Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 684 (PNJ)

Janak Rani v. State of Punjab

2004-07-08

V.M.JAIN, VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Janak Rani wife of Pawan Kumar along with her daughter Ramandeep and her son-in-law Jaspal Singh son of Gobind Singh was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and under Section 201 Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of her husband Pawan Kumar about 20/25 days earlier to 23.10.1998 when the present case was registered in the shape of FIR No. 291 under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep have since been acquitted whereas the present appellant stands convicted for the aforesaid charges vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 10.5.2001 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. She has also been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence she has preferred the instant appeal. It may be mentioned here that against the acquittal of Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep, State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution runs thus :- Kashmir Singh PW-2 put the police machinery into action when on 23.10.1998 he learnt that quilt tied like bedding was lying near the village pond and was emitting a very foul smell. When he and Ram Pal member Panchayat and one Karnail Chand Chowkidar went to the site, they saw a quilt wrapped up in a bed sheet with the help of strings. The strings were unfastened and it was found that a chadder was wrapped around gunny bag. There was another chadder in which dead body of a young clean shaven person of the age of 20 years. The body was in a decomposed stage and was smelling badly. It was supporting Pyjama and shirt. The dead body could not be identified. Kashmir Singh Sarpanch along with Karnail Chand approached the police and got his statement Ex. PC recorded before SI Sucha Singh PW-14. 3. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The body was in a decomposed stage and was smelling badly. It was supporting Pyjama and shirt. The dead body could not be identified. Kashmir Singh Sarpanch along with Karnail Chand approached the police and got his statement Ex. PC recorded before SI Sucha Singh PW-14. 3. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. During the investigation it came to light that it was Pawan Kumar son of Ram Dhan resident of Shahkot, the husband of the present appellant who had been missing since 16.10.1998 from his house for which his real brother Sohan Lal had already lodged a report with the concerned police station of Shahkot vide DDR No. 16 dated 18.10.1998. The investigation further revealed that the present appellant, her son-in-law Jaspal Singh and her daughter Ramandeep had committed the murder of Pawan Kumar and had also thrown away the dead body with an intention to cause its dis-appearance to screen themselves from punishment. The relevant evidence collected by the prosecution in order to complete the chain of circumstances would be discussed by us at the proper stage while entering into discussion on merits. 4. After completion of the investigation, the appellant and her two co-accused were challaned to face trial. As stated above, they were charged under Section 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code. 5. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the circumstantial evidence and in order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. 6. Dr. Navpreet Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nakodar and Dr. Ashok Chanana, Assistant Professor, have been examined as PW-1 and PW-15 respectively. We would like to discuss their evidence first of all. 7. The statement of Dr. Navpreet Singh PW-1 is to the effect that on 23.10.1998, he received one un-identified dead body along with other police papers at 3.30 P.M. in Civil Hospital, Nakodar. He made his endorsement Ex. PA-2 observing that from the external examination of the body, it was found that it was highly decomposed and as such he referred the post-mortem examination to Forensic Medicine Department. 8. Dr. Ashok Chanana, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Amritsar (PW-15) had examined the dead body on 24.10.1998 at 12.15 P.M. The dead body was in a box. It was in advance stage of decomposition. It was lying in flexed position. 8. Dr. Ashok Chanana, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Amritsar (PW-15) had examined the dead body on 24.10.1998 at 12.15 P.M. The dead body was in a box. It was in advance stage of decomposition. It was lying in flexed position. It was supporting a shirt and pyjama and underwear. Length was measured and the same was 5-6" and maggots were crawling all over the body and it was omitting foul smell. The facial bones, skull bones, bones of both fore arms including hands and fingers and bones of both legs including feet were devoid of soft tissue. The pubic hair could be easily pulled out. Even the teeth could be easily pulled out from their sockets. The right horn of the hyoid bone was fractured. Dark colour staining at the fracture site and in the surrounding issue were present. The age of the deceased was adjudged by this Expert as 40 years. The injury was ante mortem in nature and possibility of cause of death on account of compression of neck leading to asphyxia was not ruled out. This witness further opined that the probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem examination was about 3 to 6 weeks. Ex. PKK and Ex. PKK/1 are the copies of reports prepared by this witness. 9. PW-2 is Kashmir Singh Sarpanch who initially put the police machinery into action by his statement on 23.10.1998. 10. PW-3 to PW-5 are the police officials who have tendered their respective affidavits in evidence. 11. PW-6 Charanjit Singh is a Photographer who clicked 3 photographs of the dead body of Pawan Kumar (Ex. P-1 to P-3). The negatives of the same are Ex. P-4 to P-6. 12. PW-7 Davinder Pal Singh Patwari has prepared the scaled plan Ex. PH. 13. PW-8 Inspector Simar Kaur, Incharge Women Police Station, Jalandhar produced the police record and stated that on 12.8.1998, Pawan Kumar since deceased had made an application Ex. PJ to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar and the same was marked to her for taking necessary action and report. She has further stated that she had summoned both the parties and with the intervention of the respectables the deceased party and the appellant had effected compromise Ex. PJ to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar and the same was marked to her for taking necessary action and report. She has further stated that she had summoned both the parties and with the intervention of the respectables the deceased party and the appellant had effected compromise Ex. PK which was reduced into writing and the same was attested by Pawan Kumar, Janak Rani, Surinder Kumar, Usha Rani and one more person. She has further stated that on 10.10.1998, Pawan Kumar made an application to her and after inquiring into the matter she had sent summons to both the parties for 17.10.1998 but the parties were not present at the house and thereafter she came to know that Pawan Kumar had died and consequently the complaint was consigned to record along with previous applications. The complaint dated 10.10.1998 has been exhibited as Ex. PK/1 and the report of Inspector Simar Kaur has been exhibited as Ex. PL. 14. Pawan Kumar Reader to SDM Shahkot has appeared as PW-9. He talks about a Kalandra under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code which was initiated on behalf of Janak Rani in which Pawan Kumar (since deceased) was discharged on 22.5.1998. 15. Sohan Lal PW-10 is real brother of the deceased who has stated that Ramandeep (since acquitted) was earlier married at Ludhiana and she had divorced her husband and thereafter remarried at Kot Kapura and had even deserted her second husband. She then started residing with Janak Rani, the present appellant. He further states that her brother Pawan Kumar (since deceased) was earlier employed at the shop of Pawan Kumar Puri and worked there for about 28 years. Thereafter he went to Dubai and about one and a half or two years prior to the present incident, he had come to India and started living at Shahkot along with the appellant. It is then stated by Sohan Lal that after his brother Pawan Kumar left India, the present appellant had her daughter became characterless and his brother had been filing complaints to the police and also used to caution the appellant and her co-accused from nefarious activities. He then stated that proceedings under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of Janak Rani were also initiated and thereafter a Panchayat comprising certain respectables had stepped in for the counselling. He then stated that proceedings under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of Janak Rani were also initiated and thereafter a Panchayat comprising certain respectables had stepped in for the counselling. It is further stated that his brother had also filed an application in the Women Police Station where both the parties were called and with the intervention of the respectables, a compromise was effected but after a few days of the compromise, the appellant and her co-accused again started misbehaving with his brother and again indulged in immoral acts. In this regard another application was also filed in the Women Cell and the parties were directed to appear on 17.10.1998. It is further stated by Sohan Lal that Piare Lal PW-12 had left his brother to his house in the evening of 16.10.1998 and on 17.10.1998, he did not turn up before the women Police Station at Jalandhar and on that day he along with Piare Lal had gone to the house of his brother to inquire about his whereabouts but the appellant told them that she is not aware about his whereabouts. He then talks about lodging of report Ex. P-5 in the Police Station on 18.10.1998. He has also identified the dead body of his brother in Civil Hospital, Nakodar in the presence of Piare Lal and Pritam Singh Lambardar. He is also signatory to the recovery memo Ex. PM. The photographs Ex. P-1 to P-3 were also shown to his witness and from the photographs also he identified the dead body of his brother Pawan Kumar. 16. PW-11 Hans Raj, M.T.C., S.D.M. Office, Phillaur had brought the summoned record of registration of vehicle. 17. PW-12 is Piare Lal. He has also toed the statement of Sohan Lal in almost in all respects and states that he had left Pawan Kumar at his house on 16.10.1998. At that time Jaspal Singh accused (since acquitted) was in the house in a drunken condition. 18. PW-13 Inder Mohan talks about the purchase of scooter by Company. 19. PW-14 is SI Sucha Singh. Some part of his investigation has been detailed herein above by us in the preceding paras. At that time Jaspal Singh accused (since acquitted) was in the house in a drunken condition. 18. PW-13 Inder Mohan talks about the purchase of scooter by Company. 19. PW-14 is SI Sucha Singh. Some part of his investigation has been detailed herein above by us in the preceding paras. The other part of the evidence conducted by him is that on 26.10.1998 Pawan Kumar PW-16 of village Shahkot before whom the present appellant and her two co-accused had allegedly made extra judicial confession admitting that they had murdered Pawan Kumar, were produced before him and as such all the accused were consequently arrested formally. He had interrogated all the three accused and the present appellant along with her son-in-law Jaspal Singh had led the police party to the place where the body was thrown by them and consequently a memo Ex. PCC was prepared by SI Sucha Singh in this regard. Jaspal Singh (since acquitted) had also got recovered a Bajaj Chetak scooter during investigation. Since he has been acquitted, we do not want to touch the investigation conducted by this witness with regard to Jaspal Singh or even Ramandeep. He has also recorded the statements of witnesses. 20. PW-16 Pawan Kumar son of Kewal Krishan is a Petrol Pump owner. He is resident of Shahkot. His statement is to the effect that on 26.10.1988, the present appellant, Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep had come to his residence at 8 A.M. and the present appellant had made an extra judicial confession before him disclosing that her husband used to have quarrel with her and used to beat her also for which she was making applications to the police but the deceased was not listening to her. She further disclosed that on 16.10.1988, her husband came to his house along with Piare Lal and at that time he was abusing everybody. Piare Lal tried to make him understand but still he continued abusing her and then on the same night at about 10/11 P.M., she conspired with her son-in-law Jaspal Singh and her daughter caught hold of him whereas Jaspal Singh killed him by throttling. She further stated that thereafter the dead body was wrapped in chadder and put in gunny bag and after tying with a quilt, she and Jaspal Singh took the dead body on a scooter towards Buripind and threw the dead body near the pond. She further stated that thereafter the dead body was wrapped in chadder and put in gunny bag and after tying with a quilt, she and Jaspal Singh took the dead body on a scooter towards Buripind and threw the dead body near the pond. His statement further goes on that the appellant made a request to him to produce her before the police as he was acquainted with the police. He also talks about the extra judicial confession of Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep since acquitted. 21. ASI Joginder Singh PW-17 is another police official witness to certain recoveries effected by SI Sucha Singh PW-14. 22. The plea set up by the present appellant, as is clear from her statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication on the ground that Pawan Kumar PW-16 had executed a Will by playing a fraud with her husband regarding their house and other properties and after the death of her husband, he had been putting pressure on them to make statement in his favour, regarding the Will so that he could grab the whole property to which she and her family members did not agree. It is then pleaded by the appellant that the police had also detained Pawan Kumar PW in this case but later on in connivance with the police, he got her, her daughter and her son-in-law involved in this case falsely. 23. In defence, the appellant has produced one Balbir Singh Registry Clerk as DW-1 who brought the record to the effect that at Serial No. 125/3, a registered Will was executed by Pawan Kumar (since deceased) son of Ram Dhan son of Gonda Mal resident of Shahkot in favour of Pawan Kumar son of Kewal Krishan Puri son of Hem Raj resident of Shahkot and the same was registered before Kuljit Pal Singh Mahi, Sub Registrar of Shahkot. Copy of the Will is Ex. DB. 24. Kulwant Singh Deed Writer of Tehsil Complex, Shahkot has been produced as DW-2. He, from the record, made a statement that on 3.9.1997 there is an entry at Sr. No. 430 and that he had written the Will at the instance of Pawan Kumar son of Ram Dhan in favour of Pawan Kumar son of Kewal Krishan Puri. DB. 24. Kulwant Singh Deed Writer of Tehsil Complex, Shahkot has been produced as DW-2. He, from the record, made a statement that on 3.9.1997 there is an entry at Sr. No. 430 and that he had written the Will at the instance of Pawan Kumar son of Ram Dhan in favour of Pawan Kumar son of Kewal Krishan Puri. He has categorically stated that the said Will was written at the instance of Pawan Kumar son of Ram Dhan and the same was read over to him and he signed the same after admitting it to be correct in the presence of the witnesses. This witness also states that the said Will is Ex. DB. 25. Statement of Bhupinder Singh DW-3 is to the effect that relations of deceased were cordial with the present appellant. 26. After examining the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep whereas the present appellant stands convicted. Hence, this appeal. 27. We have heard Mr. R.P. Dhir, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. We have gone through the entire evidence minutely and also the relevant documents. 28. Mr. Dhir strenuously contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt against the present appellant inasmuch as that there is no evidence with the prosecution to connect the appellant with the commission of offence. Developing his argument, the learned counsel submits that once on the basis of the same set of evidence, co-accused of the present appellant namely Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep have been acquitted and the conviction of the present appellant cannot be upheld especially when the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of Jaspal Singh and Ramandeep. 29. The other argument raised by the learned counsel is that dead body Pawan Kumar is not identifiable in this case at all. He submits that according to the Investigating Officer and even from the inquest report Ex. PB the deceased was of the age of 40 years. He then submits that according to the DDR Ex. P-5 dated 18.10.1998, the height of the deceased was given as 5-2" whereas in the inquest report the height is given as 5-4/5" and as per the report prepared by Dr. Chanana, the height of the deceased was 5-6". PB the deceased was of the age of 40 years. He then submits that according to the DDR Ex. P-5 dated 18.10.1998, the height of the deceased was given as 5-2" whereas in the inquest report the height is given as 5-4/5" and as per the report prepared by Dr. Chanana, the height of the deceased was 5-6". All these discrepancies go to show that the person who was noticed in a gunny bag by Kashmir Singh Sarpanch was in fact some one else and not Pawan Kumar as alleged. 30. The learned counsel further submits that even otherwise the different planks of evidence produced by the prosecution in order to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence are very weak in nature and no circumstance individually points towards the guilt of the accused and even when taken collectively are of very weak nature so as to substantiate the charge. 31. The learned counsel submits that mainly there are three set of evidence produced by the prosecution viz one the motive with the present appellant to commit the murder of her husband Pawan Kumar as Pawan Kumar was knocking the doors of higher authorities against the appellant and her daughter with regard to their immoral activities; the second is last seen evidence for which Piare Lal PW has been produced and lastly the evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by the present appellant and her two co-accused on 26.10.1998 before Pawan Kumar PW-16. 32. According to the learned counsel so far as he motive is concerned, the application Ex. PJ moved by deceased Pawan Kumar is of the month of August 1998 and in the said application he is not only accusing the present appellant but has also gone to the extent of accusing his brothers and other family members. He further submits that the other application Ex. PK/1 dated 10.10.1998 on which the prosecution is relying very heavily appears to have been a manufactured piece of evidence as possibly Pawan Kumar could not be alive on that date as is clear from the statement of Dr. Chanana PW-15 wherein he has categorically stated that the time elapsed between the death and the post-mortem was between 3 to 6 weeks. The learned counsel thus contends that the evidence of motive against the present appellant in these very circumstances is of very weak character. 33. Chanana PW-15 wherein he has categorically stated that the time elapsed between the death and the post-mortem was between 3 to 6 weeks. The learned counsel thus contends that the evidence of motive against the present appellant in these very circumstances is of very weak character. 33. Developing his second limb of argument, the learned counsel submits that in the light of the medical evidence the statement of Piare Lal PW-12 who had allegedly gone with the deceased to his house on 16.10.1998 loses its weight. He then contends that similarly Ex. P-5 the report lodged by Sohan Lal the brother of the deceased also pales into insignificance and as such the evidence of last seen is also to be rejected. 34. Attacking the extra judicial confession, the learned counsel submits that possibly there could not be any good reason for the present appellant and her co-accused to repose confidence in Pawan Kumar PW-16 for the very simple reason that Pawan Kumar (since deceased) had executed a Will in his favour giving him the house and other properties against their wishes. On the other hand, he had all the reasons to come forward against the appellant as he wanted to grab the property of the deceased, may be, taking an undue advantage of some bickering in the house and for that reason he could even go to the extent of falsely implicating the present appellant and her daughter who was staying with her and her son-in-law Jaspal Singh also. The learned counsel very heavily relies upon the documentary evidence vide which the Will Ex. DB executed by the deceased in favour of this witness has been brought on record. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submits that even the evidence of extra judicial confession is of no use to the prosecution. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the present appellant and as such she deserves acquittal. 35. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, the learned State counsel submits that all the three main planks completing the chain of circumstantial evidence are proved beyond any doubt against the appellant and as such she cannot escape from her liability. 35. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, the learned State counsel submits that all the three main planks completing the chain of circumstantial evidence are proved beyond any doubt against the appellant and as such she cannot escape from her liability. He further submits that there was strong motive in the bosom of the present appellant to eliminate her husband as he was creating a hurdle in their way so as to carry on immoral activities and she after conspiring with her two co-accused went to the extent of finishing. 36. The learned counsel further submits that even if the co-accused have been acquitted and no appeal has been filed by the State yet there is convincing evidence against the present appellant to prove the charges and as such she cannot derive any benefit from the acquittal of her co-accused; her conviction, thus, deserves to be upheld. 37. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellant and as such she deserves acquittal. 38. We do not agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that since two co-accused of the appellant have been acquitted, the present appellant be also acquitted on the same set of evidence. The present appellant can still be convicted for the charges if the prosecution is able to establish its case to the hilt against her. Acquittal of her co-accused which is otherwise on different footing would not come to her rescue at all. 39. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of identification of the dead body is also not very convincing. No doubt the dead body was in decomposed stage but it has been identified by Sohan Lal his brother in the hospital. He could identify the dead body even from photographs as well. Not only Sohan Lal, the other two persons who were present in the hospital have also identified the dead body as stated by Sohan Lal. The learned counsel has made an attempt to bring out some discrepancies with regard to age and height, but in our view, those discrepancies would not be of much importance. Not only Sohan Lal, the other two persons who were present in the hospital have also identified the dead body as stated by Sohan Lal. The learned counsel has made an attempt to bring out some discrepancies with regard to age and height, but in our view, those discrepancies would not be of much importance. Initially the Sarpanch who had seen the dead body took the age of the deceased as 20 years and for that reason the same is mentioned in the inquest report. Sohan Lal in Ex. P-5 disclosed the age as 45 years. Dr. Chanana also observed the age as 40 years. From this it can be said that the deceased was of the age of 40/45 years. At the same time some discrepancies about the height would also not make much difference. Therefore, in our view, there cannot be any dispute about the identification of the dead body as the same was of Pawan Kumar (since deceased). 40. We are otherwise doubtful about the other plank of evidence produced by the prosecution in respect of its case to prove the charge. Let us deal with each circumstance individually. 41. In order to prove the motive, the prosecution mainly relies upon Ex. PJ, an application dated 12.8.1998 moved by Pawan Kumar (since deceased) to SSP Jalandhar and another letter Ex. PK/1 dated 10.10.1998 sent by Pawan Kumar to Mahila SHO, Division No. 2, Jalandhar regarding threat to eliminate him by his wife and children. There is another compromise deed Ex. PK on which the State is relying. We have seen all the three documents in original from the lower court file. Ex. PJ is a photostat copy of a complaint sent by Pawan Kumar to SSP Jalandhar. In the concluding paragraph of this complaint, he says that he is apprehending danger to his life at the hands of his wife, one Jagir Singh and his brother and the wife of his brother. In the said application he suspects the immoral relations of his wife with one Jagir Singh. The signatures of Pawan Kumar are in original. It certainly creates doubt in the mind of the Court as the signatures of Pawan Kumar could not be in original on Ex. PJ which is a photo copy. We could ignore this aspect by giving some reasonable margin as the application Ex. The signatures of Pawan Kumar are in original. It certainly creates doubt in the mind of the Court as the signatures of Pawan Kumar could not be in original on Ex. PJ which is a photo copy. We could ignore this aspect by giving some reasonable margin as the application Ex. PJ relates to 12.8.1998 but when we se Ex. PK/1, another complaint allegedly sent by Pawan Kumar to the Police SHO, Lady Wing on 10.10.1998, there remains no doubt that some one very cleverly rewrote "Pawan Kumar" in Ex. PJ with an affidavit that signatures of Pawan Kumar are embossed on Ex. PK/1 at a particular place. It appears to us that this all was done with a clever move so as to come up with another application against the present appellant and her children. The imprint of signatures on another paper which is now being used as PK/1 were in fact not used or could not be used and subsequently after leaving some space, the signatures of Pawan Kumar are shown. The particular place on Ex. PK/1 where we find the imprint of signatures of Pawan Kumar which were not used are encircled by us with a red pen. The encircled portion is initialled by us also for reference. At the cost of repetition, we may say once again that initially on a plain paper the imprint of signatures of Pawan Kumar was taken out after rewriting his name on Ex. PJ and thereafter the said paper was converted into Ex. PK/1. Otherwise, in our considered view, signatures of Pawan Kumar in original could not be there on Ex. PJ. It is also worth mentioning here that Ex. PK/1 is undated except that the top of it shows that it is entered at No. 360-A on 10.10.1998 by some official. We, on the basis of the aforesaid observation, are very much doubtful about the genuineness of this document. However, we restrain ourselves from commenting further in this regard. 42. Ex. PK is also a photostat copy of compromise. It is shown to have been signed by Pawan Kumar, Janak Rani and three other persons. Strictly speaking, the document Ex. PJ, PK and PK/1 cannot be said to be proved documents Ex. PK and PK-1 are not signed by SI Simar Kaur. She had brought the record from the department. So is the position of Ex. PJ. It is shown to have been signed by Pawan Kumar, Janak Rani and three other persons. Strictly speaking, the document Ex. PJ, PK and PK/1 cannot be said to be proved documents Ex. PK and PK-1 are not signed by SI Simar Kaur. She had brought the record from the department. So is the position of Ex. PJ. She did not know Pawan Kumar (since deceased) personally and as such she was not aware of his signatures or handwriting at all. The prosecution has not made any attempt to get the signatures proved from Sohan Lal PW-10, the real brother of the deceased who had stepped into witness box in support of prosecution. We, thus, are of considered view that legally also we cannot consider any document out of the aforesaid three documents as proved one for the purpose of its admissibility. 43. We go a step further. Assuming for the sake of arguments, even if we may consider that the present appellant was not carrying on well with her husband and she had some motive against him, that circumstance along by itself would not be sufficient to tie a rope around the neck of the present appellant when the other two main planks of circumstantial evidence viz last seen and extra judicial confession are stumbling badly. 44. Let us now discuss the "last seen" evidence, the case of the prosecution as emerges from the statement of Sohan Lal PW-10 or even Piare Lal is that Pawan Kumar was left at his residence by Piare Lal on 16.10.1998 in the evening hours and that on 17.10.1998 when Sohan Lal brother of the deceased went to know the whereabouts of his brother, the present appellant told him that she was not aware as to where the deceased had gone. This shows that Pawan Kumar (since deceased) was alive on 16.10.1998. We would now appreciate this plank of evidence in the light of the medical evidence which has been brought on record. Dr. Chanana PW-15 is very categoric in his statement that the body of the deceased was in a decomposed stage and was emitting foul smell and the maggots were crawling all over the body. He further observed that the teeth could be easily pulled out from the sockets. He has then opined that the minimum time between the death and post-mortem examination was about 3 weeks. He further observed that the teeth could be easily pulled out from the sockets. He has then opined that the minimum time between the death and post-mortem examination was about 3 weeks. From the medical evidence it can be comfortably inferred that Pawan Kumar was killed some where in the first week of October, 1998. The case of the prosecution now set up is that he was alive on 10.10.1998 when he moved the application Ex. PK-1 and then on 16.10.1998 when he was left at his house. This evidence is totally contrary to the medical evidence and can be rejected out-rightly by us. We would also observe here that in the light of the medical evidence Ex. PK-1 which is otherwise doubted by us for many other reasons can also be rejected. Even otherwise if we re-scan the statement of Piare Lal PW- 12 he states that when he went to the house of deceased with him, at that time Jaspal Singh was in a drunken condition. He does not talk about the presence of present appellant. So in this way also, in its strict sense, this cannot be termed as to be the last seen evidence in which the deceased and the appellant were seen together and thereafter the deceased was murdered. Jaspal Singh has since been acquitted. We, thus, hold that even this piece of evidence is not worthy of any weight in order to complete the chain. 45. We would now move with another piece of evidence which is extra judicial confession allegedly made by the present appellant and her two co-accused before Pawan Kumar PW-16. Pawan Kumar is none else but one in whose favour the deceased had executed a Will Ex. DB parting with his property. The said Will Ex. DB is duly proved by the defence by producing Balbir Singh PW-1 and Kulwant Singh DW-2. We are of the considered view that the present appellant could not repose any confidence in him so as to blurt out her guilt. It appears that in order to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has sought the help of this witness who was otherwise inimical towards the present appellant. We have perused his statement recorded in Court once again. It appears that in order to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has sought the help of this witness who was otherwise inimical towards the present appellant. We have perused his statement recorded in Court once again. He states that the present appellant had told him that on 16.10.1998, Piare Lal brought Pawan Kumar to his house and at that time he was abusing every body. Piare Lal tried to make Pawan Kumar understand, still he continued with his abuses. If we read the statement of Piare Lal PW-12, he does not say a word about the presence of appellant and has simply stated that on 16.10.1998 he went along with Pawan Kumar to his house and after leaving him there, he came back. Only Jaspal Singh (since acquitted) was there at that time. This material contradiction in the two statements goes to show that Pawan Kumar has come out with a colourful version in the shape of extra judicial confession which deserves to be rejected. Another interesting feature for the purpose of rejecting this extra judicial confession is that Sohan Lal PW-10 and Piare Lal PW-12 have categorically stated in their cross-examination that the accused (i.e. the appellant and her two co-accused) were detained in the police station on 25.10.1998. Sohan Lal PW-10 says as under :- "Then Police had brought all the three accused to the police station on 25.10.1998 afternoon." PW-12 Piare Lal says as under :- "Accused were arrested on 25.10.1998." 46. From the aforesaid evidence it is now crystal clear beyond any doubt that the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant on 26.10.1998, is a manufactured piece of evidence to complete the chain. 47. There remains no other evidence which needs discussion by us for arriving at the conclusion of the case. 48. It is well settled law that before a person can be held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established and then the proved circumstances when taken together the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused. In the present case, the circumstances adduced by the prosecution in order to complete the chain cannot be said to be pointer towards the guilt of the appellant so as to maintain her conviction. In the present case, the circumstances adduced by the prosecution in order to complete the chain cannot be said to be pointer towards the guilt of the appellant so as to maintain her conviction. We, thus, hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt to the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, we set aside the impugned judgment and thereby acquit her of the charges framed. It is stated at the bar that the appellant is in custody. She will be released forthwith if nor required in any other case. The appeal, thus, stands allowed. Appeal allowed.