1. Loss of temper is always fraught with dangerous consequences. Mankind, when losses temper, becomes irrational, commits acts which, at times, become ferocious. Trivial issue regarding release of cow without permission of accused no. 1 has resulted in loss of life of a young lady, married just two years prior to the date of occurrence so has been deprived of enjoying so many summers of her life. Attempt to style homicide as suicide has proved abortive. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge Udhampur, where under accused no. 1 has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 RPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment of three months and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month under Section 201 RPC. Accused no.2 has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 RPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month more. 3. Prosecution case, as unfolded, is that, one cow belonging to Madan Lal strayed into the field (land) of accused. Accused no. 1 on 31.08.2003 captured and tied the cow in his own house, then left in connection with his own work. On the same day Bimla Devi w/o Madan Lal requested the deceased Sushma Devi, daughter-in-law of accused no. 1 for release of the cow, who, without the permission and in the absence of accused no. 1, released the cow. Release of cow infuriated accused no. 1, had altercation with the deceased, and got further enraged took up the weapon of offence {stick (danda)} and struck it on the head of Sushma Devi, who died. Sensing the problem, accused no. 1 along with his wife, accused no.2, with the object of screening the accused no. 1 from legal punishment hatched a plan so as to portray the death of the deceased as suicide. Hanged the dead body with the ceiling. On the next morning i.e. on September 1, 2003, Sarpanch of the village, namely, Prem Singh, telephonically informed police about the suspicious death of the deceased. Police swung into action. Inquest proceedings were initiated in terms of Section 174 Cr. Hanged the dead body with the ceiling. On the next morning i.e. on September 1, 2003, Sarpanch of the village, namely, Prem Singh, telephonically informed police about the suspicious death of the deceased. Police swung into action. Inquest proceedings were initiated in terms of Section 174 Cr. P.C and the proceedings were entrusted to PW Mohd Din, SGCT, who took over the custody of the dead body. On autopsy conducted it surfaced that the deceased had sustained head injury. The opinion recorded reads as "keeping in view the findings of the autopsy we are of the opinion that deceased died due to severe head injury, time since death to examination 36-72 hours, (as on 3.9.2003)". Consequent thereto death was found homicidal and not suicidal. Case was, accordingly, registered as Crime No. 275/2003 at Police Station Udhampur. 4. Investigation of the case culminated in filing the charge sheet (Challan) to the effect that during the investigation it was established that accused no. l has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 RPC, whereas accused no.2 is established to have committed offence punishable under Section 201 RPC. 5. Trial Court framed charge against accused no. l for commission of offence under Section 302/201 RPC and against accused no.2 for commission of offence under Section 201 RPC. 6. Prosecution had produced as many as 17 witnesses. Thereafter accused, in terms of Section 342 Cr. P.C. stood examined and in defence accused produced two witnesses. 7. The case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. For establishing the guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it is trite that the circumstances such as (1) the circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, (4) the circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and (5) that circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be consistent with his innocence;. The principles laid down have been reiterated in the judgment captioned as Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 431. 8. Trial Court, keeping in mind the position of the case resting on circumstantial evidence, has recorded the circumstances and on the basis thereof has concluded that the offence has been committed by the accused and none else. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants first contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly when the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. This contention of the learned counsel is without any force. 10. The position of circumstances, as unfolded by evidence as brought on record, unerringly and in all human probabilities shows that the accused no. 1 has committed the murder of the deceased. The incriminating circumstances as emerge coupled with the simple denial to the incriminating circumstances put to the accused, while examination under Section 342 Cr. P. C forms additional link. The chain is complete there is no possibility of holding that the evidence, in any way, is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. 11. The circumstances, as emerge, are that:- (1) Capturing of cow by the accused no. 1 and then tying of such cow in his house is fully proved by PW Madan Lal and PW Bimla Devi. PW Bimla Devi, in her statement, has qualified that on her request; cow was released by deceased on 31.8.2003 and at that point of time deceased was in good condition. (2) Husband of the deceased was not present in his house at the time cow was released (3) Dead body of the deceased was recovered from the residential house of accused. (4) Disclosure statement made by accused no. l and the recovery of weapon of offence, as per recovery memo EXPMR, has been fully proved. One of the witnesses to the recovery, namely, Mani Ram, has deposed that on asking by the police as to with which stick (Danda) deceased was killed, accused did show the stick (Danda). (5) Medical examination reveal "there was a big heamotoma over the fronto-temporo-parietal maxillary region, including (R) eye bluish black in colour, right eye congested fracture of the underneath bone". 12. (5) Medical examination reveal "there was a big heamotoma over the fronto-temporo-parietal maxillary region, including (R) eye bluish black in colour, right eye congested fracture of the underneath bone". 12. The aforesaid stated circumstances having been fully proved by the prosecution witnesses and their credibility has not been impeached in any way so are sufficient unerringly to show that deceased has been killed by accused no. l and by none else. Accused no. 1, while examined under Section 342 Cr. P.C, has not been able to tender any plausible explanation to all the incriminating circumstances as put to him by the trial Court, instead has given routine answers by stating that allegations are wrong and circumstances are imaginary. Furthermore, he has not been in a position to give any explanation about the death and dead body of his daughter-in-law (deceased) nor has set up any defence. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that all the circumstances were not put to the accused, is controverted by records as all incriminating circumstances have been put to the accused. 14. Learned counsel has further contended that there is contradiction in the statement of witnesses to the disclosure statement, as according to PW Bitu Ram, disclosure statement EXPWSK was prepared on spot whereas rest of the witnesses have deposed that the same was prepared at the Police Station. This contention has been correctly answered by the trial Court. The contradiction is minor because Bitu Ram, in his statement, has qualified as to what was the statement rather disclosure made by the accused. He has owned his signatures on the disclosure statement and has accepted the contents as correct and has further more fully supported the recovery of weapon of offence. 15. The deposition of the said witness Bitu Ram supports the disclosure memo as well as recovery memo and is corroborated by other witnesses to the disclosure and recovery memo, the trivial contradiction cannot be termed so grave as to damage the edifice of the prosecution case. Small errors in depositions, which are not to affect the result of the case or otherwise are not going to have any impact on the testimony of rest of the witnesses, have to be ignored. 16. Small errors in depositions, which are not to affect the result of the case or otherwise are not going to have any impact on the testimony of rest of the witnesses, have to be ignored. 16. Next it was contented that the evidence has not been properly appreciated, but while going through the depositions of the witnesses and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it is found that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are totally consistent with what has been deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses to the disclosure and recovery memos, namely, Bitu Ram, Mani Ram, Inder Singh and Suneel Kumar fully repose confidence and satisfaction about the proof of the case against the accused. Further more, the investigation Officer, Inder Singh, has qualified that during the course of investigation of the case he has found that the deceased was killed by accused no. l with the help of a stick (Danda) and then he had hanged the dead body so as to show it as a case of suicide. The deposition of Investigating Officer, in any way, has not been impeached. 17. Next it was contended that the weapon of offence has been recovered from a place where every body had access. This submission is only to be rejected because it is true that stick (Danda) can be at a place where every one may have access but it is the accused no. l himself who has identified it and had produced it, so no fault can be found regarding the evidentiary value of the weapon of offence. 18. No doubt PW Mani Ram in his deposition has added that weapon of offence was such with which death could not be caused but that deposition is clarified by the expert i.e. PW Dr. Chander Parkash, who has cleared that injury nos. 2 and 3, mentioned in the postmortem report, could be possible by the weapon of offence. Therefore, the evidence has been correctly appreciated. 19. The next contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence to connect accused no.2 with the commission of offence. 20. This submission is forceful because none of the witnesses produced before the trial Court have deposed anything against accused no.2, no circumstances are available on record so as to establish that accused no.2, in any way, has helped accused no. 20. This submission is forceful because none of the witnesses produced before the trial Court have deposed anything against accused no.2, no circumstances are available on record so as to establish that accused no.2, in any way, has helped accused no. l to screen the crime. Even PW Bimla Devi, who had gone to the house of the accused for release of the cow, has not deposed as to whether at that time she had gone to the house of the deceased, accused no.2 was present or absent in her house nor has any witness deposed about the presence of accused no.2 in the house on 31.8.2003 or on September 1, 2003. So there is a serious doubt about the presence of accused no.2 in her house when the occurrence has taken place or when the dead body had been hanged. She has to be extended benefit of doubt. The trial Court has wrongly recorded the conviction against accused no.2 same is set aside. 21. Finally it was contended by learned counsel that there was a single injury in the fronto-temporo-pareital region of the deceased, as reflected in the postmortem report, so the offence could not fall within the ambit of Section 302 RPC. 22. The argument appears to be some what plausible. No enmity has been established nor it is established that there was any acrimony in between the deceased and the accused no. l. The motive assumes the significance. Why will accused no. l kill his daughter-in-law. There should be some reason for that. Motive, though immaterial, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has a bearing so as to settle as to whether it is a case of murder punishable under Section 302 RPC. The circumstances, as appeared in the evidence and inferableare that the deceased had released the cow without the permission of the accused no. l and further more there was altercation on the release of the cow in between the deceased and the accused no. l, and in the fit of rage accused no. l has struck the stick (Danda) on the head of the deceased which resulted in her death. Medical opinion has supported the fact that there was only one single injury on the head of the deceased. l, and in the fit of rage accused no. l has struck the stick (Danda) on the head of the deceased which resulted in her death. Medical opinion has supported the fact that there was only one single injury on the head of the deceased. So commission of offence falls within the scope of exception I to Section 300 RPC, which is punishable under Section 304 Part-1 RPC, as the act committed and the injury caused was such which was likely to cause death and which has caused the death, though death might not have been intended. 23. The two defence witnesses have tried to project that the deceased was epileptic but same is not supported by any expert evidence. Accused no. l, as such, warrants to be convicted under Section 304 Part I RPC and not under Section 302 RPC. 24. Hence accused no. 1 is convicted under Section 304 Part I and is, accordingly, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment of three months. The conviction recorded under Section 201 RPC as against accused no. l is, maintained. Therefore, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment of one month. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone shall be set off against the total period of sentence. 25. Accused no.2 is acquitted. Appeal, therefore, partly succeeds to the extent indicated above. 26. Confirmation for sentence of life imprisonment of accused no. 1 for afore stated circumstances is declined. A copy of this judgment be sent along with trial Court records to the trial Court for follow up action.