JUDGMENT AMAR DUTT, J. 1. Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky being aggrieved by the order dated 2/5.4.2005 whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga has filed Criminal Appeal No.296 DB of 2005, which has been listed along with Murder Reference No.7 of 2005. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that on 7.7.2002, PW 16 Inspector Gujinder Singh along with police party was present in village Singhawala on patrol duty in an official vehicle bearing No.PB-04C-7206 driven by Constable Sukhwinder Singh, when he received a wireless message from Police Station, City-II, Moga to the effect that a lady Meena Rani along with one Vikramjit Singh had been admitted in the Civil Hospital at Moga in an injured condition. The message further stated that Meena Rani had died while Vikramjit Singh was still alive. After the receipt of this message, PW 16 Gujinder Singh along with police party went to Civil Hospital, Moga where he met PW 4 Amarjit Kaur, mother of Meena Rani and recorded her statement Ex.PJ in which the witness stated that she had four children, three daughters, namely, Meena Rani, aged 20 years, Sona and Bindu Bala and one son, namely, Deepak Kumar. Her husband was doing clerical work in a Dharamshala at Chintpurani and the marriage of Meena Rani had been solemnised on 3.3.2002 with Vikram Sharma son of Sukhdev Sharma of village Ghal Kalan. On 3.7.2002 her son Deepak Kumar had brought Meena Rani from village Ghal Kalan and on 7.7.2002 at about 2.30 P.M., her son- in-law Vikram @ Vicky had come to her house in a Maruti Car with a view to take back her daughter Meena Rani. After taking tea at the house of his in laws, Vikram went to his Massi (sister of his mother) at Panjgrahin. At about 7.30 P.M. he came back to the house and after taking tea had started insisting for returning to village Ghal Kalan. The witness tried to persuade her son-in-law to stay for night at their place but to no avail. She had given a Shagun of Rs.50/- to Vikram and another Rs.50/- to her daughter Meena Rani, when they went from the house. The witness tried to persuade her son-in-law to stay for night at their place but to no avail. She had given a Shagun of Rs.50/- to Vikram and another Rs.50/- to her daughter Meena Rani, when they went from the house. Vikram had refused to accept the Shagun, upon which Sheela Rani, the mother-in-law of Amarjit Kaur, had intervened by saying that it was conventional to give Shagun to son-in-law, whereupon Vikram had retorted that neither he was their son-in- law nor he was willing to stay in their house and he took Meena Rani and after making her to sit in the car left towards village Ghal Kalan. 3. It will not be out of place to mention here that at some places name of Vikramjit Singh has been mentioned as Vikram Singh, at some places Vikram and at somewhere Vikram Sharma. The learned counsel agree that all these names have been used for one and the same person i.e. the appellant Vikramjit Singh. 4. At about 9.30 P.M., a telephone call was received at the Medical Store of Rakesh Kumar, who is also a Press Reporter, that the car of Vikram had met with an accident on the bridge of Bukan Wala and Vikram and Meena Rani were lying there. The caller had further informed that he was leaving for Ghal Kalan and Amarjit Kaur should reach at the bridge. On receipt of this information, Amarjit Kaur, her neighbour Kusum Lata wife of Rajinder Kumar and her son Deepak Kumar reached near the Bridge on road from Ghal Kalan to village Bukan Wala in a Maruti car driven by Sukha Singh. They saw that the Maruti car in which Vikram had taken back Meena Rani was standing in the open place on the right side of the road near canal minor. The mobile phone of Vikram and one shoe of Meena Rani were lying on the rear seat of the car along with some luggage. On the driver’s side, sufficient blood was lying on the ground and broken bangles were scattered and the second shoe of Meena Rani was lying nearby. There was no sign, which would indicate that the car had been involved in any accident. Neither Vikram nor Meena Rani were in the car. On the driver’s side, sufficient blood was lying on the ground and broken bangles were scattered and the second shoe of Meena Rani was lying nearby. There was no sign, which would indicate that the car had been involved in any accident. Neither Vikram nor Meena Rani were in the car. Thereafter, Amarjit Kaur and her companion reached the house of in laws of Meena Rani in Ghal Kalan and there her mother-in-law apprised them that Meena Rani and Vikram had met with an accident and they had been taken to the Civil Hospital, Moga. Amarjit Kaur and her companion then reached Civil Hospital, Moga and there they had seen multiple stab injuries of knife on the body of Meena Rani, who was wearing gold earrings, two gold rings in the fingers, one silver ring, silver pajebs and Bishue. Vikram was sleeping on a bed in the hospital. According to Amarjit Kaur, Meena Rani had not died in an accident and had been murdered by Vikram by giving knife injuries and she suspected that Vikram had illicit relations with some other girl and had murdered her daughter in order to remove her from his way. 5. This ruqqa, which was completed in Civil Hospital, Moga at 11.55 P.M. was forwarded by PW 16 Inspector Gujinder Singh to Police Station, Moga and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PJ/3 was recorded at 12.50 A.M. on 8.7.2002. The inquest proceedings were carried out by PW 16 Inspector Gujinder Singh, who ultimately forwarded a request to the hospital authorities for getting post- mortem examination conducted on the dead body, which was eventually conducted by PW1 Dr.Navraj Singh, who found the following injuries on her person:- 1. Incised wound 1-1/2 cm X 1 cm x muscle deep present on back of right wrist. Clotted blood was present. 2. Incised wound 5 cm X 2.5 cm x muscle deep present on inner side of right forearm, 5 cm above wrist. 3. Incised wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm x muscle deep on right of forearm 12 cm on above wrist. 4. 8 incised wounds in range of 1 cm x 1/2 cm to 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on front and outer side of right upper arm. 5. Incised stab wound 3 cm x 1-1/2 cm x muscle deep present on right breast 5 cm towards right of midline. 6. 4. 8 incised wounds in range of 1 cm x 1/2 cm to 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on front and outer side of right upper arm. 5. Incised stab wound 3 cm x 1-1/2 cm x muscle deep present on right breast 5 cm towards right of midline. 6. Incised stab wound 3 cm x 2-1/2 cm x muscle deep present on right chest 2.5 cm towards right of injury no.5 going deep into chest injuring lung. 7. Incised stab wound 5 cm X 2.5 cm present on right upper quadrant of breast going deep into chest and injuring lung. 8. Incised stab wound 4-1/2 cm x 1-1/2 cm present just above injury no.7 wound muscle deep. 9. Incised stab wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep, 2 cm above injury no.8. 10.Incised wound 3 cm x 1-1/2 cm was present on upper part of right chest just below middle of clevicle wound going deep into chest injuring lung. 11.Incised wound 3-1/2 cm X 1-1/2 cm x muscle deep was present 2 cm above injury no.10. 12.Incised wound 3 cm X 1 cm was present on lower inner part of left breast. Wound going deep after cutting rib into left chest cavity and injuring lung. 13.Incised wound 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep 5 cm above injury no.12. 14.Incised wound 3-1/2 cm X 1-1/2 cm was present on left upper quadrant of breast. Wound going deep into chest cavity injuring lung. 15.Incised wound 2-1/2 cm X 1 cm on front of left anterior axillary fold was going deep into chest cavity. 16.Incised wound 3-1/2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present 2 cm above injury no.15. 17.Incised wound 3 cm 1-1/2 cm on left lower quadrant of breast going deep into chest injuring lung. 18.Incised wound 3 cm x 1-1/2 cm was present at middle of right subcostal area. Wound going deep into abdomen and injuring liver. 19.Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep just above anterior superior illiac spine. 20.Incised wound 2-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep was present on back of left forearm 1-1/2 cm above wrist. 21.Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep was present 3 cm above injury no.20. 22.Incised wound 4 cm X 1/2 cm x muscle deep was present on back of left elbow. 20.Incised wound 2-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep was present on back of left forearm 1-1/2 cm above wrist. 21.Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep was present 3 cm above injury no.20. 22.Incised wound 4 cm X 1/2 cm x muscle deep was present on back of left elbow. 23.Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep was present on front of right leg 5 cm below knee joint. 6. At the time of her death, the deceased was carrying a 10- 12 weeks old foetus. According to the Doctor, the time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between the death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. The Doctor further opined that the injuries found on the person of Meena Rani could be caused with the knife. During investigation, upon the medico legal examination of Vikram Singh by PW 2 Dr.Naresh Kumar, following injuries were found on his person:- 1. Superficial incised wound with tail on the left side present horigentally 1.5 X 1-1/4 cm on back side of chest. 23 cm below top of shoulder. 11 cm from midline. 2. Linear abrasion 2 cm on lateral aspect of left upper arm mid part. 3. Lacerated and punctured wound 1-1/3 x 1-1/3rd cm on the lateral aspect of left upper arm 12 cm above elbow. 4. Superficial incised wound 3.75 x 1 cm on the front of right forearm. Horigentally placed 9 cm above wrist. 5. Superficial incised wound 6 x 1-1/2 cm horigentally placed on front of right forearm, 8.5 cm above injury no.4. 6. Superficial incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm on the front of right forearm horigentally placed 3 cm above injury no.5. 7. Lacerated wound .5 x 1/4 cm with abrasion 1/2 x 1- 1/2 cm on left side of skull, 7 cm from pinna 13 cm from posterior hair line. 8. Swelling 2.5 X 2.5 cm on the right side of skull. 10 cm from right pinna, 15 cm from posterior hair line. 9. Swelling 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 cm on right side of skull. 11 cm from pinna. 9 cm from posterior hair line. 10.Linear abrasion 6 cm on the right scapular region. 11.Linear abrasion 3 cm. on lateral aspect of left knee. and the Doctor opined that:- “Patient was conscious. General condition was fair. He was well oriented in time and space. Injuries nos. 11 cm from pinna. 9 cm from posterior hair line. 10.Linear abrasion 6 cm on the right scapular region. 11.Linear abrasion 3 cm. on lateral aspect of left knee. and the Doctor opined that:- “Patient was conscious. General condition was fair. He was well oriented in time and space. Injuries nos. 7,8,9 were advised X- ray. Rest were declared simple. Injuries No.1,4,5,6 were inflicted by sharp weapon. Injury nos.2,10,11,3 with pointed and blunt. Rest were blunt. Duration of injuries was fresh. There was no corresponding cut on pent and banyan. Injuries Nos.4,5,6 were horigentally placed and were parallel to each other. On receiving the x-ray report No.HK 171/3050 dated 8.7.2002, the injuries nos.7,8 and 9 were declared simple.” He also stated that the possibility of injuries No.1,4,5 and 6 having been caused by a friendly hand cannot be ruled out. He further deposed that on the arrival of the dead body of Meena Rani, he had sent a ruqqa to the police. Interestingly, the Doctor has not given any opinion regarding the time which had elapsed between the infliction of injuries and the medico legal examination. 7. During the course of investigation, PW 16 Inspector Gujinder Singh had gone to bridge of the canal minor in the area of village Ghal Kalan and prepared a rough site plan Ex. PV. He had found Maruti Car standing there and one sandal of Meena Rani was lying in the car and one out side the car. Both these sandals were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex. PM. The Investigating Officer had also taken into possession broken bangles and blood stained earth through recovery memo Ex.PN. He had also found one mobile phone Ex.P20 lying in the car and other items like khes etc. registration certificate of the car Ex.P5, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PO. Since the seat cover Ex.P21 was stained with blood, it was taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PQ. On return to the hospital, PW 16 Inspector Gujinder Singh took into possession through recovery memo Ex.PP, two gold rings Ex.P24 & Ex.P25, one pair of anklets of silver Ex.P22 & Ex.P23, one silver ring Ex.P25, one pair of bishueas of silver Ex.P26 and Ex.P27, one pair of golden ear ring Ex.P28 and Ex.P29, which were produced by the brother of Meena Rani. The clothes worn by the deceased were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer through recovery memo Ex.PW. When Vikramjit Singh was discharged, he was arrested by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, on 9.7.2002 during the interrogation, Vikramjit Singh appellant made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a knife near the bridge of canal of Bukan Wala under the ground near the cactus and could get the same recovered. This statement was recorded in the presence of ASI Narinder Singh and Khushwinder Pal Singh and pursuant to the disclosure statement, he got recovered the knife, which was taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PU/2. On 10.7.2002 PW 16 Inspector Gujinder Singh conducted a raid on the house of one Arvind Sharma and found him about to start his scooter No.PB-10AD-2236. On seeing the police party, Arvind Sharma ran away leaving behind the scooter. The search of its dicky led to the recovery of one golden necklace on which MR was written. Necklace Ex.P31, two golden topas Ex.P33 and Ex.P34 and one challan, were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PM. These were identified as those belonging to Meena Rani by her father Prem Kumar. After receipt of the results of examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh Ex.PY, Ex.PY/1 and Ex.PY/2, a challan was put in against Vikramjit Singh and Arvind Sharma showing him as a proclaimed offender in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who upon finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the same. On going through the papers, the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga framed charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty, hence, prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence. 8. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Navraj Singh as PW 1, Dr.Naresh Kumar as PW 2, Gursewak Singh, Draughtsman as PW3, Amarjit Kaur as PW 4, Mahesh Kumar Clerk as PW 5, Deepak Sharma as PW 6, Deepak Sharma as PW 7, Amarjit Singh as PW 8, HC Bhupinder Singh as PW 9, Constable Harwinder Singh as PW 10, Rakesh Kumar as PW 11, Manpreet Singh as PW 12, Shashi Bhushan as PW 13, Balwant Singh as PW 14, ASI Narinder Singh as PW 15, Inspector Gujinder Singh as PW 16. 9. 9. When the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the appellant were put to him for obtaining his explanation, he denied all the circumstances and pleaded false implication by taking the following plea:- “I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated. My relations with my wife were normal and we were living happily. I had also good relations with the family members of my wife. I had no relations with any lady. I and my wife were going in a car. We were waylaid by some unknown persons and they caused injuries to both of us. I sent information at my house, who took us to Moga Hospital where she died. My family members also sent information to the family members of my wife at Baghapurana. I was medically examined. I did not make any disclosure statement nor got recovered any weapon like knife. It was foisted against me. Recovery of necklace and topas is a made up affair. The FIR statement was concocted and fabricated at about 4 or 5-00 p.m. on 8.7.2002.” 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that offence under Section 302 IPC had been proved against Vikramjit Singh beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death and directed that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. Hence, the Murder Reference and Criminal Appeal, which through this judgment, we propose to dispose of. 11. We have heard Mr.S.S.Randhawa,learned Senior Dy. Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.H.S.Gill, learned Senior counsel for the appellant. 12. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that there is no eyes witness to the occurrence and though the FIR is stated to have been registered at 12.50 A.M. on 8.7.2002, the special report has not reached the Magistrate until 6.00 P.M. on the same day. The delay is not explained and in the facts and circumstances of the case it should have been held to be fatal. Since there is no eye witness of the occurrence, the explanation given by the injured husband should have been accepted especially in view of the fact that majority of the witnesses are not standing by the version put forth by them before the police. 13. Since there is no eye witness of the occurrence, the explanation given by the injured husband should have been accepted especially in view of the fact that majority of the witnesses are not standing by the version put forth by them before the police. 13. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the reliance sought to be placed by the appellant on the failure of the prosecution witnesses to stand by the version given by them before the Investigating Agency would in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be of little consequence as appellant has come out with a version other than the one sought to be projected by the prosecution. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that this version is belied by the circumstances brought out in the admissible evidence on the file, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant, who claims to be in the knowledge of the circumstances in which the incident actually took place had failed to satisfactorily explain the incident and, therefore, had rightly convicted and sentenced Vikramjit Singh. 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and with the help of the learned counsel for the parties perused the record. 15. The main grouse raised by the appellant’s counsel against the prosecution case centered around the possible manipulations of the prosecution story by the Investigating Agency for taking advantage of its failure to ensure the prompt delivery of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the FIR had actually been drawn up by 12.50 A.M. on 8.7.2002, the special report should have reached the Magistrate within an hour. Ordinarily, the lapse would entail serious consequences in the shape of inferences regarding manipulations at the behest of the Investigating Agency but in the present case where in the incident in which Meena Rani lost her life, her husband Vikramjit Singh appellant, who is also stated to have received injuries is putting forth a counter version, the trial Court would at best be required to scrutinize the rival contentions with greater care as even otherwise delay in lodging of FIR by itself according to settled judicial precedents is never fatal to the prosecution case. 16. 16. The trial Court had before it two versions, already detailed by us here-in-before i.e. one given by the mother of Meena Rani before she started resiling and the other put forth by the appellant. The police during the investigation had collected independent evidence from the scene of crime which would naturally corroborate one or the other version. The trial court after examining the various facts and probabilities put forth before it came to the conclusion that the apprehension evinced by Amarjit Kaur, the mother of Meena Rani, in the First Information Report that her daughter had been killed by her son-in-law appears to be more probable. The arguments before us have proceeded on the same line and it would be but appropriate for us to examine both the versions separately for ascertaining on the basis of probabilities the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the court below. 17. While examining two versions, the Court will also have to bear in mind the fact that the appellant herein is the sole eye witness of the occurrence and it was open to him to have come up with a specific plea. The plea not having been taken by him, he would have to discharge the onus, which shifts on to him to prove his case in the light of the observations contained in State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others (2000) 8 S.C.C. 382, which reads as under:- “The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offence would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casuality. XXX XXX XXX Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. XXX XXX XXX Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical collusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case. In this context the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be utilised. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.” 18. Certain aspects of the position taken by the parties are common and it would be but appropriate for us before proceeding to examine the diversions of the stand to pin-point what is common in the position taken by both the parties. 19. The stand taken by Vikramjit Singh after denying all the incriminating circumstances put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he had been falsely implicated and the couple were living happily as husband and wife. He also asserted that his relations with the members of family of his wife too were good. He admits that on the date of occurrence he and his wife were going together in a car when they were waylaid by some unknown persons, who had caused injuries to both of them. He also asserted that his relations with the members of family of his wife too were good. He admits that on the date of occurrence he and his wife were going together in a car when they were waylaid by some unknown persons, who had caused injuries to both of them. The information regarding the attack was sent by him to his house at Ghal Kalan from where someone came and removed both Vikramjit Singh and Meena Rani to the Civil Hospital at Moga. He further asserts that members of his family had informed his in-laws at Bagha Purana and as also that he was medico legally examined. He denied having made any disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the knife. 20. We may now examine these pleas in the light of independent circumstances collected by the Investigating Agency, the medico legal and post-mortem reports. According to the appellant the car in which couple was travelling was waylaid by some unknown persons. If that is correct, it is inconceivable that the appellant, who was driving the car would instead of driving through the hostile elements, who were trying to stop the car and in the process giving injuries to some of them, had pulled up the car on a katcha path at a distance of about 30 fts. from the main road and thereby facilitated the attack. Apart from this, the fact that no obstacles were found placed on the road as would normally be done in case some people were trying to rob unwary travellers on the road also militates against the story being true. The appellant asserts that he had informed his family at Ghal Kalan, who in turn had conveyed the message to Amarjit Kaur at Bagha Purana but the message, which was received was to the effect that they had met with an accident and there was no indication about the couple having been attacked by some unidentified persons. The fact that when Maninder Singh had brought the dead body of Meena Rani and the injured appellant to the Hospital, he did not inform the Doctors or the police about the circumstances in which Meena Rani had died and Vikramjit Singh received injuries would also indicate that the stand of the appellant at the time of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is an after thought. One would have expected that the appellant who was examined by Dr.Naresh Kumar PW 2 at 10.45 P.M. would normally have requested the Doctor to forward to the Police Station the circumstances in which he and his wife had received injuries. Rather than doing this the appellant had chosen to keep quite and the police is only informed through the ruqqa sent by the Hospital about Maninder Singh having brought the dead body of Meena Rani. Even Maninder Singh chose not to go across to the Police Station to give the version which his brother Vikramjit Singh might have given to him to the Investigating Officer. The reaction of the family of the in-laws of Meena Rani to the death of their daughter-in-law and injuries suffered by their son is also unexplainable as none of the members of the family of the in-laws were available at the Hospital, when the police arrived and therefore, in the inquest proceedings, which were conducted at 11.20 P.M., the Investigating officer only mentioned that Amarjit Kaur, Kusum Lata, Deepak Sharma and Sukha Singh were present near the dead body and the respectables, who attested and participated in the proceedings are Tek Chand son of Hardial Sharma and Tarsem Singh son of Mohal Lal Pandit, residents of Budh Singh Wala. 21. Looked at from another angle, if the husband and wife were waylaid and all the injuries were caused by unfriendly assailants, the description of injuries on the person of deceased and that of the appellant injured show a marked disparity between the way in which the husband and wife were being treated by the attackers. There are 23 injuries on the deceased with sharp edged weapon, which include injury no.4 which consists of 8 incised wounds on the right side of the upper arm. Out of these 23 injuries, injuries No.5 to 19 are around chest, breast and abdomen of the deceased and it is inconceivable that a loving husband, who had married the lady only three months ago would not try to intervene to prevent this assault and in the process receive as serious if not more than serious injuries on his person. Seen in comparison with the injuries found on the person of Meena Rani those that were found on the body of appellant are simple. Seen in comparison with the injuries found on the person of Meena Rani those that were found on the body of appellant are simple. 0nly in case of injuries No.7,8 & 9 Doctor found it necessary to get X-ray examination conducted and after receipt of report of radiological examination declared even these injuries to be simple. In view of the fact that the Doctor’s opinion about injuries No.1,4,5 & 6 being caused by friendly hand has not even been challenged in cross examination and the suggestion that the possibility of self suffered injuries being given on vital parts of the body is always remote has been negated by the Doctor and there are no corresponding injuries on the clothes, we feel that there is hardly any circumstance that has independently been collected by the Investigating Agency, which supports the stand of appellant and therefore, we are of the view that the same has been rightly negated by the trial Court. 22. On the other hand, seeing in contradistinction with the plea taken by Vikramjit Singh, the allegations made by the appellant’s motherin-law appear to be more probable. While scrutinising these allegations, the trial Court was faced with the argument that the testimony of this and other witnesses, who have resiled from the original stand taken by them in the FIR and the statements before the Police should not be accepted. The manner in which the trial has proceeded is shameful enough. It is unfortunate that the officer-in-charge, who had conducted the trial before the present incumbent Shri Sukhdev Singh took over was granting adjournments on the asking and in the process facilitated the winning over of witnesses including the complainant herself. In the statement given by Amarjit Kaur on 15.4.2003, she had supported the version given by her before the police which had formed the basis of the FIR. On that date, the cross examination was deferred on account of non availability of her son Deepak Sharma, who was ultimately examined as PW 7 on 16.9.2003, by which date it seems that filial love that had been aroused in the mother had waned and desire to seek retribution from the appellant for the death of her daughter and grand child had faded. This dwindling of the instinct for revenge had percolated into the family inasmuch as Deepak Sharma and Manpreet Singh too resiled from the statements made by them before the police. In view of this, it became necessary for the Court to seek independent corroboration of what had been stated by Amarjit Kaur in the statement given by her on 15.4.2003. Amarjit Kaur had in her statement asserted that her daughter was married to the appellant four months before her death. She had also asserted that on the date of occurrence the appellant had come to their house at about 7.30 P.M. for taking Meena Rani away to Ghal Kalan and after having tea had declined to stay for the night and left with Meena Rani in the car. At about 9.30 P.M., a call had been received from one Rakesh Kumar of village Ghal Kalan that Meena Rani and Vikramjit Singh had met with an accident at the culvert of village Bukan Wala, where upon the witness, her son, neighbour Kusum Lata and driver Sukha Singh had gone to the place so indicated and found that although the car was parked on one side, there was no sign of accident. She also stated that one of the Sandal of Meena Rani was lying in the car and another Sandal was lying out side the car. Some clothes of Meena Rani were lying in the car where a mobile phone was also lying. There was blood on the driver’s seat as well as out side the car and broken bangles of Meena Rani were also found out side the car. Thereafter, these people had gone to Ghal Kalan where they found Sukhdev Sharma and Kamla Sharma, father and mother of the appellant present and they had told them that Meena Rani and Vikramjit Singh had been admitted in the Civil Hospital, Moga due to accident and on reaching at Moga, they found that Meena Rani had already died and there were injuries with knife on her person. According to them necklace, gold topas (ear rings), which she was wearing were missing while she was wearing two gold rings, one silver ring, pair of gold small walis, which she was wearing above the gold topas, silver pajebs and Bishuea. According to them necklace, gold topas (ear rings), which she was wearing were missing while she was wearing two gold rings, one silver ring, pair of gold small walis, which she was wearing above the gold topas, silver pajebs and Bishuea. She had also reiterated in the statement the apprehension evinced in the FIR that her son-in-law had developed illicit relations with some other girl and wanted to get rid of Meena Rani. The police had, during the investigation, taken into possession gold necklace, gold topas (ear rings), two gold rings, one silver ring, pair of gold small walis, silver pajebs and bishuea. The police had also during the investigation found that the car was parked at a distance of about 30 fts. from the main road leading from Bukan Wala to Ghal Kalan. During the investigation, it has also taken into possession the seat covers and knife, which was discovered pursuant to a disclosure statement Ex.PU made by appellant Vikramjit Singh through memo Ex.PU/2. Both articles on examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory were found to be stained with human blood. The fact that the police had also found ornaments Ex.P22 to Ex.P31 on the dead body, blood stained bangles and soil from the place of occurrence and mobile phone too would support the prosecution version as brought out in the statement of Amarjit Kaur before she resiled during cross examination as also rebut the possibility of Meena Rani having been murdered on account of valuables which she was carrying on her person. It is after taking all these circumstances into consideration that the trial Court had rejected the explanation given by the appellant and came to the conclusion that what was stated by Amarjit Kaur in her statement on 15.4.2003 was correct. 23. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 24. The Finding of the trial Court regarding the complicity of the appellant in the murder of Meena Rani having been proved, we may now proceed to examine the question whether the sentence, which had been imposed on the appellant has to be confirmed. Vikramjit Singh was married to Meena Rani only about four months prior to her death. 24. The Finding of the trial Court regarding the complicity of the appellant in the murder of Meena Rani having been proved, we may now proceed to examine the question whether the sentence, which had been imposed on the appellant has to be confirmed. Vikramjit Singh was married to Meena Rani only about four months prior to her death. Although within this period, it appears that they had fallen out with one and other as is evident from the statement made by the appellant before his mother-in-law when he had taken the deceased along with him, the manner in which appellant had relied on falsehood to cover up his responsibility for her death indicates that the killing was culmination of a devilish plot set into motion by the appellant for getting rid of his wife. The diabolically ruthless manner in which it has been executed bring into focus the lowest ebb to which any one can stoop brings the act within the category of most heinous crime. It is indeed one of the rarest of rare cases, where the imposition of penalty of death would, in our opinion, be justified. The Reference is accordingly accepted.