JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. Present Government Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2001, whereby accused-respondents Arun Kalra and Smt. Vimmi Sehgal were acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. 2. One Sanjay Sehgal wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-l) to Inspector, in-charge, Kotwali, Dehradun on 04.06.1999 regarding the death of his brother Indrajeet Sehgal. 3. According to the informant, his younger brother Indrajeet Sehgal was residing at 167, Dandipur Mohalla, along with his wife and children. His brother’s wife Smt. Vimmi Sehgal developed intimacy with one Arun, who was residing in the same locality. Indrajeet Sehgal objected to such relationship. Whenever the family members and other people residing in locality talked to Vimmi Sehgal in this regard, she used to get annoyed. In the night of 03.06.1999, Arun came to meet Vimmi. When Indrajeet came to his house at 12:00 O’clock in the night, he again questioned both of them. Annoyed by the question of Indrajeet Sehgal, Arun and Vimmi strangulated Indrajeet Sehgal. Thereafter, they hanged the dead body of the victim with a rope in order to project that Indrajeet Sehgal has committed suicide. Indrajeet Sehgal was perturbed over the illegitimate relations between his wife Vimmi and Arun. A chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was lodged in PS concerned on 04.06.1999 at 7:30 p.m. against Arun and Vimmi Sehgal in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Investigation of the case was conducted by PW 14, D.C.S.Rawat, Circle Officer, Vikas Nagar, who inspected the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report, took the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan, affected arrests of accused-respondents. Accused Arun confessed the guilt and offered to show the shirt of the deceased, which was subsequently got recovered on his disclosure and pointing, sent the thumb impressions of the accused-respondents to Forensic Science Laboratory, took the statements of other witnesses and finally submitted charge-sheet (Ext. ka-23) against the accused-respondents. The victim was a kabadi (dealing in scraps). The house, in which the victim was residing, consisted of two floors. The ground floor was being used as store for scraps and the first floor was being used by the victim and his wife as their residence. 4. ka-23) against the accused-respondents. The victim was a kabadi (dealing in scraps). The house, in which the victim was residing, consisted of two floors. The ground floor was being used as store for scraps and the first floor was being used by the victim and his wife as their residence. 4. PW1 Sanjay Sehgal said that in the intervening night of 3/4.06.1999, at about 1:15 a.m., Vimmi Sehgal came to his house and informed him that Indrajeet Sehgal appeared to have committed suicide in godown. PW1 Sanjay Sehgal along with his brother Rocky went to the ground floor of the residence of Indrajeet Sehgal, opened the door, entered into the godown and found that victim was hanging in a rope, which was tied around his neck. The victim was taken to Doon Hospital, where the doctors declared him ‘brought dead’ . 5. On the information given by PW1, Police went to the house of deceased, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem. A 15 feet long rope connected with a hook was found. Blood stained rope was taken into possession by the police from the place. A bagpiper bottle, two glasses etc. were also taken in their possession by the Police. A button of shirt was also found at the place. PW7 Dr. Prabhakar Bahukhandi conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the victim. The Medical Officer found ligature mark below thyroid. The Medical Officer also found fracture of trachea and thyroid bone. According to PW7, the victim died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. He preserved viscera and prepared the postmortem (Ext. Ka-5). 6. PW2 Rahul Sehgal was the brother of PW1 Sanjay Sehgal and the victim. PW2 said in his examination-in-chief, what was said by PW1. Both PW1 and PW2 said that the accused respondents were having illicit relations. Victim was aware of such relationship. It may be pointed out here that PW1 lodged two reports - one at 7:15 a.m., on 04.06.1999 and the other, at 7:30 p.m. on the selfsame day. PW1 admitted having written two reports regarding the same incident. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the victim married to accused Vimmi in 1990. It was not an arranged marriage. None of the family members participated in the said marriage. The victim started living in a separate house, the owners of which were the parents of Vimmi. PW1 admitted having written two reports regarding the same incident. In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the victim married to accused Vimmi in 1990. It was not an arranged marriage. None of the family members participated in the said marriage. The victim started living in a separate house, the owners of which were the parents of Vimmi. Later on, the victim purchased this house, although there was no documentary proof of the same. PW1 also said in cross-examination that two accused-respondents used to beat the victim. Fingerprint Experts were called in by the police in the godown, who took fingerprints from the glasses. PW2, in the course of cross-examination, admitted that the victim was in the habit of taking drinks. PW2 also said that his friend Pappu alias Rajkumar told him about the illicit relations of Vimmi and Arun. 7. PW3 Constable Heera Singh was a formal witness. PW4 Indra Kumar did not support the prosecution story. He said that he was made to sign on recovery memo of glasses and bottle etc. PW4 was declared hostile. PW5 Ashok Narang was produced by the prosecution to prove illicit relations between Vimmi Sehgal and Arun Kalra. Although he said that Arun used to visit Vimmi, but he was ignorant about illicit relations between them. PW6 Satish Kumar Jain said that he found Indrajeet Sehgal in disturbed state of mind, but he (Indrajeet) never disclosed anything to him (Satish). PW6 was also declared hostile. PW8 Rajkumar admitted that after the death of victim, the informant Sanjay Sehgal occupied his house. PW9 Shakti Kumar witnessed recovery of shirt of accused Arun Kalra from victim’s house. PW9 admitted that when the police recovered the said shirt, accused Arun Kalra was not there and PW 9 was made to sign on a blank paper at the police station. Thus, it could not be said that the recovery was at the instance of accused Arun. PW10 Constable Roshan Lal and PW12 Constable Niranjan Singh were the formal witnesses. PW13 and PW14 were the investigating officers. PW11 Yogesh Chandra was the fingerprint expert, who said that few of the fingerprints found on glasses tallied with the fingerprints of the accused persons, but remaining fingerprints taken from other articles were not clear. Thus, from the evidence of PW11, it could be gathered, at the most, that the accused-respondents took drinks together. PW11 Yogesh Chandra was the fingerprint expert, who said that few of the fingerprints found on glasses tallied with the fingerprints of the accused persons, but remaining fingerprints taken from other articles were not clear. Thus, from the evidence of PW11, it could be gathered, at the most, that the accused-respondents took drinks together. Such evidence was not the evidence of illicit relationship between the accused-respondents or the killing of the victim by them. On the basis of evidence on record, the illicit relationship between the accused persons was not proved. At the most, the same was the evidence of illicit behaviour. 8. It was also not evidenced that the respondents were instrumental in killing of the victim. It appeared to be a case of suicide by hanging with the help of a rope. [The same was also the case of the wife]. The Medical Officer reported in PMR as follows : “Ligature mark continuous and below thyroid encircling the neck completely” In the strangulation by hands, there is a chance that the neck will break, but the damage will not be cent-percent on the full circle of the neck. Continuous ligature mark cannot be made by hands. The help of either a rope or a piece of cloth was taken by the victim for the purpose of hanging. The hands were not used. The width of ligature mark was not mentioned by the Medical Officer. Participation of the accused-respondents in killing of victim was not established. It appears that the brother of victim set up a trap for the police and the police were trapped in that. No case of homicide was made out. Learned court below has discussed the reasons for not believing the prosecutionstory in page nos. 27 to 30 and page nos. 32 to 34 of the judgment. We are not persuaded to take a different view from what was taken by the court below. No interference is called for in the judgment under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 9. Before we part with, we express our anguish over the way such frivolous Government Appeal was filed. It amounts to nothing but wasting the precious time of the Court.