JUDGMENT 1. - By judgment dated 11.12.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur convicted appellant Sukhram son of Narainram for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as under:- under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. under section 201 IPC - Seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. To question the conviction recorded and sentence awarded, this appeal is preferred. 3. In brief facts of the case, as unfolded by the prosecution, are that on 3.6.2003 at about 09:30 AM one Shri Prakash submitted a written report at Police Station Kuchera with assertion that his sister Smt. Godawari, aged 45 years, entered into a wedlock with Sukhram about 25-26 years earlier and the couple was having three daughters and a son. Sukhram and Godawari were living at their hamlet with daughter Anudi and son Garibram. Sukhram was in habit of beating Godawari and on several occasions relatives interfered to get the things calm down. About four months earlier Sukhram gave severe beating to Smt. Godawari, thus, she came to her parental house at Khajwana and stayed there. Subsequent thereto Shri Seetaram, brother-in-law of Sukhram and his wife Tiju Devi came to Khajwana and assured Godawari and her other maternal relatives for extending congenial and non-violent attitude towards her. Relying upon the assurance so given, Godawari was sent to her inlaws family at Dhayariakala. Despite the assurance given Sukhram continued with ill-behaviour with Smt. Godawari. On 3.7.2003 Pappuram and Madan informed that Godawari has been killed by her husband and thrown in a well. At that time Seetaram was also at the hamlet. 4. On basis of the information aforesaid a case was lodged and investigation commenced. After completing the investigation a police report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and after hearing counsel for the accused a charge for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code was framed, on denial of the same, trial commenced as desired. 5. During the course of trial the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 25 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-25) and the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/30. 5. During the course of trial the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 25 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-25) and the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/30. An opportunity was extended to the accused to explain the adverse circumstances available in the prosecution evidence and while availing the same he termed the entire evidence false. In defence, testimony of DW-1 Seetaram, DW-2 Tiju Devi and DW-3 Nolaram was examined and certain documents were exhibited. 6. The trial court after examining the entire evidence available and hearing the learned counsels recorded conviction and awarded sentence. 7. In appeal, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the instant one is a case of no evidence. It is asserted that the trial court failed to appreciate that no witness has supported the prosecution story and the circumstances sought to be advanced to support the prosecution case are not forming any chain of events indicating only one conclusion i.e. about involvement of the accused appellant with crime in question. 8. Per contra, as per learned Public Prosecutor the evidence relating to last seen and subsequent conduct of the accused is sufficient to establish his guilty and, therefore, no wrong has been committed by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the accused. It is asserted that as per PW-12 Pappuram, accused was seen in company of deceased Smt. Godawari and after commission of crime he fled from the village and as per the facts stated by PW-11 Baudi and PW-13 Naini overall conduct of the accused is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that Smt. Godawari was killed by the accused appellant only. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Looking to the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt and dispute about homicidal death of Smt. Godawari. 11. The trial court found the accused appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code on basis of the chain of circumstances pertaining to the previous and continuous ill-attitude of the accused with deceased and her children, last seen of the deceased with accused and his conduct subsequent to the incident in question. 12. So far as extension of ill-treatment by the accused with deceased Smt. Godawari is concerned, i.e. adequately established on basis of the evidence adduced by PW-11 Baudi and PW-13 Naini. 12. So far as extension of ill-treatment by the accused with deceased Smt. Godawari is concerned, i.e. adequately established on basis of the evidence adduced by PW-11 Baudi and PW-13 Naini. Both the witnesses named above are married daughters of accused Sukhram and deceased Godawari. 13. PW-11 Baudi stated that her father was in habit of beating her mother and also to the children. Her father was in habit of consuming liquor and keeping Smt. Godawari either bolted or in lock. Her father also used to visit a "Naai" lady. 14. PW-13 Naini also pointed out about regular and continuous ill-treatment of her father with Smt. Godawari. This witness stated that her father Sukhram was torturing her mother quite frequently by different modes. 15. The statements given by PW-11 Smt. Baudi and PW- 13 Smt. Naini are sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that accused Sukhram was torturing his wife Godawari from last number of years and because of that she was not happy with her marital life. She also made complaints in this regard to her maternal relatives. However, these two witnesses at the time of incident in question were at their in-laws house and nothing has been stated by them about the events taken place on the fateful day. 16. PW-12 Pappuram though has been relied upon by the prosecution and to some extent by the trial court also as a witness of last seen, but as a matter of fact he stated that in early morning his cousin informed him that Sukhram has killed his wife and thrown the dead body in a well. This information then was given by him to Prakash. This witness also stated about regular and continuous illutratment extended by Sukhram to his wife Smt. Godawari. A very important fact stated by PW-12 Pappuram is that in the night of fateful day he heard some noise and on asking about that his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) conveyed that Sukhram used to beat Godawari and advised him to go to bed. As per this witness his house is at the distance of about 200-250 pawandas, meaning thereby about 400 meters from the house of Sukhram. It is quite difficult to hear some little noise of some happening in a closed house from the distance of 400 meters. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-12 Pappuram heard loud cries or scream of any person. It is quite difficult to hear some little noise of some happening in a closed house from the distance of 400 meters. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW-12 Pappuram heard loud cries or scream of any person. Be that as it may, in any case the reliance placed by the trial court for last seen of deceased with accused is not at all well founded. This witness as a matter of fact has not said anything in this regard. The other part of the evidence as stated by this witness relating to hear of certain noise is also not very trustworthy. Suffice to mention her that admittedly the accused and his wife were living in the same house being husband and wife, therefore, instead of evidence of last seen the much more relevant issue was to have explanation from the accused about the events taken place in house on the fateful night. Nothing has been asked for by the accused while availing his explanation in this regard, as such, no material is also available for drawing any adverse presumption. 17. The last circumstance on which the trial court relied upon is about the subsequent conduct of the accused. As per the prosecution, accused absconded from his village after the incident and this fact is sufficient to form a complete chain to establish his guilty for commission of the offence charged. Certainly conduct of the accused is a deplorable, but looking to the circumstances existing i.e. not abnormal. It is not at all in dispute that he was extending ill-treatment with Smt. Godawari and looking to that Godawari may have committed suicide and in such contingency the accused would have fled from the spot. Suffice to mention here that the defence evidence is relating to this aspect only. Merely on the count that the accused fled from the spot, no presumption in present set of facts can be drawn that he committed murder. The discussion made above clearly indicates a lurking doubt in believing the prosecution case. The reasonable doubt existing entitles the accused to be acquitted from the charge of murder. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 11.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 70/2003 (50/2003) convicting accused appellant Sukhram son of Narainram is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is set aside. The reasonable doubt existing entitles the accused to be acquitted from the charge of murder. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 11.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 70/2003 (50/2003) convicting accused appellant Sukhram son of Narainram is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is set aside. The accused named above is acquitted from the charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. The accused be released from State custody forthwith, if not otherwise required.Appeal allowed. *******