Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 313 (PAT)

Raja Ram Sao v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-28

A.K.PRASAD, P.K.DEB

body2000
Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The sole convict in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 1996 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26-5-1998 and 29-5-1998, respectively, passed by Shri Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, Second Additional Sessions Judge Giridih, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife Usha Devi and also under Section 25(1-B) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The admitted position is that the accused Raja Ram Sao was married to Usha Devi, daughter of the informant (P.W. 13) Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar in the year 1995, while the accused-appellant was the resident of Shastri Nagar Block No. 1, Police Station Kadma in the town of Jamshedpur and the informant Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar was resident of Giridih. It was a negotiation marriage and the marriage was solemnised at Calcutta in the house of maternal grand-father of Usha Devi, situated at Bhawanipur, Calcutta. Since prior to the date of marriage, deceased Usha Devi was residing in Calcutta with her maternal grand-father. After solemnisation of the said marriage, Usha Devi went to her in-laws house at Jamshedpur and stayed there for about ten days only with her husband accused-appellant Raja Ram Sao and thereafter she went back to Bhawanipur, Calcutta, her nanihal. There also she remained in the nanihal for three months and then she came back to Giridih to her parents house which is situated at Hutti Bazar within the town of Giridih. On 13-7-1996 in the afternoon hours at about 4.00 p.m., Raja Ram Sao came to his sasural and requested the informant party for bidai of his wife Usha Devi. As the informant and his family were not prepared for the same and as such on consultation with the accused appellant it was agreed that on 17-7-1996. Usha Devi would be given bidai. The accused-appellant spent the night in that house and on 14-7-1996, the accused-appellant went to see a Cinema along with his wife Usha Devi and brother-in-law Ranjit Kumar Prasad (P.W. 3). Maitnee show picture was entertained by all the three at Jivan Talkies, situated in the town of Giridih and they came back in the evening. The accused-appellant spent the night in that house and on 14-7-1996, the accused-appellant went to see a Cinema along with his wife Usha Devi and brother-in-law Ranjit Kumar Prasad (P.W. 3). Maitnee show picture was entertained by all the three at Jivan Talkies, situated in the town of Giridih and they came back in the evening. In the night hours, while the night meal was going to be served on the accused-appellant in the upstairs of the house by deceased Usha Devi then she was killed by a gun shot on her forehead. It should be mentioned here that the house of the informant consisted of only two rooms, one in the 1st floor which was used as Kitchen, while the second one is on the second floor which was used as a bed room. The building was inhabited by the other brothers and their families of the informant and it appears that by amicable partition between the brothers, the informant got only two rooms in his share, as mentioned above. The occurrence took place at the terrace on the second floor just in front of the said bed room. The accused-appellant is a driver and he used to take Telco Chassis from Jamshedpur to different places in the country and in that way, he visited Calcutta also on several occasions after his marriage was solemnised, but according to him, he did never visit nanihal of the deceased Usha Devi to meet her. This portion of the story is admitted. It is also admitted that at the time of death of the deceased, on the upstair of the hor.se, there was none except the accused-appellant and the deceased. The prosecution story is that after coming from the Cinema Hall, the accused-appellant sat with his brother-in-law (P.W. 3) Ranjit Kumar Prasad in the bed room and they were enjoying Television prog ammes there. After the night meal was prepared, the brother- inlaw was called by the mother-in-law (P.W. 2) Smt. Gouri Devi for takine his meal and the informant and his son were served food at the kitchen itself and Usha Devi was asked to take a served plate of night meal to the upstairs for the accused-appellant. She went upstairs with the served plate but then a sound of gun fire was heard by the informant party in the downstairs. She went upstairs with the served plate but then a sound of gun fire was heard by the informant party in the downstairs. On hearing this, the brother-in-law (P.W. 3) Ranjit Kumar Prasad rushed to the upstairs and found his sister Usha Devi lying in the pool of blood in the terrace having a gun-shot injury on her forehead. He cried that his sister was being murdered by some body. The following words were used by him as is appearing from the fardbeyan given by P.W. 13 to the effect that his son cried : "Didi Ko Kisee Nei Goli Mar Diya". The informant and his wife also rushed to the upstairs and found Usha Devi lying in the terrace in a pool of blood with gun shot injury on his forehead. The mother took the head of the deceased on her lap and then it is alleged that the accused-appellant also came out from the room. The deceased who was then injured only had been brought to downstairs and the accused-appellant had also helped in doing so. Then, the injured Usha Devi was taken to Dokaniya Nursing Home in the Giridih town itself on the rickshaw and in that rickshaw along with Usha Devi, the accused-appellant and the mother-in-law (P.W. 2) Gouri Devi accompanied. In another rickshaw, the informant and his son also went to Dokaniya Nursing Home. At the time of taking by rickshaw, Usha Devi was on the lap of the accused appellant and the mother-in-law Gouri Devi was weeping. At Dokaniya Nursing Home Usha Devi was declared dead. Then her dead body was taken back to home and then on the same night, infor-mation was lodged by the informant at about 1.3G a.m. There, in the fardbeyan, the informant had brought allegation that he had got every doubt that the accused appellant must have committed the murder of his daughter. 3. On the basis of that fardbeyan, the case was registered and the investigation started. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased Usha Devi and then the same was sent for autopsy by challan. The place of occurrence was visited and from inside the bed-stead in the upstairs room, a blood-stained revolver was recovered being covered with a piece of cloth which was also soaked with blood. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased Usha Devi and then the same was sent for autopsy by challan. The place of occurrence was visited and from inside the bed-stead in the upstairs room, a blood-stained revolver was recovered being covered with a piece of cloth which was also soaked with blood. The accused-appellant remained all along with the family members of the informant party till he was arrested by the police. After closure of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and a separate case being registered on recovery of arms. Charge-sheet was further submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 25 (1-B) (a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the cases were amalgamated and tried together. Charges were framed under the said Sections of law against the accused-appellant and when the same was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty. The defence case is of simple denial and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. For and on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses have been examined. The vital witnesses are P.W. 2, Smt. Gouri Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W. 3 Ranjit Kumar Prasad, brother of the deceased and P.W. 13 Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar, the informant and the father of the deceased. They were the persons who were present at the house when the occurrence took place. The other witnesses examined are P.W. 1 Dr. Kaushlendra Kumar, the Medical Officer posted in the Sadar Hospital, Giridih at the relevant time and held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found following injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) One circular lacerated wound over glabella (middle of Forehead) 1/2" x 1/2" cranial cavity deep with inverted margin, blackening and charring was present. (ii) Cresentic mark over the side of the nose (left) below left eyenail mark, on further decisionSubcutaneous tissues under the lacerated wound of the forehead in middle, i.e., Glabella region and the underlying frontal bone consisted a Circular hole 1/2" x 1/2" x Cranial cavity deep. On further desection the meninges and the brain were lacerated and terro posteriorly with extra cranial blood clot. One bullet was taken out from the posterior cranial . On further desection the meninges and the brain were lacerated and terro posteriorly with extra cranial blood clot. One bullet was taken out from the posterior cranial . The bullet was sealed and handed over to the investigating agency. P.W. 4 Bharti Devi is the aunt of the deceased, i.e., the brothers wife of the informant P.W. 13 Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar. She stated that the accused came to the house for taking bidai of Usha Devi and that he came as usual with gifts and others for the family members of the house. P.W. 3 Suresh Kumar, is another brother of the informant living in the same house. He stated that he was informed by the informant that the deceased was killed by the accused-appellant. According to him, this was stated when the deceased was being taken out for the Nursing Home. P.W. 6, Kameshwar Prasad, is another brother of the informant living in the same house. He also supported P.W. 3 regarding reporting of the informant about the killing of the deceased by the accused-appellant. P.W. 7, Bishwanath Sharma, is the chance witness who came to the place hearing bulla and he was also reported about the occurrence by the informant. P.W. 8, Kali Prasad Sao, P.W. 9 Shambhu Prasad, P.W. 10 Surender Sao and P.W. 11 Ramdeo Prasad Yadav are the witnesses of the seizures, namely, a blood-stained revolver from the bed-sheet of the room where the accused-appellant was occupying at the relevant time. P.W. 12 Shesil David Khalko is the Sergeant Major, who had examined the seized revolver and came to the finding that the said revolver was in working condition and the same must have been used recently. P.W. 14 Ugan Mandal is a constable and a formal witness. P.W. 15 Ramjee Prasad is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 16 Darogilal Burnwal, who has proved the sanction regarding prosecution of the accused-appellant under the Anns Act P.W. 17 Siya Sarah Prasad is the seizure witness. P.W. 18 Raju Sao and P.W. 19 Madan Keshri are the neighbours who came to the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and were reported about the occurrence by the inmates of the family of the informant and the information himself. The defence has not adduced any evidence in the case. P.W. 18 Raju Sao and P.W. 19 Madan Keshri are the neighbours who came to the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and were reported about the occurrence by the inmates of the family of the informant and the information himself. The defence has not adduced any evidence in the case. As is appearing from the various suggestions being giyen to the prosecution witnesses to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. The prosecution case is wholly based on the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The circumstances are in the following manner: (i) The marriage between the accused-appellant and the deceased was solemnised some time prior to the occurrence and the accused-appellant although visited Calcutta in course of his duty but he did not meet his wife Usha Devi, the deceased, in Calcutta while she was residing at her nanihal at Bhawanipur. (ii) At the time of occurrence in the upstairs of the house only the accused-appellant and the deceased were present. There was none other than them. (iii) Soon after the occurrence when the inmates of the house went upstairs hearing the sound of firing, the accused- appellant was in the room while the deceased, Usha Devi was lying with gun shot injury in pool of blood on the terrace and he was found concealing something inside the bed-sheet. (iv) On examination of the seized revolver it was found to be an unable one and recently it was used as still there was smell of firing in the barrel. (v) The accused-appellant was having some illicit relationship with one lady, namely, Shahnaz and only with the ulterior motive of clearing his path, of illicit relationship with Shahnaz, Usha Devi was murdered. A letter to that effect as written by the accused-appellant to the deceased had been proved in the case. 6. The admitted position remains in the case that the accused-appellant was married to the deceased Usha Devi on negotiations some time prior to the occurrence and just after the marriage Usha Devi and the accused-appellant lived together for about 7 to 8 days at Jamshedpur at the house of the accused-appellant. After that Usha Devi went to her nanihal in Calcutta wherefrom the marriage was solemnised although her parents were living at Giridih. After that Usha Devi went to her nanihal in Calcutta wherefrom the marriage was solemnised although her parents were living at Giridih. After living for 2 to 3 months in Calcutta, she came back to Giridih to stay with her parents and on the previous date of the occurrence the accused-appellant came to the sasural at Giridih and expressed his desire to take bidai of Usha Devi. As the parents were not ready at that time they took time and it was decided that on 17-7-1996 Usha Devi would be given bidai. Thus, the accused-appellant remained in the sasural. He slept with his brother-in-law and father-in-law in the room upstairs on the night of 13-7-1996. As there was paucity of accommodation, his wife slept with her mother in the kitchen in the down stairs. On the date of occur 2rence, i.e., on 14-7-96 the accused-appellant went to enjoy a matinee cinema show in the local cinema hall accompanied by his wife, Usha Devi, and his brother-in-law, Ranjeet Kumar Prasad. After return the accused-appellant and his brother-in-law (P.W. 2) sat in the upstairs room to enjoy T.V. programmes. At about 9 p.m. when the night meal was ready, the brother-in-law was called in the downstairs kitchen to take his food. Father and son were served foods in the kitchen when a prepared plate was made over to Usha Devi to serve the accused-appellant in the upstairs. When Usha Devi went there in the upstairs then after a while a sound of gun shot was heard and the inmates of the house ran there and found Usha Devi lying in the pool of blood in the terrace having gun shot firing on her forehead. The accused-appellant came out from the room and he also helped the other family members to bring Usha Devi to downstairs and they proceeded to Dokania Nursing Home where Usha Devi was declared dead and then the deceased was brought back home and then information was lodged by P.W. 13 expressing his strong doubt that the accused-appellant must have killed his daughter. The accused-appellant remained all along in the house and he also accompanied the prosecution party while the deceased was being taken to Dokania Nursing Home. After she was declared dead also he remained at the place of occurrence wherefrom he was arrested by the police. 7. The accused-appellant remained all along in the house and he also accompanied the prosecution party while the deceased was being taken to Dokania Nursing Home. After she was declared dead also he remained at the place of occurrence wherefrom he was arrested by the police. 7. The strong circumstance against the accused-appellant is that he was alone there at the place of occurrence where Usha Devi died of gun-shot injury. Some cross-examination was made from the side of the defence as to whether there was any scope of anybody else to come to the terrace from outside or such gun shot injury could be caused from outside but it appears that such attempt from the side of the defence could not be established to hold the possibility that the deceased could be shot at by a third person either from the outside of the house or by coming to the terrace through the pipeline from outside. Thus, the strong circumstances against the accused-appellant remain that he was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of occurrence. But, this circumstance alone may not be sufficient enough for fingering towards the accused-appellant alone to have committed the murder. But, such circumstance of last scene must be accompanied by some other attending circumstances to hold him guilty of the offence and for conclusiveness of the guilt of the accused such attending circumstances were attempted to be proved from the side of the prosecution. Now, it is required to be seen whether the circumstances shown from the side of the prosecution were proved or there was missing links. If chain of circumstances are proved then definitely the same would finger towards the accused-appellant of his committing crime but if some missing links are there and circumstances are rot conclusively proved then on the ground of last seen alone the accused may not be held guilty beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. About the first circumstance, it has not been denied that accused-appellant during his duty had visited several times Calcutta but he did not meet Usha Devi who was then residing at her nanihal at Bhawanipur in Calcutta. But whether this circumstance alone can finger towards the factum that the accused-appellant and the deceased were not having good relations after the marriage. I am afraid that the same does not. But whether this circumstance alone can finger towards the factum that the accused-appellant and the deceased were not having good relations after the marriage. I am afraid that the same does not. During the duty hours, it might not be possible for the accused-appellant to meet his wife although it is expected from a newly-married husband that he would take all chances to meet his newly married wife at her nanihal. It also appears a bit unnatural that since before the marriage Usha Devi, the deceased, was residing at her nanihal. The marriage was also solemnised at her nanihal and just after the marriage, after living 7 to 8 days at sasural, the deceased returned to her nanihal but not to her parents house. As to why even though the parents have got their own house at Giridih, the marriage was not solemnised at Giridih and just after the marriage the deceased had not been brought back at her parents house had not been explained from the side of the prosecution. None from the nanihals house has been produced from the side of the prosecution to explain the circumstances as mentioned above. But these circumstances as admitted from the side of the defence definitely cast some doubt as it is devoid of naturality of meeting of newly married couple but then it must also be seen at the subsequent circumstances. It appears that after coming to the sasural, the accused-appellant expressed his desire to take the deceased of bidai to his house at Jamshed-pur and he brought the gifts which are usually being presented when a damad visits his sasural for the first time for the purpose of taking bidai. This is a natural circumstance. Moreover, on the date of occurrence,, the accused-appellant had taken his wife to enjoy a matinee cinema show being accompanied by his brother-in-law. So these portions are very normal and natural and it has never been stated from the side of the prosecution party that the deceased was having been tortured or having any complaint against the husband or her in-laws. So the circumstance of non-visiting of the accused-appellant to the nanihals house in Calcutta does not prove much towards the guilt of the accused-appellant or his motive of getting rid of his wife. 9. So the circumstance of non-visiting of the accused-appellant to the nanihals house in Calcutta does not prove much towards the guilt of the accused-appellant or his motive of getting rid of his wife. 9. About the second circumstance, there is evidence from the side of the prosecution coming from P.W. 2, 3 and 13 to the effect that at the relevant time of occurrence the accused-appellant was alone in the room in the upstair when deceased Usha Devi went to serve a prepared plate of night meal to him and then the sound of firing was heard. The room in the upstair was occupied by the accused-appellant as per the prosecution case but before the time of occurrence the brother-in-law of the accused-appellant, P.W. 3, Ranjeet Kumar Prasad was accompanying the accused-appellant to enjoy the T.V. programmes in that room and it is the prosecution case that he was called to the downstairs for taking his night meal. But the husband, i.e., the accused-appellant was not called in the downstairs in the kitchen to take his meal. The reasons have not been stated as to why the accused-appellant was not called downstairs in the kitchen to have his night meal. But, it also appears that on the previous night also the accused-appellant was served his meal in the upstairs alone being served by his wife Usha Devi. It must be borne in mind that all the evidenced came from the most interested parties and witnesses. Soon after the sound of firing when P.W. 3 rushed to the upstairs, he found his sister lying in pool of blood and he cried out that some body had killed his sister. He did not tell as to what he had seen about his brother-in-law at that place nor it was there that he had the doubt at that moment that his sister was being killed by the accused-appellant, although the story nas been developed during the course of trial to the effect that all the three inmates of the house rushed to the place of occurrence conjointly. But in the fardbeyan, it was told that P.W. 3 rushed to the upstair alone the therefrom he cried saying the following words "Didi ko kisine mar dia" and then the parents of P.W. 3 rushed to the place of occurrence. But in the fardbeyan, it was told that P.W. 3 rushed to the upstair alone the therefrom he cried saying the following words "Didi ko kisine mar dia" and then the parents of P.W. 3 rushed to the place of occurrence. Moreover, it appears that on the previous night, the room was occupied by the accused-appellant along-with his father-in-law P.W. 13 and brother-in-law P.W. 3 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad and the deceased Usha Devi slept with her mother P.W. 2 Gouri Devi in the kitchen. Taking it for granted as already mentioned that the accused-appellant was alone at the time of occurrence in the upstair then also the same does not prove conclusively that he was the assailant unless some more things are coming forward or other circumstances are proved against him. Up to the stage of killing, it appears from the evidence of all the inmates of the house including the uncles and aunts of the deceased, who were residing in the other part of the house, that everything was going on normally and there was no suspicion or doubt regarding the conduct and behaviour of the accused-appellant since before the occurrence. 10. Regarding the third circumstance, it is the case of the prosecution during the course of trial that soon after the occurrence when P.Ws. 2, 3 and 13 rushed to the upstairs on hearing of the sound of firing, they saw the accused-appellant coming out of the room in the upstairs but in that course he was found concealing something inside bed-stead and during the course of investigation from inside the bed stead a blood-stained country-made revolver was recovered being wrapped with a blood soaked piece of cloth. The said revolver was sent for examination by an expert and the same was examined by P.W. 12 and, according to him, the said revolver was in usable condition and it must have been fired in recent days as small of firing was found from the barrel. On the basis of such recovery of country-made pistol from the conscious possession of the accused-appellant, a further case was registered against the accused-appellant under the Arms Act as already mentioned above and the said revolver was again being examined by the same expert P.W. 12 and he also gave report. Both these reports have been brought on record through P.W. 12 during the course of his examination before the trial Court. Both these reports have been brought on record through P.W. 12 during the course of his examination before the trial Court. The first question that is required to be decided as to whether the country-made pistol belonged to the accused-appellant and whether he had brought it to the house of the informant when he came there from Jamshedpur or whether there was any scope of such revolver being used for the purpose of commission of murder of Usha Devi. In the fardbeyan filed by P.W. 13, the informant there is not an iota of statement regarding such revolver. It was only during the course of investigation, such revolver had been allegedly recovered from the room in the upstairs. The story which had been developed during the course of trial by P.W. 2 and P.W. 13, that they saw the accused-appellant concealing something in the bed stead had been stated during the course of trial only. It was never the case of the prosecution during the course of investigation. None of these two witnesses have stated that they had seen the accused-appellant concealing something behind the bed-stead when they rushed to the upstairs after hearing of the sound of firing. All along it is the case of the accused-appellant that the story of recovery of revolver is only a planted story and just being embroidered in the prosecution case for the purpose of implicating the accused-appellant. The revolver although was stated to be smeared with blood but no chemical examination was made as to whether such blood was of human-being and that of the deceased Usha Devi not any fingerprints of that revolver had been taken by the investigating agency to prove that the same was used by the accused-appellant for the purpose of commission of the crime. These lacunae in the prosecution story had not been explained from the side of the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial or argument. It was stated by the witnesses when the accused-appellant first came to the house of the informant he was having a jhola but what was there in that jhola had not been stated by the witnesses rather it appears from the evidence of the aunt of the deceased P.W. 4 Bharti Devi that the accused-appellant as usual brought gifts for the family members of the informant for the purpose of bidai. Then, if those gifts were there in the jhola, such jhola must have been opened by the accused-appellant in front of the inmates of the house. Nowhere it had been stated that such jhola was ever kept in by the accused-appellant or there was any attempt from the side of the accused- appellant to hide the jhola in the room. Moreover, that room was being used not only by the accused- appellant but by the other members of the family as already mentioned above. So it cannot be said that the room was in exclusive possession of the accused appellant and as such, if anything incriminating has been found in that room it cannot finger towards the conscious possession of the accused-appellant alone. Moreover, it appears that the revolver which was alleged to be used for the commission of the crime was not the same which was found to be in conscious possession of the accused-appellant as the description and size of the revolver differ in the report in the two cases submitted by the expert P.W. 12. This anomaly has also not been explained from the side of the prosecution. To add something more to implicate the accused-appellant with this so-called incriminating weapon, P.W. 2 stated that before Usha Devi was taken to Dokania Nursing Home in injured condition she made the upstairs room locked but she has not stated that she had locked the kitchen also as all the inmates of the house had left for Dokania Nursing Home. It seems to be an unusual one and this had been added in the prosecution case only during the course of trial to show that there was no scope of anybody else to plant the weapon inside the place of occurrence to implicate the accused-appellant. On a close analysis of the evidence of P.W. 12 with that of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 13 in respect of this revolver, it appears that this is development in the prosecution case during the course of trial only. According to defence, this story of revolver is only a planted story from the side of the prosecution. On a close analysis of the evidence of P.W. 12 with that of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 13 in respect of this revolver, it appears that this is development in the prosecution case during the course of trial only. According to defence, this story of revolver is only a planted story from the side of the prosecution. The prosecution could not be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that this revolver which was seized in connection with the murder case was the same revolver which was seized in connection with the arms case although there is no story that there was a second revolver in the house. That the revolver belonged to the accused-appellant had also not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It has also not been proved that the revolver was kept by the accused-appellant in the room and as the room was not being occupied by the accused-appellant alone then it cannot be said to have been proved that the revolver has been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused-appellant. That the accused appellant has used it for the purpose of commission of crime also could not be proved as no finger-prints over the revolver have been taken and have been tallied with the finger-prints of the accused-appellant. The vital point in this case for connecting the revolver with the crime has not been proved from the side of the prosecution. The fired bullet recovered from the body of the deceased had not been sent for examination along with the revolver to prove that the same bullet was fired from the revolver seized. So there remains a big gap of connecting this so called revolver with the crime and there is also a missing link of connecting the accused-appellant with that revolver. Moreover, the accused-appellant if he really used the revolver for the purpose of commission of the crime then a guilty conscious man would never keep the revolver in such a way to get him caught easily and being connected with the crime. The whole story of recovery of the revolver connecting the accused-appellant with the crime in question does not appeal to reason to found his conviction. 11. The last circumstance against the accused-appellant is regarding the motive mens rea. From the prosecution side, an attempt has been made to prove that the accused-appellant was having illicit relationship with one Mostt. The whole story of recovery of the revolver connecting the accused-appellant with the crime in question does not appeal to reason to found his conviction. 11. The last circumstance against the accused-appellant is regarding the motive mens rea. From the prosecution side, an attempt has been made to prove that the accused-appellant was having illicit relationship with one Mostt. Shahnaz and as such, he wanted to get rid of the deceased, Usha Devi, to fulfil his lust towards Mostt. Shahnaz. In support of this motive, during the course of investigation, from the side of the informant a letter has been produced, which was marked as Ext. 7, alleged to be written by the accused-appellant to the deceased prior to the occurrence. Such letter as admitted by the investigating officer was never seized rather it was only taken into the custody of the investigating officer on being produced from the informants side. There was no formal proof of that letter except a statement made by P.W. 3 and P.W. 13 to the effect that such letter was shown to them by the deceased, Usha Devi, and she also stated that the accused-appellant was having an illicit relationship with one Mostt. Shahnaz. Very peculiarly the hand writing of that letter has not been proved to be of the accused-appellant nor such letter has been put by way of questioning in the statement recorded of the accused-appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So such letter has not been proved formally in the case. A question was put to the accused-appellant that he had illicit relationship with one Shahnaz but the same has been emphatically denied by the accused-appellant. The investigating officer has also revealed in his evidence that no serious attempt was made from his side to verify the fact of illicit relationship or to find out the whereabouts of Mostt. Shahnaz. So that factum of illicit relationship remains completely unproved. I have gone through the letter itself. From the wordings of the letter, it appears that the deceased wrote a letter to her husband that she had got grievances about relations of her husband with Shahnaz and the husband became very much upset on such doubt or suspicion being expressed by the wife. The wordings of the letter are only the sentimental approach between the newly married husband and wife. The wordings of the letter are only the sentimental approach between the newly married husband and wife. It does not show any sort of serious allegation regarding illicit relationship of the husband of Usha Devi with Mostt. Shahnaz. So the motive in the case could not be proved in any way whatsoever. Till the incident occurred everything was normal. There was not an iota of statement by any of the witnesses that the relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial. It appears that such letter had been manufactured only for the purpose of creating a motive or mens rea against the accused-appellant for commission of the crime. I have already stated that the relationship between the husband and wife or the behavioural pattern of the spouses was quite normal and there was no doubt or suspicion about the relationship, nor there was any allegation to the effect that the husband had tortured the wife at any time. On the date of occurrence also, they had enjoyed a matinee cinema show together. There was no quarrel between the two as the brother-in-law (P.W. 3) was all along with them while enjoying the cinema show. The proposal of bidai as offered by the accused-appellant was accepted by the parents of the deceased and only within a few days the spouses are to leave for their matrimonial home. Thus, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the relationship was suffered with any abnormality whatsoever. Moreover, if the accused-appellant wanted to get rid of his wife, he could have waited till the 17th of that month when he would get his wife in his clutches. If it was a planned murder, then the accused-appellant would not have chosen his sasural to be the venue for the commission of the murder. 12. Moreover, in a case of murder mens rea or motive might not have much importance but in a case where only cir cumstances are there, then mens rea or motive plays a vital role. Here, as stated above, in the present case, mens rea could not be proved by any cogent evidence. Such question of mens rea should also be considered from the behaviour and con-duct of the accused -appellant Such behaviour is very much important as contemplated under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Here, as stated above, in the present case, mens rea could not be proved by any cogent evidence. Such question of mens rea should also be considered from the behaviour and con-duct of the accused -appellant Such behaviour is very much important as contemplated under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The accused- appellant even after the commission of the crime, as alleged, remained in the house and he helped all the inmates of the house to drag the deceased from the upstairs. He took the injured wife in his lap while going to Dokania Nursing Home along with his mother-in-law and after the deceased was declared dead in the Nursing Home the accused-appellant returned to the sasural and remained there till the police came and arrested him on the basis of the fardbeyan lodged by the informant. Such sort of conduct is not expected from a criminal. After commission of the crime, a criminal would try definitely to flee away to save himself and he would not remain in the place for getting him caught or arrested. I have already stated that only suspicion was raised, as per fardbeyan, regarding the involvement of the accused-appellant with the crime. Such suspicion was not there till Usha Devi was declared dead because P.W. 3 at his first impression expressed that somebody had killed his sister without fingering towards the accused-appellant although he was only there at the site of occurrence. Thus, I find that this circumstance, i.e., motive mens rea could not be established by the prosecution. 13. In the present case, it is true that there is strong doubt/suspicion against the accused-appellant to have committed the crime as he was alone at the site of the occurrence when the murder was committed. There might be a case of suicide or for some reason or other some family members of the deceased might be responsible for commission of the crime but circumstances attempted to be proved from the side of the prosecution could not form a chain to finger towards the guilt of the accused alone. When there are missing links in the circumstances and when there is doubt as to whether the accused-appellant was involved with the crime or not, there is no scope to convict the accused-appellant for the alleged crime. When there are missing links in the circumstances and when there is doubt as to whether the accused-appellant was involved with the crime or not, there is no scope to convict the accused-appellant for the alleged crime. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned Sessions Judge although had written a long judgment but did not scrutinize the circumstances from all angles and then came to the finding that the accused-appellant must have committed the crime. When the circumstances could not be proved and those circumstances have also missing links and could not form a chain then the accused-appellant is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. Strong suspicion is there against the accused-appellant from the circumstances of the case but the suspicion alone cannot take the place of proof unless the circumstances could be proved to finger towards the guilt of the accused alone. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the accused-appellant may be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. A.K.Prasad, J. 15 I agree.