JUDGMENT Hon’ble K.S. Rakhra, J.—On the date of the incident, 11.8.1979, appellant himself lodged a report at Police Station Babu Purwa Kanpur at 6.10 p.m. stating that his wife Shakuntla has committed suicide. According to the report, the appellant was employed with Arora Trading Corporation at Kahu Kothi. That day as usual he had gone on his duty at 9.30 a.m. At about 3 p.m. his landlady Shanti Devi informed him at Arora Trading Corporation Kahu Kothi that Smt. Shakuntla had ended her life by hanging. He immediately rushed to his house and found his wife hanging from a peg in the wall by using Dhoti. He mentioned in his report that deceased was 18 years old and was a lady of low intelligence and used to remain sick. The said information was registered by constable Vidya Dhar at serial No. 52 in general diary of police station Babu Purwa which has been duly proved by Babu Ram Awasthi P.W. 3. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.3.1982 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur whereby the appellant Gajendra Nath has been held guilty under Sections 302/201, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the first offence and five years RI under Section 201, IPC in Sessions Trial No. 508 of 1980 (State v. Gajendra and two others). 3. After registration of the FIR Subedar S.I. who was in-charge of the police outpost of Babu Purwa was deputed to hold the inquest on the dead-body. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report on 12.8.1979 at about 8.45 a.m. as Ext. Ka.4 and sent the body of the deceased to the mortuary for autopsy after completing the necessary formalities of preparing the requisite documents. This witness had not found any circumstance which could suggest that it was a case of homicide. He did not find any injuries on the body of the deceased. The witnesses of inquest had opined that it was a case of suicide and this sub-inspector also agreed with their opinion. 4. Doctor R.P. Yadav, PW 6 who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased opined that the cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation and thus from his report it was found that death was homicidal and not suicidal. 4. Doctor R.P. Yadav, PW 6 who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased opined that the cause of her death was asphyxia due to strangulation and thus from his report it was found that death was homicidal and not suicidal. On the basis of this report the offence was converted into a case under Section 302, IPC and FIR was registered as Crime No. 519 vide G.D. Entry No. Ex. Ka.3. 5. Bal Kishore Jatav Senior Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 4 posted at Police Station Babu Purwa came across the doctor’s opinion and he took up the investigation in his own hands. In the end of September 1979 this witness made a spot inspection of the place of incident (Kothari) where alleged suicide was committed and he did not find any steel or other peg or hook fixed in the wall on which body could be hanged. He arrested the appellant on 14.8.1979 from village Garha Kasda District Etawah. Sri Shiv Raj Singh S.I. P.W. 7 is the second investigating officer who conducted further investigation and finding a prima facie offence of murder and concealing of evidence of murder being disclosed against the appellant, his landlord Awadhesh Kumar and one Laxmi Kant, who was alleged to have friendly relations with the appellant, submitted a charge-sheet against them under Sections 302/201/120-B, IPC. 6. In the trial prosecution examined only one witness of fact i.e. Jagdish P.W. 1. Devi Prasad P.W. 2 is the witness of inquest. Other witnesses could be examined by the prosecution in the trial on the ground that they were not traceable at their known addresses. For this the prosecution has examined constable Amar Nath Singh P.W. 8. 7. The defence of the appellant was that he had no quarrel or dispute with his wife nor they had fought with each other on the date of incident. He was informed about the death of his wife at Kahu Kothi in presence of co-accused Awadhesh Kumar. He claimed that on the fateful day, his wife was alive till he left for his duty at about 9.30 a.m. He got information about her death at 3.00 p.m. through Shanti Devi wife of his landlord. In support of this, the appellant has examined Sri Raja Ram D.W.I who was also an employee of M/s Mohan Brothers of Kahu Kothi. In support of this, the appellant has examined Sri Raja Ram D.W.I who was also an employee of M/s Mohan Brothers of Kahu Kothi. He supported the appellant’s version that the appellant had reported on duty at 10.30 a.m. and at about 3.00 p.m. he was informed by someone that his wife has committed suicide. On this he left the place of his duty for lodging the information with the police. 8. The trial Court did not find any evidence against the co-accused Laxmi Kant and Audhesh Kumar and acquitted them. As against the appellant the trial Court was of the view that the circumstance established from the statement of Jagdish P.W. 1 (hostile witness) clearly go to show that the appellant had committed murder of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. Following circumstances were relied upon by the trial Court for recording conviction of the appellant : (i) Appellant was last seen with the deceased when he left for his duty on the fateful day. (ii) From the statement of Jagdish P.W. 1 it was established that the appellant had some altercation with his wife on the fateful day as well as on previous occasions. (iii) The theory of suicide is disproved by the statement of Dr. R.P. Yadav, P.W. 6. (iv) Presence of ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and recovery of “dhoti” and broken bangles from the place of the incident by the side of the deceased. (v) The stomach contents showed that the deceased had not taken any meal in the morning. (vi) The co-accused Audhesh had given bribe to S.I. Subedar Singh P.W. 5 who had held the inquest, on account of which he did not investigate the incident honestly and fairly. (vii) The spot inspection showed no peg or iron hook in the wall creating a possibility of hanging the body for suicide. The presence of ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased showed that before her death she was overpowered and thereafter she was strangulated. 9. We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudhindra Kumar, learned A.G.A. and have carefully gone through the entire evidence led in the trial Court. 10. The presence of ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased showed that before her death she was overpowered and thereafter she was strangulated. 9. We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudhindra Kumar, learned A.G.A. and have carefully gone through the entire evidence led in the trial Court. 10. Sri P.N. Misra, learned senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court has committed manifest error in recording the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of statement of Jagdish P.W. 1 whose testimony was not reliable at all and who himself had been declared hostile by the prosecution. It was argued that the appellant had passed the death information to the police in the same form as he received at his working place through Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the landlady. He therefore, did not misguide police or the investigating officer as he bonafidely believed that his wife had committed suicide . There was absolutely no evidence of conspiracy and the circumstance relied upon by the trial Court did not form complete chain leading to an inevitable conclusion that the appellant had committed the crime and there was no possibility of any other hypothesis indicating his innocence. He has placed reliance upon two decisions in support of his argument. They are Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana, 1996 S.C.Cr.R.337 and Lekhram and Brij Lal v. State of Punjab, 1992 S.C.Cr.R. 516. He also argued that the suspicion howsoever strong it may be cannot be a basis for conviction or a substitute for proof. Court s cannot place burden on the accused to prove his innocence. The burden in the absence of presumption of law never shifts on the accused. It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Sri Misra further contended that on a close scrutiny of evidence the trial Court itself found that there are various missing links in the chain of circumstances in the prosecution case. 11. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that burden was on the accused to show how his wife who was living with him in the same house, died. It was argued by him that post-mortem examination of the dead-body of the deceased showed visible anti-mortem injuries mentioned in Ex. Ka. 11 and the death occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Hyoid bone was fractured. It was argued by him that post-mortem examination of the dead-body of the deceased showed visible anti-mortem injuries mentioned in Ex. Ka. 11 and the death occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Hyoid bone was fractured. Subcutaneous tissues under upper part of chest, and pleura were congested. Trachea was congested all over and contained blood stained froth. Both the lungs were congested which clearly shows that the victim was done to death and she did not commit suicide. 12. In this regard it would be better to refer to the statement of Dr. R.P. Yadav, P.W. 6 who has prepared the autopsy report Ex. Ka.11 which shows following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased : (i) Four abrasions over right side of neck upper part just below the border of jaw (lower) size ½ cm x ¼ cm to 1/3 cm x 1/6 cm. (ii) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm upper part of Neck right side near mid line above thyroid cartilage. (iii) Multiple abrasion (nine) over right shoulder and from shoulder towards side of neck in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm. Size ¼ cm x 1/6 cm to ¾ cm. x 1/3 cm. (iv) Two abrasions above inner end of right collar bone each ½ cm x ¼ cm x close to each other abrasion of injury No. 1 in shape. 13. Both lips of the deceased were bluish, under surface of the lips were cynosed and blood was present at places. Whole tongue and soft palate turned bluish. Face was congested. Eyes were congested and blood stained froth was coming out from her left nostril. Her neck had abrasions and shoulder were congested and contained small sized blood clots under them. Whole of Subcutaneous tissues of the neck were cyanosed. Subcutaneous tissues under chest (upper part) were congested. Pleura was congested. Trachea was congested all over and contained blood stained froth. Hyoid bone fractured. Uterus contained foetus of about ten weeks of gestation. 14. The doctor gave specific and clear opinion that aforesaid death could not be a suicide but was definitely a homicidal death. 15. Contrary to this, statement of Subedar, S.I. P.W. 5 examined by the prosecution itself specifically mentioned that there was no visible injury mark on the body of the deceased. 14. The doctor gave specific and clear opinion that aforesaid death could not be a suicide but was definitely a homicidal death. 15. Contrary to this, statement of Subedar, S.I. P.W. 5 examined by the prosecution itself specifically mentioned that there was no visible injury mark on the body of the deceased. He further found that at the time of inquest the dead-body was found lying in a room resting on its back. This witness was not declared hostile. He denied suggestion that he had taken any bribe for helping the accused. 16. Although prosecution evidence on the point as to whether there existed ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased is contradictory but even assuming that ante-mortem injuries existed on the body and the case was one of homicide rather than suicide, it appears to us that evidence adduced in the case was not sufficient to link the appellant with this crime. The trial Court has placed reliance on the statement of Jagdish P.W.1 a hostile witness. We are of the view that although the statement of hostile witness may be relied upon to the extent it is found reliable and cogent but in the instant case we do not find it wholly believable on material points. 17. Most significant question to be considered in this regard is motive. What could have been the motive for the appellant to have killed his wife? No relation of the wife nor an immediate neighbour or inhabitant of the same building has been examined to prove the motive for commission of the crime. Though Jagdish P.W. 1 has alleged that the appellant used to quarrel with his wife but his testimony does not indicate as to what was the reason for quarrel. There is no indication that there was any demand of dowry or that appellant was suspecting her extra marital relation with some one else or that he himself wanted to have his physical relationship with any other lady. The statement of Jagdish P.W.1 shows that he is not an immediate neighbour of the appellant but was residing at some distance. There is no indication that there was any demand of dowry or that appellant was suspecting her extra marital relation with some one else or that he himself wanted to have his physical relationship with any other lady. The statement of Jagdish P.W.1 shows that he is not an immediate neighbour of the appellant but was residing at some distance. At one place he admits that he does not know anything about the aforesaid incident and that he had not seen or heard any quarrel between the appellant or his wife on the date of incident but at another place he alleges that quarrel had taken place in the morning and the wife of the appellant had died in the evening. This version is inconsistent with prosecution story itself as the death had occurred on 11.8.1979 sometime in the morning instead of evening. Though according to the prosecution, this witness had stated before the investigating officer that he had heard the deceased shrieking loudly from her house and begging for not to be beaten and assuring that she would in future act as desired by the appellant but in his deposition in Court he had not stated any such thing. The statement given under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code to the investigating officer is not admissible in law. A total reading of the deposition of this witness shows that he had come to the place of occurrence only on the following day i.e. 12.8.1979 when the dead-body of the victim was being removed and inquest was being held. This witness at one stage alleges that the appellant Gajendra had admitted at the time of inquest that he has killed his wife but admitted in the cross-examination that he had not disclosed this fact to investigating officer or to anybody else before stating it in the trial. He also does not have any explanation as to why this was not done. At one place he admits that his house is five furlongs away from the place of occurrence and at the other place he alleges that it is about forty yards away. 18. We are of the opinion that the testimony of Jagdish P.W. 1 being self contradictory is not worthy of reliance. His bald statement that the appellant used to quarrel with his wife is also not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. 18. We are of the opinion that the testimony of Jagdish P.W. 1 being self contradictory is not worthy of reliance. His bald statement that the appellant used to quarrel with his wife is also not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. Many couples quite often exchange hot words or quarrel in day to day life but that cannot be interpreted as a motive to annihilate his or her spouse. The prosecution was under obligation to prove that there were circumstances and sufficient motive for the appellant for doing away with his wife. In the absence of such facts and circumstances, on shaky statement of a hostile witness it would not be safe to convict the accused for the murder of his wife. In R.R. Khanna and Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (10) SCC 172 the Apex Court held that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, suspicion howsoever grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for proof and the Court should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty on the basis of established circumstantial evidence. In the case of Sardar Khan v. State of Karnataka, 2004 (2) SCC 442 , it was held that for convicting a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be firmly and cogently established. They must unerringly show guilt of the accused and cumulatively they should form a complete chain to leave no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime is committed by the accused and none else. Such a chain of circumstance is missing in this case. 19. We therefore, allow this appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302/201, IPC with life imprisonment is set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. ————