J.P. Singh, J. 1. Convicted and sentenced, by learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, vide his judgment and order of August 20, 2007, to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default sentence of six months, under Section 302 RPC, for committing the Murder of Ms. Saleema, his niece, on April 25, 2000, at village Peth Sharan, Beerwah, Kashmir, Abdullah Sofi, the appellant, has filed this Appeal seeking setting aside of the learned Sessions Judges aforementioned judgment and order. Final Police Report laid in the case, pursuant to the completion of investigation in FIR no.66 of 2000, registered at Police Station Beerwah, Kashmir, indicates the steps which the Investigating Police Officer had taken during the investigation of the FIR in, inter alia, seizing the dead body, preparing site plan, and taking in custody, the blood stained clay, pebbles, sand, empty willow basket called Futt in local dialect, a rope measuring 31 inches, cotton scarf and a piece of cloth called Aur, which is usually used in the villages, for resting willow basket or any other container, on head, besides getting the Post-mortem of the deceased conducted at Sub-District Hospital, Beerwah. Pursuant to his arrest by Police Station, Tangmarg, the appellant is stated to have made Disclosure statement indicating the place where Axe, the weapon of offence, had been concealed, and which, on its recovery at the appellants instance, was found stained with blood. According to the conclusion reached at by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, on the basis of the evidence and material collected during investigation of the case, the appellant was found to have committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 376/511 of the Ranbir Penal Code, `RPC for short. 2. Finding a case for trial, the appellant was charged under Sections 302, 376/511 RPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, hereinafter to be referred as the `trial Court, for short. 3. Pleading `Not Guilty to the charge, the appellant claimed to be tried. 4. To sustain the charge, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. 5. Opting not to lead any evidence in defence, the appellant, when examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that the prosecution case against him had been fabricated at the instance of his brother, who, had taken over his land and sold timber standing thereon valuing about Rs.60,000/-, taking advantage of his Jail custody. 5. Opting not to lead any evidence in defence, the appellant, when examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that the prosecution case against him had been fabricated at the instance of his brother, who, had taken over his land and sold timber standing thereon valuing about Rs.60,000/-, taking advantage of his Jail custody. Saleema had been taking care of him and he, too, had always treated her his daughter; the prosecutions allegation that he had evil eye on her, strangulated and killed her, was therefore misplaced. Choosing not to comment as to how had Saleema died, he says that the area where she had died, was surrounded by the Security Forces, and the personnel of Security Forces and Police were often seen there patrolling. 6. The version of the occurrence, as unfolded in EXPW-1, the written report of PW-1, the father of the deceased, to Police Post Khag is that the appellant and his brother PW-1, Saleemas father, had been putting up separately, though in the same house, at Village Peth Sharan. After serving Jail sentence for nine years for committing the murder of his wife, the appellant had returned home about three years ago. Saleema was busy carrying Cow dung from the Cattle Shed to the fields when on the day of occurrence, the appellant entered the Cow Shed and abused her. His daughter did not, however, disclose this. It was around 3 p.m. that his daughter was carrying cow dung to the fields, when in the meanwhile, the appellant, carrying an axe, started following her. Becoming suspicious, he too, after few minutes, proceeded towards the fields. The appellant was shortly away therefrom when as soon as his daughter dropped the Cow dung in the field, the appellant reached there; And in a bid to commit rape, holding her by throat, he laid her on the ground. His daughter being young and energetic, the appellant could not succeed in his design. He thereafter struck her with the axe on the head and ran away. On hearing hue and cry, number of persons of the locality came there, but by that time his daughter had succumbed to the injury. 7. The prosecution case, rests for its acceptance on the statements of PW-1 Ali Sofi, the father of the deceased, PW-2 Mohd. Subhan Sofi, the Numberdar of Village Peth Sharan and PW-5 Mst. On hearing hue and cry, number of persons of the locality came there, but by that time his daughter had succumbed to the injury. 7. The prosecution case, rests for its acceptance on the statements of PW-1 Ali Sofi, the father of the deceased, PW-2 Mohd. Subhan Sofi, the Numberdar of Village Peth Sharan and PW-5 Mst. Hajra, the mother of the deceased, who are stated to have witnessed the occurrence, besides the statement of PW-6 Mst. Mukhti, who, after seeing the appellant in the Village, on the day of occurrence, had heard thereafter that the appellant had Murdered the deceased, in addition to the statements of PW-13 Dr. Masroor Rizvi and other official functionaries, who, in discharge of their official function, had conducted the autopsy of the deceased, prepared site plan and collected other material during investigation of the case, to support the prosecution story, indicating that the appellant had committed the offences for which he was charged. 8. The trial Court has given a detailed resume of all the prosecution witnesses in the judgment, and to support its finding of appellants conviction and sentence, referred to the material relied upon. 9. To avoid repetition, we would refer to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, wherever necessary, to deal with the appellants counsels submissions that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in holding the contradictions and discrepancies noticed in the judgment as Minor, projected to demonstrate appellants innocence and those of learned State counsel, justifying the appellants conviction and sentence, impugned in the Appeal, inter alia, saying that the evidence on records was consistent and cogent, warranting no interference with the judgment and order, impugned in the Appeal. 10. According to PW-1 Ali Sofi, Saleema had raised hue and cry on the day of occurrence about the indecent behaviour of the appellant and he had assured her that he would place the matter before the respectable persons of the locality in the evening. Later in the day at about 3 P.M, he had seen the appellant carrying axe and a rope in his hands while following her daughter, who was carrying Cow dung to the nearby fields. He claims to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 5 to 10 Jareebs (1 Jareeb = 55 feet), and was scared to go there. Later in the day at about 3 P.M, he had seen the appellant carrying axe and a rope in his hands while following her daughter, who was carrying Cow dung to the nearby fields. He claims to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 5 to 10 Jareebs (1 Jareeb = 55 feet), and was scared to go there. On PW Subhan Sofi and Ahad Sofis reaching there, the appellant is stated to have taken to heels. While under cross-examination, he says that the appellant was persistently bothering his daughter to submit to his lustful desire and on coming to know that the witness would inform the respectable persons of the locality, the appellant had Murdered his daughter. He denied the suggestion that he had taken over the appellants crop and land when he was in Jail on the charge of committing his wifes murder. According to him, the villagers would know that the appellant had an evil eye on his daughter. He, however, admitted that Saleemas dead body was lying in the stream known Nallah Gogaldar, which was in full swing on that day. According to him, he was first to reach the place of occurrence where he found his daughter struggling for life. During cross-examination, at one point of time, he stated that he had not seen the appellant giving the axe blow but thereafter changed his stance to say that the appellant had hit his daughter with the axe. He is stated to have been informed by his son that the appellant had proceeded towards the fields with an axe and rope in his hands. 11. PW-2 Mohd. Subhan Sofi, the Numberdar of Village Peth Sharan testifies to his having seen Saleema going to the fields carrying Cow dung. The appellant was not in proper state of mind when he saw him going towards the fields. It was after about half-an-hour when, on hearing commotion, he proceeded towards the spot and found that Saleema was dead and the appellant was standing nearby. Number of persons had assembled there and on being asked as to why had he killed Saleema, the appellant fled therefrom. Saleema was still alive when he and others reached there. He had seen Saleemas dead body in the water, which was not removed therefrom, awaiting the police, which had been informed by Saleemas father about the occurrence. Number of persons had assembled there and on being asked as to why had he killed Saleema, the appellant fled therefrom. Saleema was still alive when he and others reached there. He had seen Saleemas dead body in the water, which was not removed therefrom, awaiting the police, which had been informed by Saleemas father about the occurrence. Saleemas dead body was taken out of the Nallah when the police photographer took the photographs and the police prepared the seizure memos. The weapon of offence was recovered at the appellants instance, who, while in custody, indicated that he knew the place where the weapon of offence had been concealed. During his cross-examination, he says that he along with PW-Ahad Sofi had requested the appellant not to strangulate the deceased but paying no heed, he struck the head of the deceased with the axe, as a result whereof, she fell down in the Nallah and the appellant fled therefrom. Changing his stance, the witness says that Saleema was already dead when he reached on spot. According to him, Ahad Sofi was the first to reach there whereafter other persons came, before he had arrived at the place of occurrence. He and Ahad Sofi were at a distance of about one Jareeb when they saw the appellant killing the deceased. Ahad Sofi had tried to intervene but was not successful. The witness says that the complainant would not permit the appellants daughter to visit him. 12. PW-3 Abdul Ahad Sofi, says that he was at his residence when at about 4 P.M, he heard uproar that Saleemas dead body was lying in the nearby Nallah. Reaching there, he found the dead body in the water and his brother Subhan Sofi Numberdar and Ali Sofi were present there. Saleema had a bleeding injury on her head and was found to have been strangulated. According to him, the appellant, had started living with the complainant after his release from Jail about four years ago and both of them along with their father had made arrangements for the marriage of complainants daughter. He had neither received any complaint against the appellant nor had he seen rope around the neck of the deceased. 13. PW-5 Mst. Hajra says that she was busy preparing food for the family of a neighbour, who had passed away when the appellant entered kitchen and threatened to kill her daughter. He had neither received any complaint against the appellant nor had he seen rope around the neck of the deceased. 13. PW-5 Mst. Hajra says that she was busy preparing food for the family of a neighbour, who had passed away when the appellant entered kitchen and threatened to kill her daughter. He had even tried to snatch Samovar, a specially designed Kettle available in Kashmir. She had found the appellant agitated. She thereafter took food to the bereaved familys house when her daughter entered the Cow shed to collect the Cow dung. The appellant followed her and on being objected he came out in a fit of anger. Putting Cow dung in the basket, her daughter proceeded towards the fields. The appellant followed her. Her son asked the appellant as to why was he carrying the axe and the rope. After dropping Cow dung in the fields, her daughter had gone towards the nearby brook to wash her hands when the appellant, putting rope around her neck, strangulated her and later struck her head with the axe. PW-1 Ali Sofi, was shortly away from the place of occurrence. During her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant had gone to the house of the bereaved family to serve food, which she had carried. The appellant and her husband remained in the house of Khazar Sofi, who had died, up to 3 P.M and thereafter returned home. The appellant had persuaded her to go to the house of the complainants stepfather who had passed away, to express condolence, so as to keep her away from the house. She stayed at the appellants step fathers house for only 10 minutes and came back at 4 P.M when she saw her daughter proceedings towards the fields with the Cow dung. Mst. Mukhti, had seen the appellant running away after committing the Murder of her daughter. The attack on her daughter had continued for 20 to 25 minutes and during this period she and her husband continued raising hue and cry but would not go near the place of occurrence. The appellant is stated to have run away from the place of occurrence, as soon as the neighbours came there. 14. PW-6 Mst. The attack on her daughter had continued for 20 to 25 minutes and during this period she and her husband continued raising hue and cry but would not go near the place of occurrence. The appellant is stated to have run away from the place of occurrence, as soon as the neighbours came there. 14. PW-6 Mst. Mukhti, stated that she was busy in her Kitchen-garden on the day of occurrence when she saw the appellant walking briskly and almost at that very moment she heard that the appellant had murdered the deceased. During her cross-examination, she however stated that the appellant had been seen proceeding towards village Bon Sharan 5 to 6 hours before the occurrence. She expressed her inability to name any villager who informed her that the appellant had killed Saleema. 15. PW-13 Dr. Masroor Rizvi, an Assistant Surgeon in Sub-District Hospital, Beerwah, had found an incised wound 4cm x 1cm, on the right Temporal Parietal region with underlined fracture while conducting the autopsy. He had noticed marks of strangulation on the throat but had not found any marks of struggle. No other injury was found on her body except that there was bleeding from the nose. The hymen was intact and the death, according to him, was a result of Cardio Pulmonary Arrest, following head injury by sharp edged weapon, inflicted after strangulation. The time since death is stated between two to three hours prior to the conduct of Post-mortem examination. No rope or wire is stated to have been used for strangulation, which had been caused by hands. Testifying that there were no marks of struggle, he stated that the case was not one of strangulation. 16. PW-14 Shahul Ahmad Kanth, Scientific officer, Jammu and Kashmir Forensic Science Laboratory, Kashmir negates the presence of blood on the axe, seized in the case, as the weapon of offence. 17. We have referred to the statements of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses to deal with the findings of the trial Court in the light of the submissions made at the Bar. 18. 17. We have referred to the statements of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses to deal with the findings of the trial Court in the light of the submissions made at the Bar. 18. The discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case, as noticed in the judgment of the trial Court, which were reiterated before us by the appellants learned counsel, have been dealt with by the trial Court as under:- "It is to be borne in mind that the occurrence took place at an open place few hundred yards away from the hamlet of Peth Shahran. The witnesses to the occurrence saw the occurrence when they emerged from the hamlet towards the paddy field and the place of occurrence. The witnesses continued to see the occurrence during the period they proceeded from the first point outside the village to the actual place of occurrence. It was not a case where the witnesses to the occurrence abruptly and immediately arrived at the scene of occurrence but a situation where the witnesses for the first time catching sight of the occurrence continued to observe different stages of the occurrence till they actually reached the place of occurrence. In the circumstances if a witness to the occurrence deposes that when the witness saw the occurrence he found the deceased struggling and pushing away the accused and when the witnesses reached the occurrence, the witnesses saw the deceased lying dead on the ground, it should not raise any eye brows or prompt one to see any contradictions were none exist. If a witness continues to see the occurrence for a few minutes that take him from the point he first caught sight of the occurrence till he actually reaches the place of occurrence, different scenes of the occurrence in continuity are to get recorded in his memory as different frames in a camera. In such situation small contradictions and discrepancies in presentation of the facts before the court are bound to crop up. What the court is required to see is whether all the witnesses deposed in favour of the prosecution regarding all the essential and integral parts of the prosecution case. In such situation small contradictions and discrepancies in presentation of the facts before the court are bound to crop up. What the court is required to see is whether all the witnesses deposed in favour of the prosecution regarding all the essential and integral parts of the prosecution case. In a situation where four witnesses reach the place of occurrence in an open field from four different directions small contradictions regarding the time of arrival of individual witnesses, the details of the occurrence when the witnesses first caught sight of the occurrence are bound to appear in the testimony of the witnesses. The contradictions, and discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel against the back drop of above discussion and in light of law laid down and relied upon the subject, are of minor character and are neither grave nor serious, so as to go to the root of the case. The discrepancies pointed out and highlighted by the defence counsel, as already stated, relate to the exact time of arrival of witnesses at the scene of occurrence, presence of the witnesses at a particular stage of the occurrence and duration of the occurrence. The contradictions and discrepancies can be explained without much effort in light of the mode and manner in which the offence has been committed and the occurrence has taken place. The argument that PW Ali Sofi by insisting that he alone from his family saw the occurrence had excluded presence of his wife PW Mst. Hajra from the scene of occurrence is not tenable. The prosecution evidence is to be seen in its totality and isolated narrations, have not to be blown out of proportion to discredit the whole evidence. PW Ali Sofi in his testimony insisted that once he saw the accused proceeding towards the field immediately after his daughter, the witness nursed a suspicion regarding true intention of the accused and also proceeded to the field after the accused; that after covering a little distance he saw the accused attacking his daughter and his daughter Saleema pushing away accused from her. The witness having his eyes focused on the scene of occurrence proceeded towards the occurrence, wailing and crying for help. In the circumstances, the witness is not expected to know who followed him to the scene of occurrence and who else proceeded to scene of occurrence, after him and saw the occurrence. The witness having his eyes focused on the scene of occurrence proceeded towards the occurrence, wailing and crying for help. In the circumstances, the witness is not expected to know who followed him to the scene of occurrence and who else proceeded to scene of occurrence, after him and saw the occurrence. PW Ali Sofi according to his version obviously was the only one from the family witnessing the occurrence at the relevant time, and when the witness makes a statement like that, the witness cannot be said to have excluded anybodys presence from the place of occurrence, including that of his wife. The argument advanced by learned defence counsel that the statement made by PW Ali Sofi was not to be believed as it on the face of it looked unnatural that the witness seeing his daughter being assaulted, remained contended with crying and wailing and did not rush to spot and save the daughter from the clutches of the accused, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. If PW Mst. Hajra is believed, the accused killed his first wife and the crime never surfaced though his close relations were aware of the crime; the accused thereafter ruthlessly killed his wife in the local jungle in full view of other women who had accompanied his wife to the jungle to collect fire wood, the accused was tried and convicted of the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II and sentenced to a little more than nine years imprisonment. In the said background having regard to the crime record of the accused, the fact that the accused was armed with deadly weapon it was but natural for the witness to feel scared and at the same time cry and shout for help. PW Ali Sofi cried and persistently requested the accused to free his daughter, the witness in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to have exhibited any Cowardice or unnatural behaviour and his testimony rejected on this count alone. Same is true about the other witnesses, who though having full view of the occurrence showed a little reluctance in plunging into occurrence and restricted their reaction to crying wailing and pleading with the accused to leave alone the deceased. Same is true about the other witnesses, who though having full view of the occurrence showed a little reluctance in plunging into occurrence and restricted their reaction to crying wailing and pleading with the accused to leave alone the deceased. The accused with an axe in his hand and his track record in everybodys mind must have genuinely scared away the witnesses from the occurrence. The witnesses including Lumberdar of the Village none-the-less mustered courage to shout at the accused, plead with the accused and even asked the accused as to why accused had committed such a heinous crime. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that the witnesses to the occurrence did not expect Ms. Saleema to be dead and had an impression that Saleema had only sustained injuries and it may be possible to save life of Saleema. The focus of attention of the witnesses thus was on victim whom the witnesses expected to be only injured and hoped to save. It is quite natural that having regard to emergency on spot, the attention got diverted from the accused to the victim of the crime, believed to be struggling for life. This together with past crime record of the accused explains why those present on spot did not catch hold of the accused and the accused managed to slip away. The argument that the statement of the PW Mst. Hajra that attack continued for 20/25 minutes must persuade the court to reject her whole testimony as the claim made by the witness on the face of it was false and if believed to be true then those present on spot should have found 20/25 minutes sufficient to intervene and save the deceased, cannot be accepted. The claim made by PW Hajra is mere exaggeration and does not in any way discredit her testimony or that of other prosecution witnesses. The learned defence counsel has tried to make much out of contradiction between testimony of PW Subhan Sofi Lumberdar and his brother PW Ahad Sofi as regards their time of arrival at the place of occurrence and presence of Ali Sofi on spot. The learned defence counsel has tried to make much out of contradiction between testimony of PW Subhan Sofi Lumberdar and his brother PW Ahad Sofi as regards their time of arrival at the place of occurrence and presence of Ali Sofi on spot. The contradiction is of no consequence in as much as PW Ahad Sofi claimed by PW Subhan Sofi Lumberdar to have arrived at the scene of occurrence together with the witness and to have shouted at the accused, has not denied his presence at the place of occurrence. The court need to be reminded of the fact that the occurrence, as already stated, took place at an open field and the witnesses proceeded to the scene of occurrence from different directions. There can be an error of judgment in perception regarding time sequence of the arrival of witnesses on the scene of occurrence. Had PW Ahad Sofi excluded his presence from the place of occurrence and claimed to have been at the relevant time at some other place, the argument put forth would have merited consideration. But PW Ahad Sofi has merely shown delay in his arrival at the scene of occurrence by a few seconds. PW Ahad Sofi has admitted to have seen the deceased lying dead with strangulation marks around her neck. The claim that as PW Ahad Sofi had deposed that the place of occurrence could not be seen from the house of the complainant and therefore the testimony of PW Ali Sofi and PW Hajra should be ignored is without any basis. It is pertinent to mention that neither PW Ali Sofi nor PW Hajra have anywhere stated to have seen the occurrence from their residential house. It may be stated at the cost of repetition, that PW Ali Sofi has stated that the witness, smelling some trouble followed the accused when the accused left with an axe and rope in his hand toward the direction, to which his daughter had earlier proceeded and witnessed the occurrence from an open place. Same is true about Mst. Hajra. Learned defence counsel laid much stress on what he calls "contradictions as regards the place of occurrence". Learned defence counsel argues that while as PW Ali Sofi has claimed that the occurrence took place in his field, all other witness have deposed that dead body was lying neck deep in the nearby Nallah/river-let Gogaldar. Same is true about Mst. Hajra. Learned defence counsel laid much stress on what he calls "contradictions as regards the place of occurrence". Learned defence counsel argues that while as PW Ali Sofi has claimed that the occurrence took place in his field, all other witness have deposed that dead body was lying neck deep in the nearby Nallah/river-let Gogaldar. The argument is made oblivious to the deposition of PW Ali Sofi and the topography of the place of occurrence as discernable from the prosecution evidence on record. The PW Ali Sofi in his testimony has stated that the occurrence took place in his field near Nallah Gogaldor. The field to which the deceased was carrying Cow dung on 25th April 2000 named "wagoen" is situated on the bank of the river-let. The field as a matter of fact extends right up to the bank of river-let. The field and river-let are not two distant places with some distance in between. In the circumstances it is not a case of two places apart from each other separated by some distance. It is a fact of common knowledge that the river-let like Gogaldar do not flow in one compact channel as is seen in case of a river flowing through townships and cities. The river-let branches off to intrude into nearby field and branches there after rejoin the main river-let. In the circumstances there is little difference between the field on the bank of river-let or the river-let itself as regards the distance and when the witness has deposed that the occurrence took place in the field near Nallah Gogaldar it brings within its sweep the river-let and its branches that flow through and by the field. The statement of PW Hajra in this regard assumes much significance. PW Hajra who has claimed to have seen the occurrence and given vivid details of the occurrence has stated that the deceased after days hard work was proceedings to the river-let to wash her hands when the occurrence took place, that the deceased was strangulated by the accused and thereafter given deadly axe blow. The statement sounds convincing as it is usual for someone engaged in handling Cow dung or like substance, to wash hands and clean oneself when the day draws to a close and the operation for the day comes to an end. The statement sounds convincing as it is usual for someone engaged in handling Cow dung or like substance, to wash hands and clean oneself when the day draws to a close and the operation for the day comes to an end. Further more the place of occurrence is sufficiently indicated by the place of seizure of blood stained clay and pebbles. As per the seizure memo EXPW 1/2 duly proved by PWs Ali Sofi, Subhan Sofi Lumberdar and Ab. Ahad Sofi as also PW Abdul Rahim HC No. 370/BD, the blood stained pebbles and clay was seized from the bank of Gogaldar river-let near the complainants land known as `Wagum. There is thus no ambiguity or contradiction as regards the place of occurrence. In the said background if PW Ali Sofi states that the occurrence took place in his field near the Nallah/river-let and the dead body is found in the waters of river-let Gogaldar and pulled out by the witnesses, no serious contradiction surfaces as would merit rejection of the prosecution case". 19. Before we deal with the submissions, reference needs to be made to Mark-A-16, the site plan which was prepared on 25.04.2000 by the Incharge Police Post, Khag. According to the site plan, the place of occurrence is shown in Nallah Gogaldar and the distance between the place of occurrence i.e. Nallah Gogaldar and where the dead body was found, is indicated as 23 feet. 20. The statement of the prosecutions star witness, PW-1 Ali Sofi, the father of the deceased, when considered, in the light of what emerges from the site plan, does not explain the following circumstances:- The witness is stated to have seen the occurrence right from the time when it originated until its culmination and appellants running away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence is stated to have taken place when the deceased was dropping Cow dung in the field and the deceased had struggled and ultimately died in the field, which is shown in the site plan, away from the place where her dead body was found by the police. He, however, does not indicate as to how the deceased had gone to Nallah Gogaldar, where her dead body was found lying neck deep in the river, which was in full swing that day, as stated by him in the cross-examination as also by other prosecution witnesses. He, however, does not indicate as to how the deceased had gone to Nallah Gogaldar, where her dead body was found lying neck deep in the river, which was in full swing that day, as stated by him in the cross-examination as also by other prosecution witnesses. He is significantly silent about the presence of Mst. Hajra, his wife, at the place of occurrence, who, in her statement indicates to have seen the occurrence along with the witness from a place shortly away from the place of occurrence. 21. Proceeding on the premise, that the witness had seen the dead body of Ms. Saleema, on the day of occurrence in the Nallah, his version of occurrence regarding appellants attacking the deceased in his field and Saleemas succumbing to the injury thereat, becomes doubtful, in the absence of any explanation as to how the body of the deceased, found in the fields by him, had been carried to the brook where it was seen by him. 22. The site plan prepared by the police on spot, too does not support the version of occurrence as disclosed by PW-1, in that, the place of occurrence, as indicated therein, is, Nallah Gogaldar, and not the place where the dead body of Saleema was found by the police when it reached there. 23. Presence of blood on the stones near the brook, too, indicates the occurrence to have taken place in the Nallah. 24. PW-1s conduct in witnessing the attack on his daughter, leading to her death, without taking any step to save her, appears to be quite unnatural particularly when he is stated to have been foretold by his son, who has not been produced as witness in the case, that the appellant had been seen following the deceased with a rope and axe in his hands, by him. 25. The sequence of events regarding the occurrence, disclosed by the witness, appear to be highly improbable in view of the above mentioned shortcomings. It, therefore, becomes difficult to accept the statement of PW-1, as it is, and in the circumstances, we would, therefore, like to see as to whether or not, the version of occurrence, as narrated by the witness, gets corroboration from other evidence of the prosecution. We would, therefore, look for it in the statement of PW-2, Mohd. Subhan Sofi. 26. It, therefore, becomes difficult to accept the statement of PW-1, as it is, and in the circumstances, we would, therefore, like to see as to whether or not, the version of occurrence, as narrated by the witness, gets corroboration from other evidence of the prosecution. We would, therefore, look for it in the statement of PW-2, Mohd. Subhan Sofi. 26. The statement of this witness, as noticed earlier, too is contradictory in terms, in that, whereas in the examination-in-chief, he does not indicate him to have seen the occurrence and all that he says is that after about half an hour of his seeing the appellant going towards the fields, on the day of occurrence, he, on hearing uproar, had proceeded towards the spot where he found Saleema dead. According to him, number of persons had assembled before he had reached there. Saleemas dead body was found lying in water in the Nallah but in his cross-examination, he indicates him and PW-Abdul Ahad Sofi to have seen the occurrence and had requested the appellant not to strangulate the deceased, when the appellant, paying no heed, struck the head of the deceased with the axe, as a result whereof, the deceased fell in the Nallah. He, however, does not stick to even his aforementioned statement and again contradicts him saying that Saleema had died before he reached there. According to him, it was PW- Ahad Sofi, who had reached first on spot whereafter number of persons reached there before he arrived at the place of occurrence. This witness having not supported PW-1, we would, therefore, proceed to look for corroboration in the statement of the next prosecution witness Abdul Ahad Sofi. 27. PW- Abdul Ahad Sofi, cited as eye witness in the case, too, does not support PW-1, Ali Sofi, in that, he does not claim to have witnessed the occurrence. He says that at about 4 P.M he heard that Saleemas dead body was lying in the nearby Nallah. According to him, the appellant had been living with the complainant and his father after his release from Jail about four years ago and had made arrangements for the marriage of the complainants daughter. He had not received any complaint against the appellant. 28. PW-5 Mst. Hajra, has, however, a different story to tell. According to him, the appellant had been living with the complainant and his father after his release from Jail about four years ago and had made arrangements for the marriage of the complainants daughter. He had not received any complaint against the appellant. 28. PW-5 Mst. Hajra, has, however, a different story to tell. According to her, on the day of occurrence, she had to carry food to the family of a bereaved neighbour and was accordingly busy in the kitchen when the appellant had threatened to kill her daughter and had even tried to snatch the Samovar from her. She had seen her daughter going towards the nearby brook to wash her hands when the appellant strangulated her by putting rope around her neck and thereafter struck her with the axe. In her cross-examination, she says that the appellant too had gone to the bereaved familys house and remained there up to 3 P.M. She had stated to have come back at 4 P.M. The occurrence is stated to have continued for 20/25 minutes during which period she and her husband continued raising hue and cry but did not go near the place of occurrence. 29. The time of occurrence, as stated in EXPW-1, the written complaint of PW-1, is about 3 P.M. and if one were to believe her statement that she had gone to the house of a bereaved neighbour and had come back around 4 P.M, as disclosed by the witness in her statement, the story of her having seen the occurrence, cannot be believed. 30. The sequence of events, narrated by the witness does not corroborate the version of occurrence, as disclosed by PW-1, in that, according to PW-1, the occurrence had taken place at the fields, whereas according to Mst. Hajra, it had taken place in the Nallah itself. 31. Statement of PW-6 Mst. Mukhti, too, does not corroborate PW-1s version of occurrence. 32. The statements of the prosecution witnesses that number of persons of the locality had reached the place of occurrence when PW-1 reached there and the appellant had taken to his heels when asked as to why had he killed Saleema too looks highly improbable when the hamlet of Peth Shahran is only a few hundred yards away from the place of occurrence. 33. 33. There being no corroboration to PW-1s version of occurrence by PWs-2, 3, 5 and 6, we are not inclined to accept the statement of PW-1, which we find is not cogent, coherent and convincing. 34. Weapon of offence, stated to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant, and found by PW-14 Shahul Ahmad Kanth, not to have any stains of blood thereon, demolishes the remaining corroborative piece of evidence which the prosecution has produced in the case. 35. The delayed receipt of the Special Report under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the concerned Magistrate, in the absence of any explanation by the prosecution as to why the Special Report had not reached the Magistrate for four (4) days, is yet another factor which dissuades us to believe the statements of the prosecution witnesses whose evidence is found shaky, fragile and contradictory. 36. Non-explanation by the prosecution as to how was the body of the deceased, stated to have been first noticed in the water of the brook, Nallah Gogaldar, was shifted to a place which PW-1 indicates to be the place of occurrence, affects seriously, the veracity of the prosecution story, as disclosed by PWs -1, 2 and 5. 37. The discrepancies in the prosecution story and the major contradictions, appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner in which the occurrence is stated to have taken place, with no explanation coming from the prosecution for the delayed receipt of the Special Report by the concerned Magistrate, coupled with the non-production of the Investigating Police Officer in the case, for explanation of vital unexplained circumstances appearing in the case, constrains us to come to the conclusion that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. 38. We, therefore, find considerable force in the submissions of appellants learned counsel that the trial Court has erred in holding that the contradictions noticed in the prosecution evidence were minor. 39. The trial Courts finding that the contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the prosecution evidence and case were minor, is found unjustified and illegal. 40. For all what has been said above, we find the prosecution to have failed to lead sustainable evidence to prove the appellant guilty of committing the murder of his niece. We find reasonable doubt of appellants involvement in the murder of Ms. Saleema. 41. 40. For all what has been said above, we find the prosecution to have failed to lead sustainable evidence to prove the appellant guilty of committing the murder of his niece. We find reasonable doubt of appellants involvement in the murder of Ms. Saleema. 41. Accordingly, dismissing the Charge and setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.08.2007 of the trial Court, we allow this Appeal and acquit the appellant, rejecting the Confirmation Reference. 42. Registrar to follow.