containing the dead body on the banks of Buhal and Nahad Khad and thereafter he reported the matter to Police Station, Jawali. The report made by him is Ex.PF on record. In his presence, the photographs of the gunny bag while it was lying in the khad were taken and the gunny bag was opened and a dead body of a female was found .therein. According to him photographs of the dead body were also taken from different angles. The kara ring, chhala were recovered from the dead body, according to this witness. 53. PW-5 is one Shishu Pal who stated that on 16.7.1994 at about3.30 P.M. the accused had come to his shop and remained there for about 15 minutes. The shop of this witness further added that the accused again came to him- at about 7 P.M. and thereafter he went to the house of accused where they had dinner. The witness further added that the accused then came to his house where the mother of the witness inquired about the welfare of the wife of the accused and the accused told that his wife was all right The witness further stated that the accused disclosed him that he was returning to Ludhiana next morning. 54. PW-7 is one Shri Roop Lai, resident of village Bhanai, who stated on oath that on 167.1994 at about 1 or 1.30 P.M., he had seen the accused near his house in village Bhanai. The house of the accused is also in village Bhanai at a little distance from his house. 55. PW-8 is one Shri Gagan Singh who stated that on 17.7.1994 at about 8 or 9 A.M., he had gone to ease himself near Sarola Khad and he had seen one gunny bag, which contained something flowing downward. 56. PW-9 is Shri Ramesh Kumar who was running a karyana and paints shop at Saleem -tapri in Ludhiana. He stated that on about 25/26th July 1994, the police visited his shop alongwith the accused and the police inquired from him whether the accused had purchased a gunny bag from him, to which he replied that he could not say that any bag was purchased by the accused from him. 57. He stated that on about 25/26th July 1994, the police visited his shop alongwith the accused and the police inquired from him whether the accused had purchased a gunny bag from him, to which he replied that he could not say that any bag was purchased by the accused from him. 57. PW-10 is Shri Ranjeet Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat. Nargala, who had joined the investigation on 27.7,1994 and in his presence, the accused, on interrogation, stated that he could-point out the place where he stayed with his wife for the night and thereafter that place was pointed out by the accused where he was alleged to have stayed for the night alongwith his wife and the said house belonged to Smt. Sarup Rani. 58. The other witnesses examined are not much relevant to the case. 59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, some of the circumstances pointed out on behalf of the prosecution have not been legally proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The main circumstances that the dead body belonged to the wife of the accused, has not been proved in accordance with law. The so called extra -judicial confession also cannot be said to be free from doubts. The chain of circumstances, as pointed out by the prosecution, do not stand legally established so as to lead to the sole conclusion that it was accused and non-else who committed the murder of his wife. It is correct that on the basis of the evidence examined during the trial, a great suspicion arose against the accused, but, needless to say, suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof and under the criminal law, it is the bounded duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by leading independent, reliable and un-impeachable evidence which onus in the present case, as per the circumstances discussed above, has not been successfully discharged. 60. Taking into consideration the over -all facts present in this cases and as pointed out above, a reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution case and that being so, the present appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are set aside and as a consequence thereof, the accused is acquitted, after being given the benefit of doubt. The personal and surety bonds furnished by appellant stand discharged. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.