JUDGMENT : Vikramaditya Prasad, J.- The sole appellant, who was convicted on trial for an offence under section 302 IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for life, has preferred this appeal. 2. As per the fardbeyan, Ext. 1/1, of one Ratua Munda, who proved his signature, Ext. 1, in the fardbeyan, which was recorded on 4.1.1995 at 10.30 hrs. at village Gadhatoli P.S.Sadar District-Ranchi, the prosecution case is that at 8.15 in the previous night when he was baking bread in his house he heard the sound of weeping from the neighbouring house and also he heard Hulla and went there along with his neighbours to the house of his brother Mangra Munda where he found that Mangra Munda soaked with blood was lying on the floor and he was also writhing and there were injuries of sharp cutting weapon (Chhura) on the side portion of his neck. When he asked his sister-in-law Salmi Mundain (appellant) as to how this happended she had uttered not a single word. The brother of the informant was unconscious and he also did not tell anything. Thereafter with the help of villagers, he got his brother boarded on a Rickshaw and carried him to Kokar Private Hospital where the Doctor examined him and declared him dead. At that very time, they brought back the deadbody on the Rickshaw and again asked his sister-in-law then she in presence of the villagers disclosed that her husband Mangra Munda always created scene after drinking and assaulted her and consequently, as on that day he was also quarreling, and after that he had retired to his bed, she in anger had attacked on his neck by a knife and her husband sustained injuries with blood and because of fear, she started crying and weeping then she had brought the knife by which she had injured her husband resulting his death. The informant further stated in that fardbeyan that he had come to know that his sister-in-law had developed some illicit relationship with some other person. On that basis of this fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R., Ext.2, was drawn. It also transpires that during investigation, the appellant had produced a long pointed dagger of 12' length on which no blood stains were there and the knife was also washed and cleaned, vide Ext.4. That was produced in presence of Ratua Munda, P.W.1. This Ext. On that basis of this fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R., Ext.2, was drawn. It also transpires that during investigation, the appellant had produced a long pointed dagger of 12' length on which no blood stains were there and the knife was also washed and cleaned, vide Ext.4. That was produced in presence of Ratua Munda, P.W.1. This Ext. was signed by Ratua Munda, Ext.2/1, P.W.1. 3. The inquest report (Ext.5) of the dead body was also prepared at the residence of the deceased in presence of the witnesses John Nag, P.W.4, and Rajendra Ram (not examined) on 16.1.1995 at 11.00 pm. by the I.O., Ext.1/1. It also transpires that the autopsy on the dead body was conducted by P.W.6, who found the following injuries and proved the P.M. Report, Ext.6 :- "Stab wound :- 2 x 1 cms. x cavity deep on Rt. Fronts laternal neck middle part, the weapon passes through. Soft tissues and penetrates the carol artery then passes through soft tissues under surface of right odavicals the re-under into Rt. lung. The track of the wound is directed medially downwards. There is presence of blood and blood clot in Rt. chest cavity. Opinion :- Abovementioned stab wound is antemortem. (i) caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon such as Chhura (ii) death is due to haemorrhage and shock" 4. The defence version is the innocence and false implication of the appellant in this case. 5. The fate of this case depends upon the determination of the following points:- (i) Whether there is any extra judicial confession made by the appellant and if at all it is, then can conviction be made on this evidence? (ii) What is the effect of production of Chhura before the I.O.? Does it prove the guilt of the appellant? (iii) Whether the circumstance that the appellant was found near the injured body of her husband soon after the alleged occurrence is sufficient to establish that she had caused the injury which ultimately resulted in the death of her husband? and (iv) Lastly, whether the offence falls under section 302 IPC or under section 304 Part-II IPC. 6. Point No. (i) Whether there is any extra judicial confession made by the appellant and if at all it is then can conviction be made on this evidence? P.W.2 has been tendered. P.W.3 and 4 have been declared hostile. and (iv) Lastly, whether the offence falls under section 302 IPC or under section 304 Part-II IPC. 6. Point No. (i) Whether there is any extra judicial confession made by the appellant and if at all it is then can conviction be made on this evidence? P.W.2 has been tendered. P.W.3 and 4 have been declared hostile. On the point of extra judicial confession, that have not supported in their respective evidence that she had made any confessional statement. P.W.4 is not at all a witness on the confessional statement. So the only witness on the point of extra judicial confession is the P.W.1, the informant of this case. He is the brother of the deceased. He lives in a separate portion of the house of the deceased. He had arrived P.O. on hearing the Hulla Gulla (noise) and came to the house of the appellant where he found Mangra soaked in blood when he asked the appellant, she did not speak anything. Thereafter, he took the injured to the Doctor where he was declared dead and when he came back along with the dead body and again asked the wife of the deceased (appellant) as to how it had happened, then she told that the deceased used to quarrel after drinking and also used to assault her and therefore, she had assaulted him by Chhura. This witness has said that on Hulla Gulla, Sham Chawra Munda P.W.2 (who has been tendered) John Mistry, P.W.4, and one Mohmmedan Mechanic whose name he does not know etc. had assembled there. But this witness most probably had assembled there at the time of taking him to the Doctor. This witness, P.W.4, as stated above, has been declared hostile, but even in the evidence before the court, P.W.1 has not stated that this witness was present, when the appellant made the confession before him. Now this witness, P.W.1, in para 5 said that he and the appellant's husband had a cordial relationship and there was no quarrel between them. In para 10 he says that when he had returned from the Hospital, the appellant had to d him that the deceased used to do much quarrel (Kich Kich) and at that time police was not there, but there was a big crowd. Thus, it is clear that other than P.W. 1. In para 10 he says that when he had returned from the Hospital, the appellant had to d him that the deceased used to do much quarrel (Kich Kich) and at that time police was not there, but there was a big crowd. Thus, it is clear that other than P.W. 1. there is no witness to corroborate the extra Judicial confession having been made by the appellant From this evidence, it appears that whatever she said, she said before the crowd and not only to this witness. In such a situation, non-corroboration of the confession allegedly made by the appellant by any other witness becomes a circumstance to doubt the evidence of P.W.1 on this point. P.W.1 is the own brother of the deceased and it appears that the deceased family consisted only of the deceased and his wife, the appellant, and in such a situation, the appellant does not appear to have confided into the brother, who would be gainer in the event of his brother being dead and the appellant in jail. Thus, in absence of any independent corroboration on the point of confession it does not appear to be safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 alone on this point. This point is decided accordingly. 7. Point No. (ii) What is the effect of production of Chhura before the I.O.? Does it prove the guilt of the appellant? In his examination-in-chief, P.W.1, informant said that wife of Mangra (deceased) Salmi Mundain, 'the appellant, had also shown the Chhura by which she had assaulted Mangra and that Chhura had been seized by the police and he and Dahari had signed over that and Salmi Mundain, appellant, had put her LTI. On this point, he had not been cross-examined. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not supported the factum of production of Chhura. P.W.4, though he has been declared hostile, but in cross-examination, vide para 4, said that the appellant had taken out a Chhura in his presence and had given, but his signature does not appear on Ext.5, the production list. In his cross-examination, vide para 7, he further said that he had seen the Chhura, which was an old Chhura generally used for the purpose of cutting vegetables. It was 10' long and had a handle and its sharp portion extended only 111/2"-3" and it had no blood stain. In his cross-examination, vide para 7, he further said that he had seen the Chhura, which was an old Chhura generally used for the purpose of cutting vegetables. It was 10' long and had a handle and its sharp portion extended only 111/2"-3" and it had no blood stain. P.W.5, S.I., has stated in his evidence, vide para 2, that the appellant had produced a Chhura and he prepared the production list in presence of two independent witnesses, Ranghu Munda and Dinu Munda and a copy of that was handed over to the appellant, on which she had also put her LTI. In para 9 of his cross-examination, I.O. says that Chhura was sharp edged and was 12' in length and it had no handle. It was pointed and there was no sharpness on it. When the Chhura was produced before him it was clean and it had no blood stain. 1re Chhura was produced from inside the house where the dead body was and when he entered into the room he found the appellant sitting at a distance of two steps from the dead body weeping and sometimes thereafter she had produced the Chhura. She produced it when he was making inspection and he had not seen the Chhura when he was inspecting the room in the light of Deepak, (earthen lamp). In para 10 he says that he had inspected the P.O. during day time and in the room there was no light, but there were two doors-one opens inside the house and the other in the Angan. From the aforesaid evidence, it is amply proved that the appellant had produced the Chhura - the weapon which was allegedly used in the offence. At the time of producing the Chhura she had not made any confession even before the I.O. The Chhura was not discovered on the basis of any confessional statement. It was simply produced. Now this production may be construed in two ways- firstly, she had assaulted her husband by the Chhura and produced it before the I.O. and secondly, she did not assault her husband by the Chhura, but she knew where the weapon of assault was kept and from there she brought. It was simply produced. Now this production may be construed in two ways- firstly, she had assaulted her husband by the Chhura and produced it before the I.O. and secondly, she did not assault her husband by the Chhura, but she knew where the weapon of assault was kept and from there she brought. Out of these two constructions, the second construction is beneficial to the appellant and cardinal principle of the criminal law is that if one circumstance can be interpreted in two ways, the interpretation which benefits the accused 'should be used. When viewed from this angle, this circumstance of production of Chhura does not date of occurrence soon before the alleged assault there was any fight between the husband and wife, which caused sudden provocation to the appellant. There is no positive evidence that there was a quarrel. When the post-mortem report is looked at, it is found that the Doctor has found only Gas and empty stomach. So there was no alcohol in the stomach. So, this hypothesis that the deceased drank and thereafter quarreled and assaulted his wife and consequently, due to sudden provocation, she assaulted him is also belied. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the injury that was found on the deceased which ultimately caused the death was caused by the appellant without knowledge that such an injury would result in his death or was caused in a sudden provocation. Thus, this argument cannot be entertained. Consequently, it is held that the injury was caused knowingly and intentionally on the most vital part of the body and the appellant knew that such an injury would result in death. Thus, the offence does not fall within tile purview of section 304, Part-II IPC. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that despite non-proving of the extra judicial confession and production of Chhura being interpreted in favour of the appellant, the circumstances that she was alone in the house when the alleged fatal injuries were caused are sufficient to prove her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is consequently dismissed. Her bail bonds are cancelled. The trial court is directed to take her into custody for serving the sentence. Lakshman Uraon, J.-I agree.