JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Appellant Jai Chand (hereinafter referred to the accused7) along with two others faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC) . The learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur found the accused to be guilty under Sections 302 and 498-A of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, no separate sentence under Section 498-A of the IPC is imposed upon the accused. While two others, namely, Prem Chand and Smt. Nimmo Devi were acquitted. 2. Prosecution version as unfolded during the trial may briefly be stated thus : 3. Smt.Vidya Devi was the wife of Jai Chand accused whereas Prem Chand is his brother and Smt. Nimmo Devi is the wife of their older brother Parkash Chand. Smt. Vidya Devi was married to Jai Chand accused in the year 1996. On 13.7.2001 Smt. Vidya Devi in serious condition was taken to District Hospital, Hamirpur by the accused for medical treatment. The Medical Officer on duty informed the police of Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur vide rapat No. 3 dated 13.7.2001 (Ext.PW-8/A) that one woman was brought to the hospital for medical treatment under suspicious circumstances. On the said information, PW-8 Sansar Chand Inspector/Station House Officer accompanied by other police personals went to the hospital. He found the dead body of Smt. Vidya Devi lying in the Verandha. PW-1 Roshan Lal father of the deceased Vidya Devi was standing nearby the dead body of his daughter. He made statement (Ext.PW-1/A) to PW-8 that his son-in-law Jai Chand accused is habitual drunkard and under the influence of liquor he had been giving beatings to Smt. Vidya Devi and also treating her with cruelty. About two years prior to the death of Smt. Vidya Devi the accused left the deceased in the house of PW-1 who after pacifying his daughter sent her to Jhe house of her in-laws. Prem Chand co-accused had given beatings to the deceased and taunted her that she was very slow in cooking the food. PW-1 again pacified his daughter and told her that small uncalled for remarks do generally happen in the joint family. Prem Chand co-accused had given beatings to the deceased and taunted her that she was very slow in cooking the food. PW-1 again pacified his daughter and told her that small uncalled for remarks do generally happen in the joint family. Smt. Nimmo Devi accused No. 3 and Jai Chand accused also used to abuse the deceased. In these circumstances, Smt. Vidya Devi committed suicide due to mal-treatment and torture by all the accused persons. On 13.7.2001 at about 8.30 a.m. one Kashmir Singh resident of the village of PW-1 informed him on telephone that his daughter Smt. Vidya Devi had been brought to the hospital at Hamirpur where she had expired. PW-1 along with his son PW-2 Ajit Singh went to the hospital and found Smt. Vidya Devi dead. PW-1 had noticed injuries on her person. 4. PW-8 sent statement of PW-1 (Ext.PW-8/A) to the Police Station for registration of the case. On the basis of Ext.PW-1/A formal First Information Report (Ext.PW-6/A) was recorded by PW-6 M.H.C.Ramesh Chand at Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur. The investigation of the case initially was conducted by PW-8. He prepared inquest reports (Ext. PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B) and sent application Ext.PW-8/B to the Senior Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for conducting the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. Photographs (Exts. P-9 to P-14) of the dead body were taken. Jai Chand accused was present in the hospital. He handed over Dupattas (Ext.P-2 and Ext. P-3), shirt (Ext.P-5) and salwar (Ext.P-6) of the deceased to PW-8 which were taken into possession vide memos (Exts. PW-2/C and PW-2/D) respectively. The case property was deposited by PW~ 8 to PW-6 M.H.C. Ramesh Chand. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to PW-9 Sub Inspector Hari Ram. PW-9 collected the post mortem report Ext.PW-10/A. On the basis of post mortem report, the case was converted from Section 306 I.P.C. to an offence under Section 302 I.PC. PW-9 arrested all the accused persons and interrogated them. Jai Chand accused made the alleged disclosure statement (Ext.PW-5/A) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that he along with co-accused had hanged the deceased with Barli (a wooden scant placed horizontally on the walls of the room). To the same affect co-accused Smt. Nimmo Devi made disclosure statements Exts. Jai Chand accused made the alleged disclosure statement (Ext.PW-5/A) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that he along with co-accused had hanged the deceased with Barli (a wooden scant placed horizontally on the walls of the room). To the same affect co-accused Smt. Nimmo Devi made disclosure statements Exts. PW-5/B and PW-5/D. Jai Chand accused also got recovered one iron bucket Ext.P-8 which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW 5/C. PW-9 prepared site map Ext.PW-9/A depicting the place where the accused persons had thrust the face of the deceased in the bucket (Ext.P-8) filled with water and pointed the place where her dead body was tied with "Barli" by the accused persons. PW-9 also submitted an application to the Patwari for supplying copies of Khasra-Girdawari (Ext.PW-4/A), Jamabandi (Ext.PW-4/B) and Aksh Tatima (Ext.PW-4/C). All those documents were supplied by PW-4 Jiwan Singh Patwari. 5. Further, case of the prosecution was that all the accused persons during their interrogation have admitted that they had caused the murder of the deceased. As per the disclosure statements of Jai Chand accused and Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused, on the intervening night of 12th/13th July, 2001 Smt. Vidya Devi came out of the room and went to a place where catties used to beet- thered. Her husband Jai Chand also followed her. He asked his wife to go to bed but she did not respond to his request. Both of them entered into verbal discussion. Jai Chand accused at that time dipped the head of Vidya Devi in a bucket containing water and as a result thereof, Smt. Vidya Devi felt suffocated and water entered into her mouth as well as in the stomach. Jai Chand accused then made Smt. Vidya Devi to lay on the cot. In the meantime, Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused came to the room of Jai Chand accused. Jai Chand accused called his brother Prem Chand co-accused. Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused caught hold of both arms of Smt.Vidya Devi and Prem Chand co-accused caught hold of her legs. Jai Chand accused then throttled Smt. Vidya Devi with hands and caused her death. On finding that there was no movement in her body, all the accused hanged the deceased with Dupattas (Exts.P-2 and P-3) and thereafter Lald the dead body of deceased Smt. Vidya Devi on a cot. Jai Chand accused then throttled Smt. Vidya Devi with hands and caused her death. On finding that there was no movement in her body, all the accused hanged the deceased with Dupattas (Exts.P-2 and P-3) and thereafter Lald the dead body of deceased Smt. Vidya Devi on a cot. On the following morning Jai Chand accused told his mother that the deceased had become unconscious during night time and now she was unable to speak. Jai Chand accused then took the deceased to the courtyard and again Lald her on a cot. The residents of the village were also informed about the death of Smt. Vidya Devi . One Smt. Damodri Devi brought some milk from her house but the deceased could not inhale the same. Thereafter, Jai Chand accused accompanied by PW-3 Kartar Chand and one Deepak Kumar brought the deceased on a cot to the road side. Parkash Chand the elder brother of Jai Chand and Prem Chand accused persons and husband of Smt. Nimmo Devi accused brought a taxi in which the deceased was taken to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur where she was declared dead by the doctor on duty. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ext. PW-8/D, PW-8 found that deceased Smt. Vidya Devi had not committed suicide but she was killed by the accused persons by dipping her face in a bucket and strangulating her. On competition of the investigation, the three accused persons were sent up for trial for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 498-A I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and cLalmed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the accusation, ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication. They pleaded innocence. Jai Chand accused pleaded that he informed PW-1 about the death of his wife. In answer to question No. 26 he replied as under: "The deceased had illicit relations with my nephew Banku Ram S/o Sh. Roli Ram. On one occasion when I came on leave to the house, came across few love letters written by said Banku Ram to the deceased, on this I inquired from her about such relations and asked her to discontinue such relations. Roli Ram. On one occasion when I came on leave to the house, came across few love letters written by said Banku Ram to the deceased, on this I inquired from her about such relations and asked her to discontinue such relations. On this she went to the house of her parents and stayed there for about three months and when brought to my house by her parents, she used to remain depressed. She has, thus, committed suicide due to her own problems and not on account of the alleged torturing attributed to him. I am thus innocent and implicated falsely in this case. It is, however, submitted that those letters were burnt by me with the idea to maintain cordial relations with the deceased and also to forget whatever as happened in the past." 7. Prem Chand co-accused in answer to question No. 26 replied as under : "I am innocent and has nothing to do with the case because of living separately from accused Jai Chand and his family’ 8. Smt. Nimmo Devi accused also pleaded that she has got nothing more to say except that she is innocent and was implicated falsely in this case. She has nothing to do with this case as she is living separately with her own family. 9. The trial Court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cogent and reliable. Placing reliance on their evidence, the trial Court found Jai Chand accused husband of the deceased guilty but found that the prosecution has not established its case so far as co-accused Prem Chand and Smt. Nimmo Devi are concerned and accordingly directed their acquittal. He, therefore, vide judgment and order dated 13.6.2002 convicted and sentenced Jai Chand accused as aforesaid. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon Jai Chand accused, he has preferred this appeal. 11. We have heard learned counael for the parties and have also gone through the record. 12. It is not in dispute that deceased died of unnatural death. The point of controversy, however, is that according to the prosecution the death of the deceased was homicidal as she died of asphyxia as a result of drowning and strangulation by the accused whereas according to the defence the death of the deceased was suicidal caused by hanging. Therefore, the following questions arise for determination in this appeal: 1. The point of controversy, however, is that according to the prosecution the death of the deceased was homicidal as she died of asphyxia as a result of drowning and strangulation by the accused whereas according to the defence the death of the deceased was suicidal caused by hanging. Therefore, the following questions arise for determination in this appeal: 1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal? 2. In case the death of the deceased is found homicidal, whether her death was caused by the accused? 13. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence as to the murder of the deceased. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is by now well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court can record conviction but before , doing so it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu v. State of Hyderabad, JJR 1956 SC 316; Erabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890). 14. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, it was Lald down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 15. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P, AIR 1990 SC 79, it was Lald down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (1) the. 15. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P, AIR 1990 SC 79, it was Lald down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (1) the. circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 16. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Cri.LJ 1104, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 17. It has now to be determined in view of the evidence available on record as to whether the chain of circumstances appearing arid pressed in service by the prosecution against the accused is so complete so as to lead to the only conclusion that the deceased has been done away to death by the accused alone and that her death is not suicidal. 18. It is not in dispute that the deceased during the intervening night of 12th/13th July, 2001 was in the matrimonial home itself. The defence of the accused was that the deceased used to remain under depression because of her illicit relation with his nephew namely Banku Ram. The prosecution mainly relied upon medical opinion of PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra, Medical Officer, Zonal Officer, Hamirpur. PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra and Dr. K.S. Dogra jointly conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 13.7.2001 in Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. Dr. The prosecution mainly relied upon medical opinion of PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra, Medical Officer, Zonal Officer, Hamirpur. PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra and Dr. K.S. Dogra jointly conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 13.7.2001 in Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. Dr. K.C. Chopra has deposed that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by drowning and strangulation and the probable time between injury and death was immediate. The post mortem report (Ext.PW-10/A) was prepared by Dr. K.S. Dogra (not examined). The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased by PW-10: 1. There was 10 cm long ligature mark of dark brown colour extending from left sternocleido mastoid to the right sternocleido mastoid below cricoid cartilage, reddish brown in colour, abrasion to be on the right side. Ligature mark encircles the neck only on front side. No encircling of the neck on the back and away from sternocleidol mastoid. There was ligature of 1.5 cm wide or less than it at places (ligature used was not presented by the police at the time of post mortem examination). It was not with the body either No abrasion/bruises on the mouth, nose, cheeks, forehead. Lips were blue. Tongue was indrawn, clinching of teeth, on opening base of tongue swollen. No injury tongue clinching of hands present. Disection of neck. 2. On disection, there was extra vacation of blood into sub-subcutanous tissue under ligature mark on right side present. Platysma and right sternocleido mastoid muscle lacerated. No laceration of sheath of carotid arteries. No fracture of hyoid bone or thyroid cartilage. Epiglottis not snoozed Trachea and larynx were congested and have frothy mucous. First 2-3 rings of trachea fractured. 3. Walls and peitoneum were normal. Mouth pharynx and oasophagus had whitish fluid. Stomach was containing 500 cc of fluid mixed with mucous and small sticky material. 19. In cross-examination, Dr. Chopra has admitted that if the force is applied then the bucket which was used as ligature could touch both the ears. He has admitted that his opinion is not based on any text book but only on his experience as well as the post mortem report. Dr. Chopra also admitted that ha is not a forensic expert. Chopra has admitted that if the force is applied then the bucket which was used as ligature could touch both the ears. He has admitted that his opinion is not based on any text book but only on his experience as well as the post mortem report. Dr. Chopra also admitted that ha is not a forensic expert. It has come in his cross-examination that If a person is noticed having tried to commit suicide with the help of ligature and the body was brought down immediately the suspension of body will be very less and if a person is immediately brought down and becomes unconscious and if water given to him in lying posture on the spinal side the water may cause death by entering into larynx and trachea. He has admitted that there was no mark of thumb or fingers on the neck of the deceased. 20. Exts. PW-2/A and PW-2/B are the inquest reports prepared by PW-8 Inspector Sansar Chand. While dealing with the facts of the case, PW-8 has recorded in the inquest report Ext. PW-2/A that on a formal inquiry, Jai Chand accused disclosed that deceased Vidya Devi on 12.7.2001 was insisting upon to permit her to go to her parental house. He told her that as his mother and brothers wife both were ill, so he would take her to her parental house after one-two days. After taking dinner, they went to sleep in a room of the upper storey of the house. On 13.7.2001 at about 6.30 a.m. when he got up in the morning, he saw that his wife had tied Dupatta around her neck and had legated with the Barli (a wooden log Lald on the roof). Dupatta was untied by him from her neck and then she was taken to hospital at Hamirpur for medical treatment. The Investigating Officer against Column No. 21 of the inquest report Ext. PW-2/A said that the cause of death appeared to be by strangulation. In Ext. PW-2/B against Column No. 12 thereof the cause of death was also recorded by strangulation. 21. The Investigating Officer against Column No. 21 of the inquest report Ext. PW-2/A said that the cause of death appeared to be by strangulation. In Ext. PW-2/B against Column No. 12 thereof the cause of death was also recorded by strangulation. 21. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd edition) at page 289 it has been observed that in order to determine whether death was caused by drowning, an opinion as to cause of death by drowning should be given from several of the following characteristic signs: (1) The presence of profuse fine, white, lathery persistent froth around the mouth and the nostrils; (2) the presence of some object firmly grasped in the hands; (3) the presence of fine, white froth in the air passages: (4) the bulky and oedematous water logged lungs, which exude a copious frothy blood stained fluid on Section; (5) the presence of water muds, weeds etc. in the stomach or small intestine or both. 22. PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra has not sought opinion of forensic expert. His evidence can be read only as an expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has not proved on record the special qualification of Dr, Chopra or acquired a special experience on the subject. It is not proved that he has conducted any other post mortem on the dead body of any other person before conducting post mortem on the dead body of deceased Smt. Vidya Devi. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3318, pointed out that in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. No doubt, Dr. K.C. Chopra might have acquired some experience as Medical Officer but he is not a forensic expert to give the level of an expert witness examined in the Court. 23. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay, Rai 2004 Cr.L.J. 2006, said that opinions of authors in text books may have persuasive value but such opinions cannot be elevated to or placed on higher pedestal than opinion of expert examined in Court and the weight ordinarily to which it may be entitled to or deserves to be given. In the present case no signs of injuries suggestive of resistance on the part of the deceased has been found by PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra to establish that the face of the deceased was forcibly thrust into iron bucket filled in with water. No water was found in the lungs of the deceased. Only 500 cc of fluid mixed with mucous and small sticky material was found in the stomach. The hairs of the deceased were not found wet. It was the specific case of the prosecution at the initial stage that the deceased had committed suicide by tying "Dupatta" around her neck and hanged herself with "Barli" placed on the walls of the room. PW-10 Dr. K.C. Chopra found marks of injuries on the neck of the deceased. It has come in the cross-examination of the doctor that in the present case if the force was applied, in that event, the bucket which was used as ligature could touch both ears. But no injuries were found on the ears of the deceased or any part of her mouth or head. It has come in the cross-examination of the doctor that in the present case if the force was applied, in that event, the bucket which was used as ligature could touch both ears. But no injuries were found on the ears of the deceased or any part of her mouth or head. The learned trial Court has observed on surmises and conjectures that the ligature marks found on the neck of the deceased was possible when the neck of the deceased was dipped into bucket (Ext.P-8) which contained water. It was normally not possible for Jai Chand accused to throttle the neck of the deceased an adult woman into iron bucket filled with water without causing injury to himself because the resistance of the deceased would be very forceful with her hands unless her hands were held up by someone else or atleast without causing scratch injuries on her own body. Here, there is no case that the deceaseds hands were tied down before the act of drowning was perpetrated. In such situation, the very fact that the deceased had injuries only on the neck and not on any other part of her body would lead to the irresistible conclusion that more than one assailant would certainly have been involved in the commission of the crimje alleged against the accused. The case of the prosecution was that all the three accused persons made the disclosure statements to the Police that they had thrust the mouth of the deceased in a bucket (Ext.P-8) filled in with water and thereafter hanged her by tying Dupatta around her nack with a wooden scant placed horizontally on the walls of the room. The learned trial Court has not believed the evidence of PW-5 in whose presence the said statement (Ext.PW-5/A) was made by Jai Chand accused. On the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted co-accused Prem Chand and Smk Nimmo Devi. 24. FW-8 Sansar Chand Inspector deposed that when he reached at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, Jai Chand accused and PW-1 Roshan Lal father of the deceased were present there. He recorded statement (Ext.PW-1/ A) of PW-1. On the basis of the said statement, he got recorded First Information Report against all the three accused persons under Sections 498-A and 3061.RC. As per the version of this witness it was Jai Chand accused who produced Dupattas (Ext.P-2 and Ext. He recorded statement (Ext.PW-1/ A) of PW-1. On the basis of the said statement, he got recorded First Information Report against all the three accused persons under Sections 498-A and 3061.RC. As per the version of this witness it was Jai Chand accused who produced Dupattas (Ext.P-2 and Ext. P-3), shirt (Ext.P-5) and salwar (Ext.P-6) belonging to the deceased during the investigation of the case. A wooden scant placed horizontally on the walls of the room with which as per the version of the defence, the deceased allegedly committed suicide by hanging was also shown to PW-8 by Jai Chand accused. PW-8 had not taken the said wooden scant into possession. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no bucket was found placed in the room. He took photographs Exts. P-9 to P-14 of the dead body of the deceased in which he had noticed ligature marks on the neck of the deceased. The dimension of ligature marks on the neck of the deceased was 7.5" in length in round shape and was approximately 1½” W in width. It has come in the evidence of PW-3 Kartar Chand, Physical Education Teacher posted in Government High School, Barhi, Tehsil and District Hamirpur that on 13.7.2001 i.e. (on the day of the occurrence) at about 7.15 a.m. Jai Chand accused along with one Deepak met him near village Ulera. They were carrying Smt. Vidya Devi on a cot. Jai Chand accused requested him to help them in carrying a cot to the road side as Jai Chand accused wanted to take his ailing wife to the hospital for medical treatment. He accordingly helped them and then went to the school to attend his duty. This witness categorically has admitted in the cross-examination that 4/5 women were pouring water in the mouth of Smt. Vidya Devi with spoon and Prem Chand husband of co-accused Smt. Nimmo Devi had gone to bring a taxi to carry Smt. Vidya Devi to the hospital. He also stated that the accused persons were trying hard to carry Smt. Vidya Devi to the hospital at the earliest In the teeth of the evidence of this independent witness, the conduct of Jai Chand accused would go to show that he tried very hard to save the life of his wife by taking her to the Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur for medical treatment. Had Smt. Vidya Devi been killed by Jai Chand accused he would dare not to have taken the dead body of the deceased to the hospital to get the medical opinion against himself. 25. One can have possibly no quarrel with the established proposition of law Laid down by their Lordship of the Supreme Court and relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in State of U.P. v. Shanker, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 897; 1981 Cri L.J, 23, that the best person to give an opinion about the nature and shape of the weapon of offence used was the medical officer who had conducted the autopsy and the High Court was clearly in error in substituting its own opinion resting on conjectural premises for that of the Medical Expert regarding the nature of the inflicting weapon. In the present case as discussed above, the possibility of ligature marks found on the neck of the deceased with the aid of Dupatta could not be ruled out. Proceeding on the assumption that the death of the deceased was homicidal but the prosecution has not led cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to connect Jai Chand accused for her death. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the disclosure statement (Ext.PW-5/A) allegedly made by the accused that "I drowned the face of Vidya Devi in the water bucket and took her out, got her neck pressed by Nimmo Devi inside the room where she had been hanged with a Barli (wooden log) with Dupatta by all three of us i.e. myself, Prem Chand and Nimmo Devi." This part of the disclosure statement would be inadmissible evidence because the fact that all the accused persons had dipped the mouth of the deceased into a bucket filled in with water was not discovered in pursuance of the information given by the accused to the Investigating Officer, it would be a confessional statement to the police official hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-2 Ajit Singh brother of the deceased that Durga Dass father-in-law of his second sister Smt. Asha Devi was working as Nursing Assistant in Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur at the relevant time who was present when the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Doctors. In the circumstances, the opinion of Dr. In the circumstances, the opinion of Dr. K.C. Chopra in regard to the death of the deceased due to asphyxia caused by drowning and strangulation is not free from doubt as his opinion cannot be said as that of the forensic expert. 26. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by learned trial Court against the accused was that the accused frequently used to beat his wife Smt. Vidya Devi under the influence of liquor. In support of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. reliance was placed on the testimony of PW-1 Roshan Lal father and PW-2 Ajit Singh brother of the deceased. It is the evidence of PW-1 that after one year of the marriage of the accused with his daughter Smt. Vidya Devi, the accused started giving beatings to her under the influence of liquor. It was after about three years of the marriage, the accused left Smt. Vidya Devi in his house where she stayed for about three months. Prem Chand elder brother of the accused and his wife Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused visited his house and took Smt. Vidya Devi with them. He stated that Jai Chand accused and his brother Prem Chand and Bhabd Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused used to beat Smt. Vidya Devi on the pretext that she could not prepare the meal in time. The fact that Prem Chand and his wife Smt. Nimmo Devi came to his house as stated by him in examination-in-chief does not find mentioned in his statement Ext.PW-1/A made to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PW-6/A came to be recorded against the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that he noticed injury on both sides of the face of the deceased and no other injury was noticed by him on any part on her body. The testimony of this witness to that extent is not corroborated by the medical evidence as according to the medical evidence, no injuries were found on the face of the deceased. In his statement Ext.PW-1/A the witness has stated that his daughter Smt. Vidya Devi committed suicide. He admitted in the cros-examination that his daughter Smt. Vidya Devi wanted to stay at Shimla with her husband Jai Chand accused where at the relevant time he was working. In his statement Ext.PW-1/A the witness has stated that his daughter Smt. Vidya Devi committed suicide. He admitted in the cros-examination that his daughter Smt. Vidya Devi wanted to stay at Shimla with her husband Jai Chand accused where at the relevant time he was working. It has also come in his evidence that about 5-6 years prior to the death of Vidya Devi, the accused had stopped taking liquor. He categorically has stated that no ligature marks on the neck of his daughter vtere noticed by him. 27. PW-2 Ajit Singh deposed that his sister Smt. Vidya Devi used to tell him that the accused had been giving beatings to her when he used to take liquor. It is his evidence that after a son was born to the couple, the accused left taking liquor. This witness has stated that there were marks of injuries on the neck of the deceased whereas PW-1 categorically has stated that no ligature marks were noticed by him on the neck of the deceased. The version of both these witnesses to that extent is contradictory and self destructive. He has admitted in the cross-examination that letters Exts. DA, DB and DC were written by his sister Smt. Vidya Devi to the accused. Further he admitted that his sister told him about the illicit relation of the accused with his Bhabi Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused. He admitted that he had seen wooden scant placed horizontally on the walls of the room with which the deceased had committed suicide. He also admitted the suggestion of the defence that in the letters written by his sister Smt. Vidya Devi to him, she had not made any compLalnt about mal-treatment meted out to her by the accused or giving beating to her by him. 28. PW-5 Prem Chand is the Vice-President of the Gram Panchayat of PW-1 and PW-2. He admitted in the cross-examination that during his tenure as Vice-President, Gram Panchayat, Kot neither deceased Smt. Vidya Devi nor her parents had ever made any complaint to him about harassment or mal-treatment of the deceased by her husband Jai Chand accused. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 would prove that the accused had left the habit of taking liquor about 4/5 years prior to the occurrence when his son was born. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 would prove that the accused had left the habit of taking liquor about 4/5 years prior to the occurrence when his son was born. There is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that after the accused left the habit of taking liquor, he had ever mal-treated the deceased or given beatings to her. The letters Exts. DA to DC would reveal thai the deceased expressed her repentance to the accused about her past conduct and mistakes committed by her. The story of the prosecution that the accused had extra-marital relations with Smt. Nimmo Devi co-accused which was the cause of committing murder of Smt.Vidya Devi has not been proved by the prosecution. The accused in answer to question No. 7 of statement recorded under Section 313 CrP.C, has categorically denied such allegations and asserted that Bhabi is like mother and as such there is no question of his illicit relation with his Bhabhi. He has also stated in answer to question No. 9 that the information about the death of his wife was given by him to PW-1 father of the deceased. The defence of the accused that the deceased had illicit relation with his nephew Banku Ram and on one occasion when he found few love letters written by said Banku Ram to the deceased, he advised his wife to discontinue such relation, she went to the house of her parents and stayed there for about three months appears to be more plausible than the contrary allegation of the prosecution against the accused. The accused has stated that he wanted to maintain cordial relations with his wife and also to forget about the mistakes committed by her in the past. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the accused has given a false explanation about the death of the deceased is one of the circumstance in the chain of circumstances cannot be accepted. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in support of his submission in Batna Ram v. State of H.P. ILR 1981 (Him. Series) H.P. 347, is of no help or assistance to the prosecution in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in support of his submission in Batna Ram v. State of H.P. ILR 1981 (Him. Series) H.P. 347, is of no help or assistance to the prosecution in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. No complaint was made by the deceased to PW-1 or PW-2 or to any other relative in regard to the alleged mal-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the accused after a son was born to them who was about 4 years of age at the time of the death of Smt. Vidya Devi. It appears that the story of mal-treatment or beating to the deceased was only introduced after the case was registered against the accused in regard to some incident allegedly occurred 4/5 years prior to the occurrence. The circumstance from which the conclusion of the guilt of the present accused is to be inferred, are not of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of his guilt and the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution in the present case and accepted by the learned trial Court cumulatively taken together are not sufficient to conclusively establish guilt of the accused. 29. From the evidence coming on record, the prosecution has not been i able to bring home the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In convicting and sentencing the accused there has been complete misreading and misappreciation of the evidence by the learned trial Court. Emotional considerations may be there, but the same cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, the conviction of the accused deserves to be set aside by giving him the benefit of doubt. 30. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the accused under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 498-A I.P.C. with sentence thereunder are set aside. The accused who is presently lodged in jail undergoing sentence, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence. The amount of fine, if already deposited shall be refunded to the accused forthwith. The case property shall be dealt with as per the orders /directions of the learned trial Court. Appeal allowed.