Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Ujjagar Singh son of Arjan Singh resident of village Bangawali, Tehsil Malerkotla was tried and convicted for the murder of his niece Mukhtiar Kaur by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who had awarded the sentence of death penalty to him and referred the same for confirmation by this Court, vide order dated 5.9.2005. By this judgment, we propose to dispose of Murder Reference No. 9 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 692-DB of 2005, which has been filed by Ujjagar Singh to challenge the judgment dated 5.9.2005, by a common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses are than on 10th of November, 2002 at about 2.00 P.M., a boy whose identity is not forthcoming in the prosecution evidence apprised Satnam Singh @ Satta PW-2 that there was a firing in the house of Ujaggar Singh. Satnam Singh in turn told this fact to Sarpanch Jora Singh PW- 1, who was attending a marriage in the village. On going there along with Gurdeep Singh, Jora Singh found that Mukhtiar Kaur was lying dead in the house due to gun shot injury and in front of the door of an adjoining room Ujjagar Singh son of Arjan Singh having mark of gun shot above the neck was lying smeared with blood in an unconscious condition. Jora Singh and Gurdeep Singh had then removed Ujjagar Singh in a jeep belonging to one Kulwant Singh alias Leela to Civil Hospital, Dhuri. At about 4.40 P.M., Jora Singh had meet Inspector/SHO Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 when the latter was moving near Civil Hospital, Dhuri in connection with patrol duty and apprised him of the incident. 3. In his statement, Jora Singh had indicated that Arjan Singh of his village i.e. Bangawali had three sons Puran Singh, Ujjagar Singh and Ajmer Singh. Puran Singh had died 20 years ago and was survived by two sons and a daughter and his wife. The sons and wife had also died before the date of occurrence and Mukhtiar Kaur was the only surviving member of this branch of his family. About 9-10 years ago, Mukhtiar Kaur had been married to Balwinder Singh PW-9 resident of village Jakhlan, and had two children from this wedlock. The sons and wife had also died before the date of occurrence and Mukhtiar Kaur was the only surviving member of this branch of his family. About 9-10 years ago, Mukhtiar Kaur had been married to Balwinder Singh PW-9 resident of village Jakhlan, and had two children from this wedlock. Before his death, Puran Singh had transferred 30/35 bighas of land, which had fallen to his share after the death of his father Arjan Singh in the name of sons Ujjagar Singh, which was being resented by Mukhtiar Kaur who was demanding her share from her uncle. As the relations of Mukhtiar Kaur with her in-laws were not cordial, she had been living with her uncle Ujjagar Singh for the past 7-8 months. According to information given by Jora Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur had been killed by Ujjagar Singh with his licensed gun and after this he had tried to commit suicide. On the basis of the statement, FIR No. 334 was registered in Police Station, Dhuri against Ujjagar Singh. In pursuance of FIR, PW-14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh had gone to the house of Ujjagar Singh where near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur he had lifted blood-stained earth and taken same in possession through recovery memo Ex. PB, which was attested by Jora Singh and ASI Jasbir Singh. He had also lifted one empty 12 bore shaktiman cartridge Ex. P-2, which was lying near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur and after making the same into a sealed parcel took the same into possession through recovery memo Ex. PD, which was also attested by the aforesaid witnesses. From the nearby room he had picked up blood-stained earth from the place where Ujjagar Singh was found lying unconscious by the witnesses and took the same into possession through recovery memo Ex. PC. By the side of place where Ujjagar Singh was lying, he found one DBBL gun Ex. P- 5, which was unloaded by him and the empty cartridge which was taken out from the right barrel of the gun was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PE. He had prepared the inquest report Ex. PH in the presence of witnesses and forward the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur for post-mortem examination. PE. He had prepared the inquest report Ex. PH in the presence of witnesses and forward the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur for post-mortem examination. On 11.11.2002, HC Balwinder Singh had produced before him the clothes worn by the deceased, which were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PQ. During investigation licence No. 156 DM Sangrur MKL/91 along with 10 cartridges mark as Shaktiman and 5 cartridges mark as Baco of 12 bore were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PM and the case property was deposited with Moharrir Head Constable, who had during the course of investigation forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing the gun as well as examining the blood-stained earth. The post-mortem on the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur was performed by Dr. Ishwar Singh PW-5 and Dr. Harwinder Kaur PW-17 and Ujjagar Singh after being treated in the D.M.C. recovered from the injuries sustained by him, whereafter he was produced before the police on 5.1.2003. PW-14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh further recorded the statements of witnesses and after receipt of reports of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PAA, Ex. PBB, Ex. PDD and reports of Chemical Examiner Ex. PZ, a challan was put up before the Illqa Magistrate, who in turn committed the same to the Court of Sessions as the offences disclosed therein were exclusively triable by that Court. 4. XXX 5. On going through the papers sent up the challan, the trial Court, Sangrur had found that prima facie case was made out against the appellant and framed charge against him under Sections 376, 309 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. When the appellant pleaded no guilty to the charge, the prosecution was upon to lead its evidence. 6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Jora Singh as PW-1, Satnam Singh as PW-2, Gurdeep Singh as PW-3, Kulwant Singh as PW-4, Dr. Ishwar Singh as PW-5, Dr. Vijay Kumar Jindal as PW-6, Ashok Kumar, Revenue Patwari as PW-7, Tarlok Singh as PW-8, Balwinder Singh as PW-9, Karan Singh as PW-10, ASI Jasbir Singh as PW-11, Hamir Singh as PW-12, Gurdarshan Singh, Arms Clerk as PW-13, Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh as PW-14, Dr. Ripan Miglani as PW-15, Dr. Sanjiv Uppal as PW-16, Dr. Ishwar Singh as PW-5, Dr. Vijay Kumar Jindal as PW-6, Ashok Kumar, Revenue Patwari as PW-7, Tarlok Singh as PW-8, Balwinder Singh as PW-9, Karan Singh as PW-10, ASI Jasbir Singh as PW-11, Hamir Singh as PW-12, Gurdarshan Singh, Arms Clerk as PW-13, Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh as PW-14, Dr. Ripan Miglani as PW-15, Dr. Sanjiv Uppal as PW-16, Dr. Harwinder Kaur as PW-17, Kashmir Singh, Draftsman as PW-18, HC Balwinder Singh as PW-19, Constable Baldev Singh as PW-20, HC Gurpal Singh as PW-21, HC Satwinder Singh as PW-22. 7. On completion of prosecution evidence, when incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case against him during recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were put to the appellant, he denied all of them and claimed that he was innocent and asserted as under :- "I am innocent. I have been implicated falsely in the case. I was treating Mukhtiar Kaur as my daughter and loved her as my daughter. False allegations have been levelled against me. I never harassed Mukhtiar Kaur nor ever got her land mutated from her mother by fraud. I have not killed Mukhtiar Kaur. Mother of Mukhtiar Kaur got the land mutated by her own free will and Mukhtiar Kaur had no dispute about it. Balwinder Singh her husband was addicted to vices and used to beat her due to which she used to remain under depression and sick generally, and used to come me as my daughter. My house (Kothi) is situated on the outer skirts of village Bangawali and doors (planks) had not been fixed so far to rooms. Some body suddenly came and fired at me. I fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Therefore, I could not see what had happened to Mukhtiar Kaur as she was in other room. Later on, I came to know that some body had fired at her and she died. I regained consciousness in hospital. The story of rape by me with her has been fabricated by her husband as he is inimical towards me. Even I do not know who took me to hospital. I have been implicated in this case falsely". 8. In defence he had examined HC Ajaib Singh as DW-1 and Baljit Singh as DW-2 and did not lead any other evidence in support of his plea. 9. Even I do not know who took me to hospital. I have been implicated in this case falsely". 8. In defence he had examined HC Ajaib Singh as DW-1 and Baljit Singh as DW-2 and did not lead any other evidence in support of his plea. 9. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court came to the conclusion that from the circumstances brought on record, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ujjagar Singh was responsible for not only killing his brothers daughter but also subjecting her to sexual intercourse against her wishes prior to her death and to cover up his guilt had tried to commit suicide and convicted him under Section 376, 302, 309 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death under Sections 302 IPC and directed that he be hanged by neck till he is dead. He was further sentenced to undergo of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 309 IPC. Hence, the Murder Reference and Criminal Appeal. 10. We have heard Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. M.S. Rakkar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. 11. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that in view of the fact that Jora Singh PW-1, Satnam Singh PW-2, Gurdeep Singh PW-3, Kulwant Singh PW-4 and Tarlok Singh PW-8, all the five witnesses, who are residents of villager Bangawali had resiled from the statements made by them before the police, there was on record no reliable evidence to prove as to what was the actual state of affairs at the scene of occurrence on 10.11.2002, when the police reached on the spot. in this view of the matter, in a case of circumstantial evidence, no order of conviction could possibly have been returned by a Court of law on the basis of statements of the Investigating Officer and police officials, who were associated with the investigation at that stage. in this view of the matter, in a case of circumstantial evidence, no order of conviction could possibly have been returned by a Court of law on the basis of statements of the Investigating Officer and police officials, who were associated with the investigation at that stage. Consequently, evidence regarding the gun having been found lying near the place from where Ujjagar Singh was lying injured should not have been accepted and there being no evidence of the appellant having sexually assanlted his niece before killing, the conviction cannot be sustained. 12. On behalf of the State, it was urged that the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant ignore the evidence of PW-9 Balwinder Singh-husband of Mukhtiar Kaur and Karam Singh PW-10, resident of Jakhlan, whose testimony regarding the empty cartridge lying near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur and double barrel gun in the adjoining room from where blood-stained earth had also been lifted had not at all been challenged even in cross-examination. The fact that the husband deposed regarding pressure which Ujjagar Singh used to exert on his niece, who had been asking to deliver back the daughters share in property of Arjan Singh as also silence which she had been forced to maintain on account of the damage to the reputation of her in-laws about the intention of her uncle proved the motive for the crime. The deposition of Balwinder Singh regarding the body of Mukhtiar Kaur having been cremated not by the family of Ujjagar Singh but by her maternal uncle, as also the fact that ashes were taken to Kiratpur Sahib by Balwinder Singh PW-9 himself were relied for supporting adverse conclusion given by the trial Court against the appellant. It was also submitted that appellant having taken specific plea about the manner in which the incident took place and having failed to bring on record reliable evidence to buttress his stand had failed to discharge the onus which lies heavily upon him being the only person who could have any knowledge about the manner in which the occurrence actually took place, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court should not be interfered with. 13. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 14. The case against Ujjagar Singh is built up only on the circumstantial evidence. 13. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 14. The case against Ujjagar Singh is built up only on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that are not disputed before us are that on it being reported to Satnam Singh PW-2 that a sound of firing had been heard from the house of Ujjagar Singh, Jora Singh PW-1, Satnam Singh PW-2, Gurdeep Singh PW-3, Kulwant Singh PW-4, Tarlok Singh PW-8 and Karam Singh PW-10 had reached the house of Ujjagar Singh. After reaching the house, Jora Singh PW-1 had not only arranged for removal of Ujjagar Singh to the Civil Hospital at Dhuri but he had also after ensuring that medical attention had been provided to the appellant given material for the First Information Report, which was recorded by Inspector Harjinder Singh PW-14. In it he mentioned as under :- "I am resident of above said address and am Sarpanch of village Bangawali. Arjan Singh of my village had three sons. Puran Singh is the eldest, younger to him is Ujjagar Singh and youngest of the three is Ajmer Singh. Puran Singh had died about 20 years ago. He has two sons and a daughter. Sons of Puran Singh had also died and wife of Puran Singh had also since expired. Mukhtiar Kaur @ Murti daughter of Puran Singh was married to Balwinder Singh resident of Jakhlan about 9-10 years ago, who has two children. Puran Singh father of the deceased Mukhtiar Kaur had transferred the land of his share in the name of the sons Ujjagar Singh, which was about 30/35 bighas. Mukhtiar Kaur being annoyed with her in-laws was residing with her uncle Ujjagar Singh for the last 7-8 months. Today at about 2.00 P.M. when I was present in my village, Satnam Singh @ Satta son of Gurmail Singh Jat, resident of Bangawali came to me and informed that there was firing at the house of Ujjagar Singh. Mukhtiar Kaur being annoyed with her in-laws was residing with her uncle Ujjagar Singh for the last 7-8 months. Today at about 2.00 P.M. when I was present in my village, Satnam Singh @ Satta son of Gurmail Singh Jat, resident of Bangawali came to me and informed that there was firing at the house of Ujjagar Singh. On hearing this, I along with Gurdeep Singh son of Nihal Singh reached the house of Ujjagar Singh where it was seen that Mukhtiar Kaur was lying dead in the room, due to gun shots and her dead body was all smeared with blood and in front of the door of the adjoining room Ujjagar Singh son of Arjan Singh having mark of gun shot, above the neck, was lying smeared with blood in unconscious condition to whom I and Gurdeep Singh brought to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri in the jeep of Kulwant Singh @ Leela. We admitted him to the Hospital, Dhuri for treatment. Mukhtiar Kaur used to have quarrels with Ujjagar Singh for her share of land. I am sure that due to this very fact Ujjagar Singh had tried to commit suicide after killing Mukhtiar Kaur with his licensed gun. Action be taken. Statement has been heard and is admitted to be correct". 15. In their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C., the other witnesses had also taken a substantially similar position. 16. It is also not disputed before us that after recording of the First Information Report, Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 along with ASI Jasbir Singh PW-11 and other witnesses had reached the house of Ujjagar Singh. The police on reaching the scene of crime prepared the inquest report in which it was indicated that the death of Mukhtiar Kaur was "due to inflicting fire shot from .12 bore gun" and the assertion made by Jora Singh PW-1 to the effect that Mukhtiar Kaur was lying dead in the room due to gun shots and her dead body was all smeared with blood and in front of the door of the adjoining room, Ujjagar Singh son of Ajmer Singh having mark of gun shot, above the neck, was lying smeared with blood in an unconscious condition, was again signed by Jora Singh and attested by Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14. The inquest report further mentions that blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence and .12 bore double barrel gun used in the murder was recovered. Regarding the recovery of gun, a separate memo Ex. PE was prepared, which was attested by ASI Jasbir Singh PW-11 and Jora Singh PW-1. ASI Jasbir Singh PW-11 in his statement had deposed about the recovery of .12 bore DBBL gun and on its unloading one .12 bore live cartridge was taken out. No question in cross-examination had been asked from ASI Jasbir Singh to challenge this assertion made by him. Similar assertion was made by Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 and nothing has been brought out in his cross- examination, which would enable us to discard as untruthful this aspect of their testimony. As a matter of fact, even to Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 no question had been put which would challenge the correctness of Ex. PE and the statements made by the witnesses qua this recovery. From near the place where dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur was lying, the Investigating Officer had also recovered an empty cartridge of .12 bore mark Shaktiman Express and took the same into the same into possession through recovery memo Ex. PD. The statements of Jasbir Singh PW-11 and Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 proving the recoveries made by Investigating Agency through Ex. PD and Ex. PE have not been challenged in cross-examination. Interestingly, the stand taken by these witnesses and reflected in Memos Ex. PD and Ex. PE is corroborated by Karam Singh PW-10, who is an Ex-Sarpanch of village Jakhlan where Mukhtiar Kaur was wedded and this part of his statement too has not been challenged by the defence. It is in the light of the testimony of unchallenged statements of ASI Jasbir Singh PW-11. Karam Singh PW-10 and Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 that we have to examine the veracity of the stand taken by Jora Singh PW-1 and his co-villagers, namely, Satnam Singh PW-2, Gurdeep Singh PW-3, Kulwant Singh PW-4 and Tarlok Singh PW-8 regarding the recovery of weapon of offence and the place from where it was recovered. Karam Singh PW-10 and Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 that we have to examine the veracity of the stand taken by Jora Singh PW-1 and his co-villagers, namely, Satnam Singh PW-2, Gurdeep Singh PW-3, Kulwant Singh PW-4 and Tarlok Singh PW-8 regarding the recovery of weapon of offence and the place from where it was recovered. Since there is nothing on record to show that all the three witnesses, namely, ASI Jasbir Singh PW-11, Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 and Karam Singh PW-10 are in any way inimically deposed against Ujjagar Singh, we have no doubt in our mind that Jora Singh PW-1 and his co-villagers have resiled from the statements made by them before the police for reasons other than love for truth. We, consequently, are of the view that the scene of the crime as found by Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW-14 and ASI Jasbir Singh PW-11 on their arrival had been correctly described both in Ex. PD and Ex. PE and in their testimony as well as in the statement of Karam Singh PW-10 and, therefore, there is no reason for not relying on this part their evidence. 17. When the DBBL gun belonging to Ujjagar Singh along with empty cartridges was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, the Laboratory in its report Ex. PDD had opined that two empty cartridges, one recovered from the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur and the other recovered from the right barrel of DBBL gun Mark C1 and C2 had been fired from the aforesaid barrel of the DBBL gun. Significantly the defence has also not challenged this part of the evidence. 18. We may now proceed to examine the probabilities of the prosecution case in the light of the above findings. The medical testimony of Dr. Ishwar Singh PW-5 pin-points the injuries which led to the death of Mukhtiar Kaur, which are described under :- "1. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm at the back of right side of chest oval shaped 5 cm towards right midline overlying medial aspect of lower part of scapula in right 4th and 5th intercostal space. Margins of wound were inverted and blackened. 2. 5 cm x 3.5 lacerated wound oval shaped with everted margins on front of right side of chest 4 cm below clavicle and 4 cm to right of midline overlying 2nd and 3rd intercostal space. Margins of wound were inverted and blackened. 2. 5 cm x 3.5 lacerated wound oval shaped with everted margins on front of right side of chest 4 cm below clavicle and 4 cm to right of midline overlying 2nd and 3rd intercostal space. Clotted blood present. On dissection, right 5th rib was fractured and right pleura lacerated on back. There was laceration of right lung in its middle part with pooling of clotted blood in right chest cavity. Anteriorly right 2nd and 3rd ribs were missing/fractured in anterior part. Injury No. 1 when traced led to injury No. 2 and whole wound was lined with clotted blood. Hence, the injury No. 1 was wound of entry and injury No. 2 was wound of exit. 3. Left pinna was missing in its upper and middle along with skin loss in left past aural region in an area of 5 cm x 5 cm (5 x 5). Margins of wound ragged/lacerated. 4. Abrasions with reddish base 3 cm x 2 cm on outer aspect of right eye and adjoining temporal region". Dr. Ishwar Singh PW-5 further went on to opine that the cause of death in the opinion on the Board of doctors was : "due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. All the injuries described were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. However, injuries No. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in this case in ordinary course of nature. The probable time between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 24 hours". Injuries No. 1 and 2 are clearly fire arm injuries, which could have been caused by a shot from DBBL gun. 19 The Doctors had also taken vaginal swabs in which spermatozoa was found. The presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab would indicate that some person had sexual intercourse with Mukhtiar Kaur within 24 hours of her death and nothing more can be read into it. The Doctors unfortunately have not tried to have a DNA patterning done on the basis of vaginal swab which would have conclusively helped in fixing the identity of the person who had ravished her. The Doctors unfortunately have not tried to have a DNA patterning done on the basis of vaginal swab which would have conclusively helped in fixing the identity of the person who had ravished her. In this view of the matter, though medical evidence in our opinion merely helps to fix the cause of death but does not in any way help us to rule out that it was not Ujjagar Singh who had violated her person immediately before her death but taking into consideration injuries No. 3 and 4 it can safely be said that person who has sexual intercourse with her had been resisted and these injuries were given at the time when her person was being violated. 20. When all theses circumstantial evidence were put to Ujjagar Singh for obtaining his explanation, he had taken the plea that at the time of occurrence, he was present in his house, which is situated on the outskirts of the village Bangawali and all of a sudden someone had fired at him. As a result of the shot, he had fallen on the ground and become unconscious. It is in these circumstances that the appellant would have us to believe that he does not know how Mukhtiar Kaur had been killed as he had regained consciousness only in the Hospital. This revision is hardly convincing in view of the fact that his licensed DBBL gun was lying near the place where he was found unconscious by Jora Singh PW-1 and his co-villagers and as Ujjagar Singh does not say that when he was shot, he had his licensed DBBL gun with him, there is no circumstance, which would persuade us to infer that the weapon was placed by his side by some one who wanted to implicate him as it would only be natural for us to expect that holder of licensed weapon would be keeping it safely in his own custody. Ujjagar Singh further does not explain as to how a shot had been fired from the right barrel of his DBBL gun. He also does not explain how an empty cartridge, which according to the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory had been fired from the right barrel of DBBL of gun Ujjagar Singh was found lying near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur. He also does not explain how an empty cartridge, which according to the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory had been fired from the right barrel of DBBL of gun Ujjagar Singh was found lying near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur. No cross- examination having been directed by defence counsel to challenge this aspect of the prosecution evidence, the only conclusion which could be arrived at is that it was Ujjagar Singhs gun alone, which had been used by him for killing Mukhtiar Kaur and in the suicidal attempt on his own wife. 21. Furthermore, the matter can be looked at from another angle also. After the post-mortem, the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur was admittedly handed over to her maternal Uncle and not Ujjagar Singh in whose house she had been living for the last 7-8 months. The fact that the husband reached Bangawali immediately after the intimation of her death had been given to him also shows that he held her in high esteem. It has also come in evidence that although the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur was cremated by her maternal uncle, the task of disbursing the ashes was carried out by her husband Balwinder Singh PW-9. This is evident from Ex. D-1 an extract from the Register of Ashes, Gurdwara Patalpuri of Shri Kiratpur Sahib (Ropar), which indicates that ashes of Jaswinder Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh, aged 30 years resident of Jakhlan were brought there by her husband. From the testimony of Balwinder Singh PW-9 it is clear that Mukhtiar Kaur was at times also addressed as Jaswinder Kaur. It is further clear from the testimony of Baljit Singh DW-2 that submersion of the ashes was done by Balwinder Singh-husband of Mukhtiar Kaur, which assertion not having been got clarified in defence, the discrepancy in the description of Balwinder Singh as is evident in Ex. D-1 inasmuch as he had been shown to be the son of Mukhtiar Kaur is obviously a mistake. This post-death behaviour of the relations of Mukhtiar Kaur substantiates what has been originally stated in the FIR by Jora Singh PW-1 that Mukhtiar Kaur was dissatisfied with the treatment, which was being given to her, by her uncle and she was trying to get back some property, which belonged to her appears to be correct. This post-death behaviour of the relations of Mukhtiar Kaur substantiates what has been originally stated in the FIR by Jora Singh PW-1 that Mukhtiar Kaur was dissatisfied with the treatment, which was being given to her, by her uncle and she was trying to get back some property, which belonged to her appears to be correct. All these inferences too help us to uphold the conclusion arrived at by the Court to the effect that circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution in this case clearly points out towards the guilt of the appellant and is totally incompatible with his being innocent. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the trial Court. 22. Turning to the question of sentence, in the present case, the trial Court while awarding the capital punishment has taken into consideration the relationship between appellant and the deceased, whose parents and brothers had already died and she had not only been denied of her share in the property by her uncle but he had also stooped to exploit her sexually, a fact which was even known to her husband. After forcing her to leave the matrimonial home 7-8 months ago before the incident, he had then subjected her to sexual intercourse before killing her. All these circumstances have rightly been taken into consideration by the trial Court before awarding the capital sentence under Section 302 IPC after treating it to be one of the rarest of rare cases, which would deserve the extreme penalty. Since the appellant had also committed rape and tried to cover up his misdeeds by staging an attempt of suicide, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere even on the question of sentence. The Reference is accordingly accepted. The sentences awarded by the trial Court are confirmed.