Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Gopal Thakur (55) faced trial by the murder of one Karri before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. He was found guilty of the murder and convicted under Section 302 I.P.C., vide judgment dated November 25, 2002. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/-, in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Gopal Thakur has filed this appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence. 2. According to the prosecution the appellant and the deceased were room mates and shared a room in a row of rooms in a colony near Canal Rest House Bohli, District Panipat. On October 20, 1998, Harbans Singh (PW-7), a labour contractor of Bohli, came to know from Nagina (PW-6), a pan shop owner in the above mentioned colony, that when the latter had gone to collect his outstanding dues from Karri he found the room locked. On peeping inside he saw Karri lying dead. On getting this news Harbans Singh (PW-7) accompanied Nagina (PW-6) back to Karris room. The door was opened and Karri was found lying on the floor with face downwards and blood having oozed from the temporal region. 3. Harbans Singh reported the matter to ASI Dalbir Singh of Police Post Bohli who recorded his statement at 2-30 P.M. on the basis of which F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Matlauda vide D.D.R. No. 11 at 3-30 P.M. on October 20, 1990. In the F.I.R. Harbans Singh specifically mentioned that Gopal was Karris room mate and was missing. ASI Dalbir Singh started investigation and went to the place of the occurrence. Iqbal Singh (PW-3), a local photographer was also taken along. Iqbal Singh took four photographs of the place of occurrence where Karris dead body was lying. ASI Dalbir Singh inspected the place of the occurrence and also prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased whereafter it was sent for post mortem examination. 4. The postmortem was conducted by a Board consisting of Doctors Jai Parkash Saluja (PW-1) and Dr. S.S.Kalra at General Hospital, Panipat on October 21, 1998. 5. The Medical Board recorded that the body was of an adult male in the process of putrefaction wearing a white angrakha (underwear) and a white vest, a black waist thread with tabiz. 4. The postmortem was conducted by a Board consisting of Doctors Jai Parkash Saluja (PW-1) and Dr. S.S.Kalra at General Hospital, Panipat on October 21, 1998. 5. The Medical Board recorded that the body was of an adult male in the process of putrefaction wearing a white angrakha (underwear) and a white vest, a black waist thread with tabiz. Post mortem staining on the dependent part was present with blisters at some places on the body, skin was pealed off at places, body was swollen all over, greenish discolouration was present all over the body, more on face and neck, foul smell was present. Maggots were present, fading to nil rigor mortis was present in the lower limb. Both temporal parietal area, left eye brow area, bridge of the nose, left side of chin were flattened. The Medical Officer found the following injuries :- "1. A lacerated wound 4cm x .5cm over left side forehead bone deep 3cm above middle of left eye brow. 2. A lacerated wound 2cm x .8cm obliquely present over the bridge of nose. Injury was bone deep. 3. A lacerated wound 4cm x .8cm over middle of forehead 4cm above glabella. The injury was bone deep. On cut section for (injury No. 1) liquefied stains of blood on all the layers of soft tissues were present. There was fracture of left frontal and parietal bone, brain matter was in the process of liquification, there was a fracture of left side mendible. There was fracture of both nasal bones and septum of nose. 6. In the opinion of the Medical Officers the cause of death was injury to vital organs i.e. brain. Injuries were ante mortem in nature. Time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between the death and post mortem was about 3 to 7 days. 7. On October 24, 1998 the appellant confessed his guilt to Darshan Singh(PW- 8) who then produced him before SI Yad Ram (PW-10). Appellant was taken into custody and interrogated. On the basis his interrogation his disclosure statement was recorded which led to the recovery of an iron rod under the heap of bushes near his room in S.P.S.colony. The iron rod was taken into possession. SI Yad Ram also took into possession the shirt which the appellant was wearing at the time of his arrest. On the basis his interrogation his disclosure statement was recorded which led to the recovery of an iron rod under the heap of bushes near his room in S.P.S.colony. The iron rod was taken into possession. SI Yad Ram also took into possession the shirt which the appellant was wearing at the time of his arrest. After completion of the investigation appellant was sent up for trial. 8. At the trial appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. Jai Parkash Saluja (PW-1), Nagina (PW-6), Harbans Singh (PW-7), Darshan Singh (PW-8), ASI Dalbir Singh (PW-9) and Inspector Yad Ram (PW-10). The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. without oath. He pleaded innocence and false implication. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and held that prosecution evidence had established that the accused shared a room with the deceased in S.P.S. colony. The accused was last seen with the deceased by Nagina (PW-6) 3 days earlier when they had come to Naginas shop. A dispute had taken place between the accused and the deceased over money. The medical evidence conformed that the injuries on the person of the deceased were possible with the rod recovered from the accused. Resultantly, conviction was recorded and Gopal was sentenced to life. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the case against the appellant was based on circumstantial evidence. Three circumstances which the prosecution had put forth were that the appellant and the deceased having been seen together by Nagina (PW-6) at his shop on October 18, 1998, the confession made by the appellant to Darshan Singh (PW-6) on October 24, 1998 and the recovery of the iron rod at the instance of the appellant. 11. What is required to be examined in this case is whether the above circumstances stood established on the basis of the prosecution evidence led at the trial. It is further to be seen if the circumstances mentioned above formed a continuous unbroken chain which lead to a definite conclusion of guilt. 12. Karris dead body was discovered on October 20, 1998 and the post mortem examination was carried on October 21, 1998 at 1-00 P.M. and the time between death and post mortem was given as 3 to 7 days. 12. Karris dead body was discovered on October 20, 1998 and the post mortem examination was carried on October 21, 1998 at 1-00 P.M. and the time between death and post mortem was given as 3 to 7 days. Therefore, Karris had been murdered some time between October 14 to 18, 1998. 13. Putrefaction of dead bodies passes through different stages. During post mortem, Medical Officers are able to record the stage that the putrefaction of the dead body had reached and from their observations estimate the time that had passed since death. 14. In the present case the Medical Officer had recorded their observations of the stages of putrefaction of the dead body which had enabled them to positively state that murder had been committed any time between 3 to 7 days earlier. Forensic Science is an advanced science. Evidence of the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination is often accurate in determining and reconstructing the manner in which the murder was committed and also the time when it was committed. The process of putrefaction or decomposition and autolysis (breaking down of dead tissues by the organisms own ferments) has been described in detail in Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty-Second Edition) at pages 232 to 243. One need enter into ones own analysis or interpretation of the medical evidence because the medical experts have given a time frame during which the murder was committed. Courts should not doubt the estimate given nor attempt to make their own analysis of the evidence. 15. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was 3 to 7 days. The murder was committed between mid day October 14 and mid day October 18. 16. According to Nagina (PW-6) when he went to the room of the deceased to collect money due to him and he had found the room locked and seen blood in front of the door. Nagina informed Harbans Singh (PW-7) who informed the police leading to the registration of the case. The police came to the place of occurrence and opened the door to find the dead body. The body was discovered around 10.00 A.M. on October 20. Nagina (PW- 6) testified that it was two days before the recovery of the dead body that the appellant and the deceased had come to his shop. The police came to the place of occurrence and opened the door to find the dead body. The body was discovered around 10.00 A.M. on October 20. Nagina (PW- 6) testified that it was two days before the recovery of the dead body that the appellant and the deceased had come to his shop. They had a dispute over money and then returned to the room where they lived jointly. 17. According to the appellants counsel, Naginas evidence could not be accepted because the prosecution did not produce the owner/landlord of the rooms occupied by the deceased to establish that the deceased and the appellant did indeed live together. There was only Naginas evidence in this respect, no other corroboration. The prosecution had not examined any of the other occupants of the adjoining rooms like Shiv Nath, Parmeshwar and Muna Ram etc. whose names were mentioned in the site plan depicting the place of the occurrence. We feel that Naginas statement is not enough to establish that the deceased and the appellant shared the room or that they had quarreled over money in Naginas presence 2 days before the recovery of the dead body. 18. We also feel that the since Medical Officers had given a time span of 4 days during which the murder could have been committed, it would not be possible to accept that the deceased was alive on October 18 whereas he may well have been murdered any time between October 14 and 18t may be around October 16. 19. Furthermore, the evidence regarding sharing of the room and the two being room mates is unsatisfactory. It may be noticed that Harbans Singh (PW-7), the employer of the deceased had not confirmed that the deceased and the appellant were room mates. Harbans Singh (PW-7) had not whole-heartedly supported the prosecution case. 20. In the above state of affairs the so called confession made by the appellant before Darshan Singh (PW-8) may not be enough to conclude that he was the murderer. The evidence in this case was not sufficient to record conviction. Therefore, Darshan Singhs evidence alone regarding the appellant having made a confession to him leading his arrest and recovery of the iron rod from his possession is not considered enough material to support the charge against the appellant. The evidence in this case was not sufficient to record conviction. Therefore, Darshan Singhs evidence alone regarding the appellant having made a confession to him leading his arrest and recovery of the iron rod from his possession is not considered enough material to support the charge against the appellant. The background of the case, the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant observed by Nagina (PW-6), discovery of the dead body in an advanced stage of putrefaction and complete absence of any other witness convince us that conviction against the appellant was wrongly recorded. This appeal is accepted and the appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from the custody forthwith unless wanted in any other case.