JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused persons (hereinafter referred to as the accused) against the judgment dated 22.4.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby he has convicted accused Amar Singh under Section 201, IPC and has sentenced his to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous impriosnment for 6 months; whereas accused Som Dutt has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302, IPC and imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months under Section 201, IPC. 2. The accused persons alongwith one Chikno Devi were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba on a charge under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, IPC. Case of the prosecution against them, in brief, is that Rattan Singh, now deceased, retired from Army about 14 or 15 years back. Accused Som Dutt is his son. Chikno Devi is his widow and accused Amar Singh is his brother. They are residents of village Jasur, where other brothers of Rattan Singh, namely, Prithi Singh, Chhota Ram and Roshan Lal also reside. For sometime past, relations between Rattan Singh and his wife Chikno Devi were not cordial, therefore, Rattan Singh started residing with his mother in village Kumharta. However, to get his pension he would go to a bank at Samot every month and for the night stay in his house at Jasur. He used to sleep in a separate room, i.e. Bohar (attic) of the said house. On July 6, 1997, said Rattan Singh, after having received his pension, stayed in his house at Jasur. On that day, DW-2 Chhota Ram, one of the brothers of Rattan Singh, called all of them to his residence for dinner. He used to sleep in a separate room, i.e. Bohar (attic) of the said house. On July 6, 1997, said Rattan Singh, after having received his pension, stayed in his house at Jasur. On that day, DW-2 Chhota Ram, one of the brothers of Rattan Singh, called all of them to his residence for dinner. Liquor was served during such dinner, while taking liquor, a quarrel took place between Rattan Singh and his wife Chikno on the ground that Chikno had not invited Rattan Singh at the time of "Jatar." During the course of this quarrel, Rattan Singh gave two blows to Chikno. Chikno Devi then went out of the house and informed accused Som Dutt that she was beaten by his father. On this, Som Dutt got enraged and went running to the house of Chhota Ram. He dragged Rattan Singh out of the house to the courtyard and beat him up. When Roshan Lai (PW-1) intervened, he was also given 3 or 4 fist blows by accused Som Dutt. On intervention by other members of the family, Rattan Singh was saved, but accused Som Dutt challenged Roshan Lai to see him and in case he was helped by anyone, he would also not be spared. Rattan Singh told accused Som Dutt as to why should he see others and if he wanted to beat anyone, he should kill him. Accused Amar Singh who was also present and accused Som Dutt then called Tulsi Ram, Ward Member (PW-2) who pacified the accused. Thereafter Rattan Singh went to his house. He was followed by accused Som Dutt. After sometimes accused Som Dutt came back and started weeping and told that his father (Rattan Singh) had died by hanging himself. The dead body of Rattan Singh was brought down from attic by the accused persons and started preparations for cremation. PW-1 Roshan Lal alongwith Ward Member (PW-2) in this connection went to the Pradhan (PW-3) Sneh Lata and informed her that Rattan Singh had committed suicide being fed up with the acts of the accused and his wife Chikno and that the matter must be properly examined. Said Pradhan telephonically informed the police whereupon one Head constable accompanied by few other constables reached on the spot. Said Pradhan telephonically informed the police whereupon one Head constable accompanied by few other constables reached on the spot. On receipt of information about the suspicious death of Rattan Singh, PW-12 Partap Singh, the then S.I./SHO, Police Station, Chowari took over the investigation and went to the spot. He recorded the statement of PW Roshan Lal under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ex.PA and sent it for registration of a case under Sections 306/201/34, IPC vide his endorsement Ex. PA/1 and consequently FIR Ex. PJ came into being at Police Station, Chowari. He prepared the inquest report Ex. PC and sent the dead body of Rattan Singh for post mortem examination. Post mortem examination was conducted by PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Kaul who found a big abrasion on the back of the dead body about 10 cms. and an oblique ligature mark running from mastoid to mastoid 2 cms. in breadth bruised, absent on back of the neck. Sub cutaneous tissue eccymocid and haemorrhages present. However, hyoid bone was intact and there was no fracture of thyroid cartilege. In the stomach contents, smell of alcohol was present. According to his opinion, the death of Rattan Singh was caused due to asphyxia probably due to strangulation. He preserved the viscera which was sent for chemical examination to F.S.L., Junga. The report received from the said Laboratory is Ex. PF, opining that no poison was found in the viscera but contents of alcohol were found therein. The investigating officer prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence Ex. PL. Photographs of the dead body were taken, negatives whereof are Ex. P-12 to Ex. P-21 and developed photographs are Ex. P-4 to Ex. P-11. Three ropes which were produced by accused Som Dutt as the ropes by which Rattan Singh had hanged himself, were taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex. PB. The investigating officer sought some clarification on certain aspects concerning the post mortem report which were clarified by the concerned doctor vide Ex. PH. On receipt of the\ post mortem report, the offence was converted from Section 306, IPC to Section 302, IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected and on being satisfied that this was a case under Sections 302/201/34, IPC, the officer incharge, Police Station, Chowari accordingly submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons including Chikno Devi. After conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected and on being satisfied that this was a case under Sections 302/201/34, IPC, the officer incharge, Police Station, Chowari accordingly submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons including Chikno Devi. The accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge on a charge under Sections 302/ 201/34, IPC. 3. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. 4. The accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. admitted their relationship with Rattan Singh and also admitted that the relations between Rattan Singh and Chikno Devi were not good. Beating of Chikno Devi, by the deceased at the dinner has been denied by the accused persons but has been admitted by accused Chikno. It is also admitted that the accused persons called Tulsi Ram, Ward Member, who pacified them. It has also been admitted by them that when Rattan Singh went away to his house, he was followed by accused Som Dutt who thereafter returned back. It has also been admitted by them that the dead body of Rattan Singh was brought from Bohar (attic) to the first floor of the house by accused persons Som Dutt and Amar Singh. Rest of the incriminating circumstances put to them have been denied by them and it has been claimed that the case has been falsely made out against them by Roshan Lal and Chhota Ram due to enmity. Accused Amar Singh has further stated that he used to object to the illegal activities of Roshan Lai and Chhota Ram, therefore, they were inimical towards him which led them to falsely implicate him in the case. 5. The accused led defence and examined DWs Prithi Singh and Chhota Ram to prove that the deceased died of hanging and not of strangulation. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced accused Amar Singh and Som Dutt as aforesaid and accused Chikno Devi was acquitted. Hence the appeal by the accused persons. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocates General for the State and have also gone through the record. 8. It may be pointed out at the very outset that there is no 1 dispute that Rattan Singh died an unnatural death. Hence the appeal by the accused persons. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocates General for the State and have also gone through the record. 8. It may be pointed out at the very outset that there is no 1 dispute that Rattan Singh died an unnatural death. The dispute is as to whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. According to the defence, it is a case od suicidal death whereas according to the prosecution, it is a case of homicidal death and that the deceased was murdered by the accused Som Dutt. 9. There is no eye account to show that the death of Rattan Singh was homicidal. Therefore, to prove the charge against the accused, prosecution has led circumstantial evidence. Thus the prosecution has relied upon and the learned Sessions Judge has taken into account for convicting the accused persons the following circumstances: (1) There were strained relations between the deceased Shri Rattan Singh and his wife and Shri Rattan Singh used to reside separately in village Kumarhata; (2) Before the occurrence, in question, took place, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons and the accused Shri Som Dutt had given beatings to the deceased; (3) During the quarrel which took place between Shri Rattan Singh and his son Sh. Som Dutt, the accused Som Dutt had proclaimed that he would kill Sh. Rattan Singh and his brother Shri Roshan Lai one by one; (4) After the quarrel when Shri Rattan Singh went away to his house, the accused Sh. Som Dutt had followed him and after about four minutes, he came back telling that his father had died; (5) Shri Tulsi Ram, Ward Member of the panchayat who was present on the spot at the time of occurrence, was asked to go away to his house when there was noise that Shri Rattan Singh had died; (6) Shri Roshan Lal (PW-1) was not allowed by the accused Shri Amar Singh to go inside the house where the dead body of Shri Rattan Singh was lying; (7) The accused persons S/Sh. Amar Singh and Som Dutt had taken out the dead body of Shri Rattan Singh from the upper storey of the house and had brought the same to the first floor without allowing anyone to see as to whether Shri Rattan Singh had actually committed suicide or not; (8) The accused persons had made pretext to the effect that Shri Rattan Singh had committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope on the raftar of the roof, but, when the raftar was seen after the occurrence, there was dust on the said raftar; (9) The accused persons had given false explanation to the effect that Sh. Rattan Singh had committed suicide by hanging; and (10) The medical opinion that the death was due to asphyxia probably due to stangulation. 10. Before we proceed to examine the aforesaid circumstantial evidence it may be stated that it is now well settled that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be cogently and firmly proved and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Further, those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and must be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must be such as to show that within all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 11. Equally established is the golden rule of administration of criminal justice that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and another to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused must be taken. This principle has special relevance in cases wherein the charge against the accused is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence. It is also an accepted legal proposition that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt about the accused being guilty, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. However, the rule that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused does not warrant a verdict of acquittal on the basis of surmises, conjectures and fanciful consideration. 12. It is also an accepted legal proposition that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt about the accused being guilty, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. However, the rule that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused does not warrant a verdict of acquittal on the basis of surmises, conjectures and fanciful consideration. 12. Keeping in view the above settled propositions we now proceed to examine the value of the aforesaid circumstances. 13. Circumstance-10 : Since this case is based on circumstantial evidence where the death is alleged to have been caused due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation and the defence is that it was a case of suicide, therefore, the medical evidence assumes importance in order to ascertain the cause of death. This circumstance is, therefore, taken up first for consideration. 14. The Medical Officer (PW-10) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased vide Post-Mortem Report Ex. PG has opined that "death of the deceased has been due to asphyxia probably due to strangulation. However, final opinion is reserved pending report of the C.F.L. Shimla." When examined in the court, he has, after going through the report of the Chemical Examination Ex. PF stated that his opinion remains the same, that is, that the death was due to asphyxia caused due to strangulation. He has further stated that this was a case of strangulation and hanging was completely ruled out. 15. To show that the aforesaid opinion was not correct and reliable the learned Counsel for the accused had relied on a number of treatises on Medical Jurisprudence and the so relied parts are as follows:— "(a) The position and direction of the mark depends on the manner of ligature applied to the neck. If a loose loop with a fixed non-slipping knot is used, the mark will be an oblique non-continuous furrow. On the front of the threat it will be situated above the larynx; from here it will run backwards and upwards on both sides of the neck, passing behind the angles of the jaw and disappearing in the hairy scalp.... While the mark produced by strangulation is often truly transverse, that due to hanging never is. There is invariably an upward inclination of the mark on both sides as it approaches the easily discernible abrasion caused by the knot. While the mark produced by strangulation is often truly transverse, that due to hanging never is. There is invariably an upward inclination of the mark on both sides as it approaches the easily discernible abrasion caused by the knot. (Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 351.) (b) A ligature mark on the neck does not necessarily indicate suspension of the body; but when due to suspension of the body, it is usually high up on the neck, oblique and non-continuous, or if situated lower on the neck it is continuous but the mark made by the knot is always at a higher level than that made by the bight of the loop; the marks made by the sides of the loop must therefore incline upwards. Suspension of the body, therefore, is indicated by the presence of a ligature mark on the neck, with a force proportionate to the degree of agreement of the mark with these characters. (Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 354). (c) Mark or marks on the neck: (I)Strangulation by ligature-If a ligature has been used a mark will, save in very exceptional cases, be found on the neck. This usually, but not invariably, differs from a hanging mark, is being truly transverse in direction, low on the neck, and continuous i.e. completely encircling the neck. In exceptional cases of strangulation, especially if the body has been dragged by the ligature, the mark may be found high on the neck, and oblique in direction, like a hanging mark. Again, in exceptional cases of hanging the mark may be found low down on the neck, and, if the cord has been tightly applied, the mark left by it may be more or less transverse in direction, but unlike the mark of strangulation, the sides tend to run upwards to the mark of the knot which is on a higher level... In strangulation, more frequently than in hanging, the ligature employed is a soft one, such as a handkerchief or other piece of cloth (Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 358). (d) Hanging—Hanging has certain feature; in common with strangulation by a ligature, but there are marked differences in the mechanism of death. In strangulation, more frequently than in hanging, the ligature employed is a soft one, such as a handkerchief or other piece of cloth (Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 358). (d) Hanging—Hanging has certain feature; in common with strangulation by a ligature, but there are marked differences in the mechanism of death. Hanging is pressure on the neck and mouth structures caused by the weight of the body against the ligature, rather than direct force being applied to the ligature, as in strangulation. The amount of gravitational effect need only be slight and hanging can quite easily occur with the body still supported on the ground, only the weight of the upper part of the body actually being forced against the ligature. (See Fig. 39). The position of the ligature mark in hanging is usually different from that in strangulation, the hanging mark being higher on the neck than when an assailant places a ligature around the victim. The hanging mark normally passes above larynx at the level of the base of the tongue, passing then beneath the angles of the jaw, rising to a high point where the noose is joined to the fixed part of the rope or wire. In almost every case, there is a gap in the ligature mark around the neck where the two ends of the noose leaves the skin to reach the knot. This is commonly either at the back of the head or near one or other ear, depending upon the position of the body. Occasionally where a slip-knot is used, the weight of body pulls the ligature tightly against the skin around the complete circumference of the neck but there is usually a gap where the point of suspension is placed, (H.W.V. Cox Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 6th Edition P. 264). (e) Hanging : Situation of the mark-The mark is usually situated above the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the chin, and is directed obliquely upward following the line of the mandible (Lower jaw) and interrupted at the back or may show an irregular impression of a knot, reaching the mastoid processes behind the ears towards the point of suspension. The mark may be found on or below the thyroid cartilage, especially in cases of partial suspension, (Modis Medical Jursiprudence and Toxicology 22nd Edition P, 254). The mark may be found on or below the thyroid cartilage, especially in cases of partial suspension, (Modis Medical Jursiprudence and Toxicology 22nd Edition P, 254). (f) In the more usual form of hanging i.e. without a drop, local injury is exceptional. The hyoid bone and the cartlage of the larynx may sometimes be fractured. Usually the only appearance revealed by dissection of the neck is that of a white band of condensed tissue under the external mark. There may be some points of ecchymosis along the edges of this band, (Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 353). (g) A person being strangled or throttled will endeavour to tear away the ligature round his neck, or to push his assailants hand from off his threat, (Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 344). (h) Apart from the mark due to the ligature and any possible asphyxial changes above, such as congestion, oodema, cyanosis, petechiae and nose bleeding, certain other marks may be discovered on the skin in case of ligature strangulation. The most frequent ones are those inflicted by the victim in an attempt to tear away the ligature and are usually seen as scratches on the skin of the neck near the position of the ligature. They are often vertical in direction, as-the nails of the victim try to pull away the constricting object. However, they are frequently so irregular so as not to show any vertical pattern. There may be crescentic abrasions due to finger nails and other irregular abrasions of any type, (H.W.V. Cox Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 6th Edition P. 258). (i) Homicidal strangulation is uncommon, and when it does occur it is usually accompanied either by manual compression of the larynx and trachea, i.e. throttling or by constricting the neck by a ligature. It is encountered most frequently in victims of rape. The skin of the neck of the victim of throttling may or may not sustain abrasions and contusions produced by the fingers of the assailant. A more constant post-mortem finding in such cases is bruising of the underlying soft tissues, including the laryngeal or tracheal mucosa. In elderly victims of manual strangulation fractures of the thyroid cartilage of bycid bone may be encountered (Ref. Mortiz and Stetlers Handbook of Legal Medicine, 2nd edition, page 67 (Fields Expert Evidence 1st Edition, P. 219). A more constant post-mortem finding in such cases is bruising of the underlying soft tissues, including the laryngeal or tracheal mucosa. In elderly victims of manual strangulation fractures of the thyroid cartilage of bycid bone may be encountered (Ref. Mortiz and Stetlers Handbook of Legal Medicine, 2nd edition, page 67 (Fields Expert Evidence 1st Edition, P. 219). (j) Because of mechanism discussed, the ligature mark assumes a peculiar disposition. This disposition is governed by the shape and slope of the neck and oblong eccentric shape of the head. This gives oblique disposition oblong or pear shape to the ligature mark. Again, the drooping of the eccentric head prevents the ligature mark from being complete by embaracing or encircling the neck. This gives a non-continuous or interrupted appearance, (Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. R.M. Jhala, 2nd Edition, P. 236). (k) The first and most important thing in a post mortem of hanging is to establish that the person was hanged when he was alive. To decide this, it is necessary to cut the skin across the ligature mark. If the person was alive when hanged, the ligature mark would show evidence of ante mortem injury. These include contusion of tissue, patechial haemorrhage and extravasation of blood, (Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. R.M. Jhala, 2nd Edition, P. 238). (l) The importance of dribbling saliva has already been referred. This is accepted as a sign of ante mortem hanging as this is a vital act, (Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. R.M. Jhala, 2nd Edition, P. 238). (m) Strangulation : Invariable resistance offered by the victim leads to struggle and injuries both to the assailant as well as to the accused. Such marks of injuries form corroborative signs as it is a well known fact that it is impossible to strangulate an adult healthy male in full senses. Sometimes the absence of these signs of resistance are explained by the presence of elements which prevent the encountering of such resistance. These are in the forms of bands or ropes tied round hands and feet. Otherwise a single man cannot successfully overpower a single person. Sometimes such resistance may not be present if there are many persons concerned in strangulating. Sometimes there is visible contract in capacity a very thin victim and a strong assailant. This accounts for absence of resistance or negligible injuries encountered under such circumstances. Symptoms of strangulation are essentially attributable to pressure effected. Sometimes such resistance may not be present if there are many persons concerned in strangulating. Sometimes there is visible contract in capacity a very thin victim and a strong assailant. This accounts for absence of resistance or negligible injuries encountered under such circumstances. Symptoms of strangulation are essentially attributable to pressure effected. Usually the strangulation is a process which takes longer time than hanging, (Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. R.M. Jhala, 2nd Edition, P. 241). (n) The marks of violence are very important in a post mortem of strangulation. It is impossible to strangulate a healthy adult in full senses, except in case of infirm, invalid or crippled individual, intoxicated persons or young children. Presence of these marks even in form of nail marks are presumptive of homicide. Neither accident nor suicide can offer a satisfactory justification in such cases, (Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. R.M. Jhala, 2nd Edition, P. 246)." 16. The learned counsel for the accused while relying on the above quoted portions from different treatises on Medical Jurisprudence, has assailed the opinion given by PW-10 Rajesh Kaul, the Medical Officer, on the grounds; (1) that the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased was mastoid to mastoid and was oblique, therefore, could be caused only by hanging and not by strangulation with a ligature, and (II) that no other injury was found on the neck of the deceased which suggests that there was no attempt by the deceased to remove/loosen the ligature which is suggestive of suicide and not homicide. 17. It is true that in hanging the ligature mark will be oblique, but it is not correct that in a case of strangulation by a ligature, the ligature mark on the neck will invariably be transverse or horizontal. Infact the shape of ligature mark in case of strangulation will depend on the position of the victim and the assailant at the time of strangulation. In case the ligature is used to strangulate a sitting person by the standing assailant or is used to strangulate a person in recumbent position or the victim is dragged with the ligature in the neck the ligature mark will be oblique shaped and not transverse or horizontal. 18. In case the ligature is used to strangulate a sitting person by the standing assailant or is used to strangulate a person in recumbent position or the victim is dragged with the ligature in the neck the ligature mark will be oblique shaped and not transverse or horizontal. 18. In Lyonss Medical Jurisprudence for India, 10th Edition, P. 358, the author has observed as under:— "In exceptional cases of strangulation, especially i/ the body has been dragged by the ligature, the mark may be found high on the neck and oblique in direction, like a hanging mark." 19. Similarly in Parikhs Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (4th Edition, Reprint 1986) at page 19V, while dealing with marks caused in strangulation by ligature, the author has observed as under:— "The Ligature mark is situated at the level of thyroid cartilage or below, is horizontal, and encircles the neck completely. It may be oblique as in hanging if the victim has been dragged by the ligature of strangled in a recumbent position." 20. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition, at page 263, while dealing with the subject the author observed as follows:— "The mark may be oblique as in hanging, if the victim has been dragged by a cord after he has been strangled in a recumbent posture, or if the victim was sitting and the assailant applied a ligature on the neck while standing behind him, thus using the force backward and upward." 21. It is thus clear that an oblique ligature mark on the neck of the victim could be caused even by strangulation with a ligature depending upon the positions of the victim and the assailant. To support his opinion PW-10 Rajesh Kaul has also given almost similar reasons. 22. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence some distinquishing features of asphyxia caused by hanging and that by strangulation have been given at page 270. Much of these features if common in a case are rare in the other. Uncommon features mentioned therein are however setout here-in-below: Hanging Strangulation (a) Face: Usually pale and petechiae rare. (a) Face : congested, livid and marked with petechiae. (b) Neck : Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. (b) Neck : Not so. (c) Saliva : Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. (c) Saliva : No such dribbling, (d) Subcutaneous tissues under the mark: White, hard and glistening. (a) Face : congested, livid and marked with petechiae. (b) Neck : Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. (b) Neck : Not so. (c) Saliva : Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. (c) Saliva : No such dribbling, (d) Subcutaneous tissues under the mark: White, hard and glistening. (d) Subcutaneous tissues under the mark: Ecchymosed. 23. The available corresponding data suggestive of strangulation as per the post-mortem report Ex. PG and statement of PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Kaul in this case is as follows:— (a) Face : Congested. (b) Neck : Except ligature mark no deformity, fracture or dislocation found. (c) Saliva : No saliva found on the dead body. (d) Subcutaneous tissue under the mark : Ecchymosed. 24. A bare look at the photographs Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-8 shows that the ligature mark on the dead body of the deceased especially in Ex. P-8 are not so high in the neck that it may be essentially a case of hanging. 24-A. The absence of injuries likely to be caused by attempt to loosen the ligature can be attributed to the fact that the deceased had been beaten and dragged immediately before the occurrence and had also consumed liquor. 25. Thus, the availability of the said distinguishing features, inability of the deceased to resist and the ligature marks not being so high in the neck, as stated here-in-above, lends credibility to the opinion given by PW-10 Rajesh Kaul that it was a case of strangulation. Circumstance No. 1. 26. PW-1 Roshan Lai has stated that the deceased did not have good relations with his wife Chikno Devi. Accused persons and Chikno Devi in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have admitted that the deceased did not have good relations with Chikno Devi. It is, thus, established that the relations between the deceased and his wife Chikno Devi were not good. Circumstance Nos. 2 and 3. 27. Since these two circumstances are inter-connected, therefore, are taken up together for consideration. It is not disputed for the accused but is admitted that at the house of Chhotu when the deceased and Chikno Devi amongst others were attending dinner on the fateful day, the deceased gave two stick blows to Chikno which led her to leave the place and complained to accused Som Dutt about the beatings given to her by the deceased. The prosecution version further is that on hearing about the beating accused Som Dutt went to the house of Chhotu Ram, dragged Rattan Singh from one of his legs and gave beatings to Rattan Chand and Roshan Lai and threatened to kill them. PW-1 Roshan Lal and PW-5 Guddo Devi have supported the version about beatings and dragging. Immediately after the alleged beatings and dragging, PW-2 Tulsi Ram a Ward member had seen the back of the deceased which was red. So is stated by PW-3 Saneh Lata, Pradhan Gram Panchayat who had seen the dead body of Rattan Chand on the next day of the occurrence. PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Kaul at the time of post mortem examination of dead body of Rattan Chand found a big abrasion of about 10 cm. on his back which was anti-mortem and could be caused by dragging. Though the accused persons have denied the alleged beating, and dragging of Rattan Chand but after the quarrel with his wife he remained with the accused, though quarreling, and it has not been suggested to the material witnesses nor has been explained by the accused as to how this injury was sustained by the deceased who remained with the accused during the relevant time. 28. It was contended for the accused that the age of this injury has been given as more than 6 hours, therefore, it did not co-relate to the alleged occurrence. The quarrel, as alleged, took place on 6.7.1997 at about 10 or 11 p.m. The post mortem of dead body of Rattan Chand was conducted on 7.7.1997 after 4.15 p.m. By that time the age of injury evidently was more than 6 hours. The contention for the accused is, therefore, without any merit. 29. It was further contended that PW-1 Roshan Lal husband of PW-5 Guddo Devi is inimical towards the accused, therefore, their statements are not reliable. Roshan Lal (PW-1) is the brother of the deceased and paternal uncle of accused Som Dutt and Amar Singh. It has not been suggested to the material witnesses that there is enmity between Roshan Lal and accused persons for any reasons. On the contrary DW-2 Chhotu has admitted that Roshan Lal is having good relations with his brothers and the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that Roshan Lal is an interested witness or is deposing falsely. 30. It has not been suggested to the material witnesses that there is enmity between Roshan Lal and accused persons for any reasons. On the contrary DW-2 Chhotu has admitted that Roshan Lal is having good relations with his brothers and the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that Roshan Lal is an interested witness or is deposing falsely. 30. In view of the evidence discussed here-in-above it is established that before the alleged strangulation, the deceased was dragged, manhandled and threatened by accused Som Dutt. Circumstance No. 4. 31. It has been stated by Roshan Lai (PW-1) that after the aforesaid quarrel when the parties were pacified by PW-2 Tulsi Ram, Rattan Chand deceased went away and accused Som Dutt followed him and after 3 or 4 minutes Som Dutt came back. He started weeping and told that his father had died. PW-2 Tulsi Ram has stated that Rattan Chand went to 2nd Storey of his house to sleep after the quarreling parties were advised by him not to quarrel. Then, he (the witness) came to the house of PW-1 Roshan and on his request sat there. In the meanwhile the accused persons started weeping in the varanda of their house. PW-5 Guddo Devi has stated that when Ward Member (PW-2) was sitting in her house Som Dutt informed that his father had died. She has denied the suggestion that Som Dutt had told that his father hanged himself and has clarified that Som Dutt stated about hanging when the dead body was brought down. Thus, from the evidence what emerges is that PW-2 Tulsi Ram advised the quarreling parties not to quarrel and then Rattan Chand went to the upper storey of the house to sleep and was followed by Som Dutt. After a short period of 3 to 4 minutes thereafter Som Dutt started weeping and saying that his father had died. When the dead body was brought from the upper storey to the ground floor, Som Dutt informed that Rattan Chand had hanged himself, meaning thereby that the initial version given by him was that his father had died. The version that his father hanged himself was given when the dead body of Rattan Chand was brought to the ground floor. When the dead body was brought from the upper storey to the ground floor, Som Dutt informed that Rattan Chand had hanged himself, meaning thereby that the initial version given by him was that his father had died. The version that his father hanged himself was given when the dead body of Rattan Chand was brought to the ground floor. This version is partially supported by the admission of accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The question put to the accused Som Dutt in this regard under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and answer given by him read as follows:— "Q. No. 15. It is further in evidence against you that thereafter Shri Rattan Singh went away to his house and you also followed him and after about 3/4 minutes, your came back and started weeping and told that your father Rattan Singh had died, what have you to say? Ans. It is correct, But, I did not go inside the room and I saw him from the stairs which are outside the room that he was hanging himself with rope from the roof of the house and thereafter I went back and started weeping and told that my father had died. It took me only about 50-60 seconds and not 3-4 minutes." 32. The question has been put to the other two accused in identical manner and in their replies they have also admitted the facts as correct except that according to them Som Dutt came back within 25-30 seconds. Thus, what is indisputably established is that Rattan Chand left for sleeping in the upper storey of the house and was followed by accused Som Dutt. None else was inside the house at that time. After some time, duration whereof is disputed, Som Dutt came back, started weeping and informed that his father had died. Thus, in his first version about the death of Rattan Chand it is missing he had hanged himself, 33. Here, the conduct of accused Som Dutt assumes importance. In case he saw his father hanging in the upper floor from the stairs as claimed for the accused, in the ordinary course of human conduct, particularly being son of the deceased, he would have cried for help and asked others to come for help and himself should have rushed to the place where his father had allegedly hung himself and tried to save him. He could have said that his father had died, at he did, only when he was sure that Rattan Chand had died. This conduct remains unexplained and the only inference which can be drawn is that when he came out of the house he was sure that Rattan Chand was dead and he could be sure only when he knew it on positive knowledge which he could acquire only after having examined the body of Rattan Chand that he was dead. 34. In a situation, as aforesaid, it was for Som Dutt accused to reasonably explain the attendant circumstances which could support the theory that his father had committed suicide. He does not offer any explanation on this count. He does not clarify as to what happened to the ligature used by his father to hang himself, what was the condition of the body that is how it was hanging, whether it was touching the floor or not, if not how much was the distance between the floor and the feet of the dead body, where the rope used for hanging was tied, etc. He did not collect persons to see the scene of occurrence. The only inference which can be drawn from the circumstance is that it was accused Som Dutt who strangulated Rattan Chand and when he was sure that Rattan Chand had died, he went out of the house and broke the news that Rattan Chand had died. Circumstance Nos. 5 to 7. 35. In fact these three circumstances ultimately constitute one circumstance, that is, that none was permitted to see the dead body of Rattan Chand and the place of occurrence till the dead body had been removed to the ground floor admittedly by accused Som Dutt and Amar Singh. 36. PW-1 Roshan Lal has stated that after Som Dutt accused had informed that Rattan Chand had died, he wanted to go inside the house of the accused (in which Rattan Chand had died) but accused Amar Singh did not allow him to go inside the room and that the Ward Member (PW-2) who was still present there was asked by Prithi Singh that he should go away. He has further stated that dead body of Rattan Singh was brought from the room where he died, to the first floor by Amar Singh. He has further stated that dead body of Rattan Singh was brought from the room where he died, to the first floor by Amar Singh. PW-2 Tulsi Ram has stated that when family members of the deceased started weeping he was asked by Prithi Singh that he should go home. PW-1 Roshan Lal is the brother of the deceased and as stated by DW-2 Chhotu Ram, had good relations with his brother and the accused. Thus, why he was not allowed to enter the room where Rattan Chand had died, is not explained. The accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. have denied that Roshan Lai was not allowed to enter the room, but it appears to be an after thought. 37. PW-2 Tulsi Ram was the Ward Member and was called by the accused in connection with the quarrel which earlier took place. He was, therefore, a respectable and responsible person who was readily available to be shown the scene of occurrence. However, instead of being taken to the place where dead body of Rattan Chand was, he was asked by DW-1 Prithi Singh to go away from there. It is admitted even by the accused. No other responsible person(s) was called to witness the alleged hanging. The only inference which can be drawn from these circumstances which are fully and firmly established and the latter not being disputed even by the accused, is that the accused and their helpers including Prithi Singh wanted to conceal something from being noticed by PWs Roshan Lal and Tulsi Ram and to ensure that no indpendent/respectable and responsible person in the village or nearby place had any occasion to see the place of occurrence. Had it been a case of suicide there was no need to do so. This could be and was done only to prevent noticing by any dis-interested and responsible person that the position in the room was such which would not support the version of suicide but would have shown that the death was homicidal. 38. The learned Counsel for the accused had contended that the place of occurrence was visited by two of the brothers of the deceased, namely, Prithi Singh and Chhotu and they have been examined in defence. Their version is that they saw Rattan Chand hanging from a rope tied to the roof of the room. 38. The learned Counsel for the accused had contended that the place of occurrence was visited by two of the brothers of the deceased, namely, Prithi Singh and Chhotu and they have been examined in defence. Their version is that they saw Rattan Chand hanging from a rope tied to the roof of the room. Their statements prove that this is a case of suicide. It was further contended that the statements of these DWs who are brothers of the deceased cannot be ignored simply for the reason that they may tell lies to save their near relations. The learned Counsel sought support from case Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (AIR 1981 SC 911), wherein it has been held that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with these of the prosecution and courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive belief in defence witnesses. Quite often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses. 39. There cannot be any dispute with the legal proposition supra. However, in each case statements made by the witnesses whether prosecution witnesses or defence witnesses, have-to be examined in view of various aspects and considerations to arrive at a conclusion whether such statements are reliable and trustworthy or not. In this case we have no difficulty in finding that the statements of DWs Prithi Singh and Chhotu Ram are unreliable and a result of after thought. DW-1 Prithi Singh is the person who asked the Ward Member Tulsi Ram (PW-2) to go away from the village instead of asking him to see the spot where the dead-body of Rattan Chand originally was. This act on his part in itself is sufficient to discredit him as a witness who may speak the truth. However, he has made even a false statement on many material particulars of the case. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not having good relations with his wife. Here he is belied by the admission of the accused persons that the deceased was not having good relations with his wife. He has denied that Chikno had gone to her house and told accused Som Dutt that deceased had given her stick blows. On the contrary it is admitted by all the accused. He has denied that PW-2 Tulsi Ram after the death of Rattan Chand was asked to go away from the place. He has denied that Chikno had gone to her house and told accused Som Dutt that deceased had given her stick blows. On the contrary it is admitted by all the accused. He has denied that PW-2 Tulsi Ram after the death of Rattan Chand was asked to go away from the place. On the contrary all the accused had admitted it. Similarly DW-2 Chhotu Ram has stated falsely about admitted facts of the case. He has denied that deceased was not pulling well with his wife. On the contrary accused have admitted so. He has denied any quarrel even between the deceased and his wife which is admitted even by the accused. Again, both these witnesses have stated that the dead body was hanging in the bodh, but according to DW-1 Prithi Singh the body was "untied from the roof whereas according to DW-2 Chhotu Ram the deceased hanged himself with rafter. None of them is in a position to state about the number of position/location of the rafter. They have not stated as to what happened to the device used for alleged hanging. According to them the feet of the dead body were hanging at a height of about 2 to 2V2 ft. from the floor. It is not stated even by accused Som Dutt who was, even according to the defence witnesses, the first person to see the dead body in the bodh. These DWs further have not explained as to how the deceased might have climbed upto the alleged moor. Thus, the statements of both the DWs are utterly unreliable and untrustworthy. Circumstance No. 7. 40. Though there is evidence on record in the form of statements of PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Kaul and PW-12 Pratap Singh, Investigating Officer, to the effect that on inspection of the room, no marks suggesting hanging were found on the rafter, which contained dust but this circumstance has not been put to accused in their statments under Section 313, Cr.P.C, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence against the accused (See Sharad Pirdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622). Circumstance No. 8. 41. In view of the above circumstances (other than circumstance No. 7 which is being excluded as evidence) which are cogently established, it is completely ruled out that it was a case of suicidal death. Circumstance No. 8. 41. In view of the above circumstances (other than circumstance No. 7 which is being excluded as evidence) which are cogently established, it is completely ruled out that it was a case of suicidal death. Therefore, the explanations by the accused persons that this was a case of suicide is false. Therefore, giving false explanations by the accused constitutes a circumstance against the accused (see Md. Mahiruddin and others v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1999 SC 307). 42. While excluding circumstance No. 7 above as evidence we find that the charge against the accused persons are proved in view of the other circumstantial evidence on record beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused persons have, therefore, been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. 43. As a result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.