Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge of committing the murder of her husband (Basai Kandolna) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.1990 in S.T. No. 174 of 1989 passed by Sri J.P. Verma, the then Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan (exhibit 4) is as under : On 1.7.1988, at about 10 a.m. Basai Kandolna, the elder brother of the informant Chauna Kandolna (PW 3) returned home. At that time, the appellant (his wife) was cutting jack-fruit with an axe. Her husband began to abuse her and took some paddy from the house for drinks. The appellant forbade him, whereupon he stated to assault her with fists and slaps and threatened to kill her, on which she struck him on head with the axe on the left and right side and he fell down and ultimately, he died the same day at about 10 p.m. on the next day around 11.30 a.m. The police officer (PW 7) recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at his village Merambir within police station Rania, district Ranchi. On the basis of the fardbeyan (exhibit 4), the present case came to be instituted, formal First Information Report (exhibit 7) was drawn up, the police officer (PW 7) assumed investigation of the case, effected seizure of blood-stained earth and tangi from the scene of occurrence and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid in Court against the appellant. The distance between the P.O. village and the police station is about 18 kms. 3. The case was ultimately, committed to the Court of Session by Sri J.K. Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate, Khunti on 30.3.1989. 4. The main defence is of innocence and false implication. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, PW 4 (Chandu Mundain) is a tendered witness. PW 6 (Larehman Ram) did formal investigation and simply submitted the charge-sheet. The other PWs are : PW 1 (Hari Gope), PW 2 (Kalyan Barla), the witnesses on inquest and seizure memos, PW 3 (Chauna Kandolna), the informant, PW 5 (Sakro Tudu), who held autopsy on the dead body and PW 7 (Prithvi Ran Rai), the Investigating Officer. PW 6 (Larehman Ram) did formal investigation and simply submitted the charge-sheet. The other PWs are : PW 1 (Hari Gope), PW 2 (Kalyan Barla), the witnesses on inquest and seizure memos, PW 3 (Chauna Kandolna), the informant, PW 5 (Sakro Tudu), who held autopsy on the dead body and PW 7 (Prithvi Ran Rai), the Investigating Officer. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness. CW 1 (Durai Mundain) was examined by Court. 6. On consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the trial Court held that there was circumstantial evidence which cogently proved that the appellant had murdered her husband and accordingly be convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated above. 7. Mr. Satyendra Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, appearing as amicus curiae, has contended that there are important missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, relied on by the prosecution; that the circumstances suggest that the appellant is the victim of circumstances and the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The learned APP, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment. 8. The point which now falls for consideration is : whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge to the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 9. The factum that the deceased met with homicidal death is not in dispute. The doctor, who held autopsy on the corpse of Basai Kandolna, on 3.7.1988 at 10 a.m. has testified to the effect that he found three ante-mortem incised wounds, which are : one on right frontal bone 4" x 2" x 1/2" (bone deep), the other near the right ear 4" x 2" x 1/2" and the third on the left occipital region 4" x 2" x 1/2", which were caused by sharp-cutting weapon, may be by tangi. He has further stated that on dissection, skull bone was found out with brain matter damaged and the injuries were independently sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. He has further stated that the time elapsed since the death was about 60 hours (three days) from the post-mortem examination. Exhibit 3 is the post-mortem report in his pen. He has further stated that the time elapsed since the death was about 60 hours (three days) from the post-mortem examination. Exhibit 3 is the post-mortem report in his pen. Besides, the PWs including the Investigating Officer, have stated that they had found wounds on the person of the deceased, when they visited the scene of occurrence. The medical evidence as well as the testimony of the PWs establish beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 10. One may now come to the complicity of the appellant in the crime. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that the circumstances relied on must be cogently and firmly established, those circumstances should be of definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain, so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else and in capable of explanation or any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Keeping this principle in mind, one may now proceed to analyse and discuss the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation against the appellant. The circumstances brought on record against the appellant may be catalogued as under : The appellant was alone in the house when the informant (PW 3) and her daughter (CW 1) left the house in the morning on the fateful day. The deceased was found dead in the dhaba of the house, in which the appellant and her husband lived, when in the afternoon on that day, PWs 1, 2, 3 and CW 1 came to the house and the appellant was found sitting by his side. CW 1 (Dorsi Mundain) has stated that when she returned in the afternoon from the forest after eating blackberry, she found her father lying injured unconscious with bleeding wound, who died the same day and at that time, the deceased and her mother were in the house and often they used to quarrel. The tangi with some blood-stains was found lying near the deceased, which was seized by the police officer (PW 7). PW 7 had also seized blood-stained earth from the spot where the deceased was lying dead. PWs 1 and 2 are the witnesses on the seizure (Exhibits 6 and 6/1). The tangi with some blood-stains was found lying near the deceased, which was seized by the police officer (PW 7). PW 7 had also seized blood-stained earth from the spot where the deceased was lying dead. PWs 1 and 2 are the witnesses on the seizure (Exhibits 6 and 6/1). The appellant did not disclose how the deceased suffered the wound to the family members, i.e. PW 3 and CW 1. 11. The fact that the deceased had sustained wounds and he died in the house, in which the appellant lived with him and other family members and blood stains were found on the spot is well proved by the evidence on record. This is also not controverted by the defence. 12. PW 3 (the informant) has stated in the chief-examination that on the fateful day between 9.10 a.m. he had gone out of the house and when he returned home, he learnt that his brother (deceased) had come home and there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and he found him lying dead with bleeding wounds on the temporal region. He has made candid statement in his chief-examination that he did not witness the assault on the deceased or the act done by him. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that at the relevant point of time, he had gone to another village, which is at a distance of about two miles, to graze cattle and he got information about the incident from one Mashi and on such hearsay knowledge, he had lodged the information with the police. Mashi has not been examined in the case. He has further stated in his re-examination that he did not witness whether the deceased had assaulted the appellant. PW 3 does not support the fact that in the morning on the fateful day, the appellant was cutting jack-fruit with axe or that he had witnessed any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on that day. He is conspicuously silent in his evidence that a quarrel of serious nature had taken place between them in the recent past or that there was strained relation between them bordering on hatred for each other. The examination of Mashi could have thrown light on the subject as to what he knew about the episode, resulting in the death of the deceased and the actual fact narrated by him to PW 3. The examination of Mashi could have thrown light on the subject as to what he knew about the episode, resulting in the death of the deceased and the actual fact narrated by him to PW 3. CW1 (Dorsi Mundain), the daughter of the deceased, as well as the appellant, have simply stated that there used to be quarrel between her father and mother. This fact has been admitted by the appellant in her statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when she states that at times there was quarrel between them. CW 1 has not alleged in her evidence that at any time on the fateful day or in the recent past, there was ever serious quarrel between her parents or that there relations were strained or they had developed great disliking for each other. It is not uncommon that at times some differences do take place between a husband and a wife. In the circumstances, the mere fact that at times, the deceased and the appellant quarrelled would not lead to the irresistible conclusion that because the appellant had some quarrel on some occasion, she had a notice to cause his death. Another circumstances relied on by the prosecution is that the appellant did not disclose to PW 3 and CW 1, how the deceased came by the wounds, which proved fatal and thus she did not raise any alarm when the deceased lay in a critical condition after sustaining wounds. PW 3 and CW 1 have simply stated that the appellant did not disclose under what circumstances the deceased had suffered wounds. At the same time, they have clearly deposed that they too did not enquire about it from her. They have made a candid statement that when they returned home, they found that she was sitting by the deceased. PW 7 has stated that when on the next day, he visited the spot, he found mat the appellant was sitting near the dead body of her husband. It is possible in two circumstances: when one is remorseful for an unintended not or one is in spell of deep shock. Had the appellant, in fact murdered the deceased, the natural conduct would have to flee away from the scene of occurrence. It is possible in two circumstances: when one is remorseful for an unintended not or one is in spell of deep shock. Had the appellant, in fact murdered the deceased, the natural conduct would have to flee away from the scene of occurrence. It is probable that she was deeply shocked at the sight of her dead husband and remained date, hitting by his side helplessly, when PWs 1, 7 and CW 1 arrived on the spot. That apart, the appellant has offered an explanation in her statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that she had gone out of the house for some time and when she returned, she found that her husband was lying dead with wounds in the house. PW 1 (Hari Gope), a co-villager has stated to chief-examination itself that when on hulla, on the fateful day, he went to the house of the appellant, on inquiry made by him, she had stated that some one had killed her husband. It is quite probable that in a remote village, when a lady is alone in the house, she may go out of the house for sometime on some odd work. There is no evidence that on that day she had remained in the house throughout and till the return of her husband. A wife may react in a different way on seeing the dead body of her husband with wounds. Some may be stunned and become speechless, some may become hysteric and start wailing and some may start shouting for help. Hence, her explanation cannot be discarded because she did not reset in a particular manner. 13. In view of the discussions made above, in my considered view, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution do not form a complete chain to unerringly lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant murdered her husband. There may be strong suspicion against the appellant, but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof. For the reasons, aforesaid the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and on giving benefit of doubt. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For the reasons, aforesaid the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and on giving benefit of doubt. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Court are set aside. The appellant is in jail. She is directed to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case(s). R.A.SHARMA, J. 15 I agree.