Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 57 (RAJ)

Lad Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-03

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur. Learned trial court by the judgment impugned recorded conviction of the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and further to undergo six months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. In brief, facts of the case are that on 19.10.2007 at 03:00 PM Shri Ishwar Singh (PW-4) submitted a written report (Ex.P/5) to the Station House Officer of Police Station Dangiawas, at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur with assertion that his younger brother Narendra Singh solemnised marriage with Mrs. Man Kanwar daughter of Kishore Singh about six months earlier. Since marriage Man Kanwar used to remain in quarrel with Narendra Singh for one or other reason. On 18.10.2007, Narendra Singh came to Jodhpur and conveyed telephonically to the informant that his in-laws will send his wife with him. At about 11:00 PM in the night of 18.10.2007 Smt. Lad Kanwar, mother-in-law of Narendra Singh, informed at Lototi (native village of Narendra Singh) that Narendra Singh has died, his body be taken. From Lototi other brother of Narendra Singh conveyed the informant telephonically about the message received. The informant immediately went to the house of accused with Jitendra Singh and Bhagwan Singh. The dead body of Narendra Singh was lying on a floor in a room at the residence of accused. On observation of the body, it appeared that Narendra Singh was killed by strangulation after tiding his hands. It was also reported that about 15 days earlier Kishore Singh, father-in-law of Narendra Singh, Vikram Singh, Smt. Lad Kanwar, mother-in-law of Narendra Singh and Mrs. Man Kanwar threatened for killing of Narendra Singh, who was having some doubt about illicit relations of Man Kanwar with some other person. On basis of the information received, a case was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, an inquest was made, the dead body of deceased Narendra Singh was subjected to an autopsy and its report was obtained. A stole hanging with a hook of ceiling was recovered from the spot of occurrence. The accused persons were arrested and on basis of the information given by them a plastic drum and an iron stool were recovered. A stole hanging with a hook of ceiling was recovered from the spot of occurrence. The accused persons were arrested and on basis of the information given by them a plastic drum and an iron stool were recovered. The investigating agency after completing the investigation filed a police report before the competent court. The case being sessions triable was committed to the court of Sessions. As per the prosecution, accused Man Kanwar was having illicit relations with several boys and, therefore, she was not interested in staying with Narendra Singh. She and her mother Smt. Lad Kanwar, thus, conspired and committed his murder and further tried to give a look of suicide to the crime by making an effort to hang the dead body with the hook of ceiling fan. The Sessions court after hearing the accused persons framed charge against them for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the charge trial commenced, as desired. The prosecution supported its case by getting 20 witnesses examined and exhibiting 39 documents in addition to the Forensic Science Laboratory's report. The opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain adverse and incriminating circumstances in prosecution evidence against them. The accused termed the same false and pleaded their innocence. Statements of accused Man Kanwar as DW-1, brother Dilip Singh as DW-2 and sister Santosh Kanwar as DW-3 were recorded in defence. The documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 were also exhibited in defence. Suffice to mention that the documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 are the statements given by witnesses Ganga Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Ishwar Singh, Jitendra Singh and Vineet Sharma as per provisions of Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution before the trial court advanced evidence to establish a chain of circumstances indicating definite involvement of the accused in crime. The circumstances so relied upon are- 1. the recovery of body of deceased Narendra Singh from the house of accused persons; 2. the availability of motive to kill Narendra Singh; 3. the extra judicial confession made by accused Man Kanwar before Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-19); 4. The circumstances so relied upon are- 1. the recovery of body of deceased Narendra Singh from the house of accused persons; 2. the availability of motive to kill Narendra Singh; 3. the extra judicial confession made by accused Man Kanwar before Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-19); 4. the recovery of a piece of plastic rope that was said to be used to fasten hands of Narendra Singh, recovery of plastic drum and a stool said to be used by accused to hang dead body of Narendra Singh and the recovery of a pillow for causing suffocation. 5. The medical evidence as per which the legature marks were available on wrist and the cause of death given was asphyxia. Learned trial court examined the entire evidence available on record. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the accused also accept that the dead body of Narendra Singh was found from their house and as such, the trial court found this circumstance established beyond shadow of doubt. The second circumstance relating to motive was tried to be established with the aid of the evidence adduced by Ishwar Singh (PW-4), Kan Singh (PW-2) and Ganga Singh (PW-1). The evidence relating to recovery was sought to be established by the prosecution by getting the testimony of Khinya Ram (PW-13) and Umesh Jain (PW-14) examined. The most important witnesses in the case are Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-19) before whom accused Man Kanwar said to have made extra judicial confession. Learned trial court heavily relied upon these witnesses while recording conviction of two women, the accused. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, i.e. based on the evidence adduced by Dr. P.C.Vyas (PW-15). To establish continuity of the investigation to frame a complete chain of circumstances and the steps taken during the course of investigation, the trial court examined testimony of Shri Lakha Ram (PW-20), the investigating officer. In appeal, learned counsel for the appellants impeached correctness of the judgment impugned on several counts. It is submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that even as per prosecution, an information was received by brother of deceased about death of Narendra Singh in night of 18.10.2007 and immediately thereafter he arrived at the spot of occurrence. Information was also given to the police immediately thereafter. It is submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that even as per prosecution, an information was received by brother of deceased about death of Narendra Singh in night of 18.10.2007 and immediately thereafter he arrived at the spot of occurrence. Information was also given to the police immediately thereafter. The dead body was then taken to the hospital and at that time police officials were present. The police as such came into action on basis of a telephonic information (Ex.P/21) received. In spite of it, an another written report was taken on next day i.e. on 19.10.2007 at 03:00 PM. The second information report appears to have been taken only to frame the accused in the criminal case in consonance with the medical opinion. It is asserted that at 10:30 AM on 19.10.2007, the dead body of Narendra Singh was handed over to the authorities of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted at 03:05 PM. The second first information report was also registered at 03:00 PM at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. The lodging of information afresh creates a doubt about fair investigation in the matter. This argument is further substantiated with the argument that the entire story of killing Narendra Singh by giving pressure on his face by a pillow was developed only on having knowledge about the fact that cause of death was asphyxia. Learned counsel with all vehemence urged that the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish extra judicial confession said to be made by the accused is not at all reliable. It is submitted that Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-19) are absolutely strangers and they are the witnesses implanted. The version given by them, as per learned counsel is absolutely unnatural and they are not at all trustworthy. Emphasis is also given by learned counsel that availability of antemortem legature marks crossing front of the neck above the thyroid cartilage and extending upwards to lateral sides of the neck is sufficient to indicate that the deceased committed suicide by hanging as explained by defence witness DW-1 Smt. Man Kanwar. It is asserted that the medical evidence available is not sufficient to indicate death of Narendra Singh by suffocation. Learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, submits that involvement of the accused persons in the crime stands established beyond shadow of doubt in view of the circumstantial evidence adduced. It is asserted that the medical evidence available is not sufficient to indicate death of Narendra Singh by suffocation. Learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, submits that involvement of the accused persons in the crime stands established beyond shadow of doubt in view of the circumstantial evidence adduced. The first information report was lodged at 03:00 PM on 19.10.2007 i.e. prior to having postmortem, as such, the doubt sought to be created in relation to framing of the accused in the criminal case as per the opinion given in the postmortem report is ill- founded. It is asserted that Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-19) are independent witnesses and they were not keeping any enmity with the accused, as such, no reason exists to disbelieve their testimony. Considered the arguments advanced and also examined the record in lucid. Learned trial court while convicting the accused appellants relied upon the circumstances relating to the death of Narendra Singh taken place in the house of accused, the motive, recovery of a stole that was said to be used as legature, the extra judicial confession made before Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-19), and the medical evidence adduced by Dr. P.C.Vyas (PW-15). Much emphasis is given by the trial court to the extra judicial confession said to be made by two witnesses named above and the medical evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the appellants, as already stated, vehemently urged that the medical evidence available is not at all sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the death occurred due to suffocation and further by smothering. Suffice to mention here that as per the prosecution, the accused persons first tried to hang deceased Narendra Singh, who was under intoxication, but being failed, he was subjected to smothering by pressing his mouth and nose with the aid of a pillow. Dr. P.C.Vyas (PW-15), while deposing before the court, stated that he was a member of the medical board that conducted autopsy on the corpus of deceased Narendra Singh, a boy of about 22 years. The deceased was of a medium built and at the time of examination of his body, his eyes were closed, lips and nails were having a tint of bluishness, mouth was half open, the retina was enlarged but study and cornea was white. The deceased was of a medium built and at the time of examination of his body, his eyes were closed, lips and nails were having a tint of bluishness, mouth was half open, the retina was enlarged but study and cornea was white. A legature mark was available on the frontal portion of left wrist and posterior part of the right wrist. A legature mark of about 26 cms with the width of 2.5 – 3.0 cms was available on neck, proceeding towards ears from thyroid cartilage level. The legature mark was irregular, hard and parchment like with red and blue complexion. The skin under the legature mark was white and bright, but there was no oozing of blood from the soft tissues. There was no fracture on thyroid cartilage and there was no displacement even in the tracia rings. The cervical vertebra was neither having any fracture nor any dislocation. All the marks mentioned above were antemortem. On internal examination, brain, lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were found congested. The mucus membrane of the trachea was also congested. The mucus membrane of stomach was congested and the abdomen was containing 200 ml. of brown liquid with food articles. The liquid was giving smell like liquor. The other visceras were found healthy. As per this witness the cause of death of Narendra Singh was 'asphyxia'. In cross examination this witness stated that there was no sign of antemortem big haemorrhage and the asphyxia may be because of strangulation. It was also stated that no marks of any struggle were found on the body of deceased Narendra Singh. The body was also not having any mark of fingers and nails. While referring the statement of Dr. P.C.Vyas (PW-15) it is urged by Shri Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate, that the cause of death given is 'asphyxia' and the other marks pointed out by Dr. P.C.Vyas do not indicate about killing of Narendra Singh through suffocation or smothering, though an apprehension about strangulation/ hanging is made. To examine the argument advanced we have to understand the terms 'suffocation', 'smothering' and 'strangulation' and their effects on human body. So far as the term 'asphyxia' is concerned, it is well settled that it is a condition in which interference take place in uptake or release of oxygen, that leads to failure to eliminate carbondyoxide. To examine the argument advanced we have to understand the terms 'suffocation', 'smothering' and 'strangulation' and their effects on human body. So far as the term 'asphyxia' is concerned, it is well settled that it is a condition in which interference take place in uptake or release of oxygen, that leads to failure to eliminate carbondyoxide. The 'asphyxia' may be caused due to several reasons, such as environmental, pathological, chemical and mechanical. The hanging, legature, strangulation, manual strangulation, smothering, gagging, chocking, drowning are kinds of mechanical asphyxia and these are relevant in present context. As already stated, as per the medical opinion the cause of death given is asphyxia, but that does not say anything about the reason that caused the asphyxia. We are required to examine the same on basis of other features available and indicated in the medical evidence as case of the prosecution is that the accused persons interrupted supply of the oxygen by suffocating mouth and nose of Narendra Singh by putting and pressing pillow on his face. 'Suffocation', as per Dr. D.Rao's Forensic Pathology, is a general term to indicate that it is a form of asphyxia, which is caused by deprivation of oxygen, either due to its lack in the environment or from the obstruction of air passages. The 'smothering' is a form of suffocation causing asphyxia, which is caused by closing the external respiratory orifices either by hand or by other means, or blocking up the cavities of nose and mouth by introduction of foreign substances, such as mud, paper, cloth etc. The homicidal smothering is possible where the victim is incapacitate from drink or drug, very weak, child or old person in ill-health and when the victim is stunned by a blow. Usually, the mouth and nose are closed by a hand or cloth, or the face may be pressed into by a pillow. Dr. D.Rao's Forensic Pathology further provides details relating to autopsy in the event of homicidal smothering and as per that obstruction by a bed clothing, a pillow, a cushion etc., applied with skin, may not leave any external signs of violence especially in the young and the old, except signs of asphyxia. Dr. D.Rao's Forensic Pathology further provides details relating to autopsy in the event of homicidal smothering and as per that obstruction by a bed clothing, a pillow, a cushion etc., applied with skin, may not leave any external signs of violence especially in the young and the old, except signs of asphyxia. When the face is pressed into a pillow, the skin around the nose and mouth may appear pale or white due to pressure, with cyanosis of the face, saliva, blood and the tissue cells may be found on the pillow. If the orifices are closed by hand, there may be scratches, distinct nail marks, or laceration of the soft parts of the victim's face. The lips, gums and tongue may show brushing or laceration, slight brushing may be found in the mouth and nose, which should be confirmed by microscopy. The head and face may show intense congestion and the cyanosis with numerous petechial haemorrhages in the skin of the face and beneath the conjunctivae. Blood may ooze out from the mouth and nose. The tongue may be protruded and may have been bitten. Petechiae are usually present, even in cases where hypoxic changes are slight. In some cases, death is rapid due to reflex cardiac arrest, and asphyxial signs are absent. Mucus may be found at the back of mouth. Slight acute emphysema and oedema of the lungs with scattered areas of atelectasis, petechiae and congestion are the major findings. The internal organs are deeply congested and some times show small haemorrhages. Homicidal smothering is extremely difficult to detect. The autopsy may reveal asphyxia, but there may not be any corroborative medical evidence to prove foul play. The pathological changes must be interpreted keeping in view the medical history of the deceased, the scene of death and the specific circumstances surrounding the death. As per the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty-first Edition), 'suffocation' is a form of death which is resulting due to exclusion of air from the lungs by means other than compression of the neck. The suffocation may be caused by several modes including smothering or closure of the mouth and nostrils. As per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the appearance due to homicidal smothering may cause flattening of nose and in some cases fracture to septum. The fracture or dislocation of cervical vertebra may occur rarely except in the cases of forcibly wrenched of neck. The suffocation may be caused by several modes including smothering or closure of the mouth and nostrils. As per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the appearance due to homicidal smothering may cause flattening of nose and in some cases fracture to septum. The fracture or dislocation of cervical vertebra may occur rarely except in the cases of forcibly wrenched of neck. No local sign of violence may be found, if a soft cloth or pillow has been used to block the mouth and nostrils. In the cases of asphyxia due to smothering, the face may be pale or suffused, the eyes remain open, eyeballs are prominent and conjunctivae are congested and some times there may be small petechial haemorrhages. The lips remain livid and the tongue some times protruded bloody froth comes out of the mouth and nostrils. The skin shows punctiform acchymoses with lividity of the limbs. Rupture of the tympanum may occur from a violent effort at respiration. The Modi's Medical Jurisprudence further provides that the mucus membrane is trachea is usually bright red, covered with bloody froth and congested. The lungs are congested and the emphysematous. The right side of the heart is often full of dark fluid blood and the left empty. The blood does not readily cogulate, hence woulds caused after death may bleed. The brain is generally congested and so are the abdominal organs especially the liver, spleen, lungs and kidney. In the case in hand, the prosecution case is of smothering by pressing a pillow. In light of the symptoms and other appearances prescribed in the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and also in Dr. D.Rao's Forensic Pathology, we may arrive at the conclusion that the death caused would have been due to homicidal smothering, but the most of the symptoms noticed above are given in the case of strangulation also. True it is, there was no dislocation or fracture of thyroid cartilage or with cervical vertebra, but that is not always necessary even in the cases of strangulation or even in the cases of hanging except the judicial hanging. It is further pertinent to note here that a legature mark around the neck of deceased Narendra Singh proceeding towards the ears was also found and no satisfactory explanation is available for causing that. It is further pertinent to note here that a legature mark around the neck of deceased Narendra Singh proceeding towards the ears was also found and no satisfactory explanation is available for causing that. As per the prosecution an effort was first made by the accused ladies to cause death of Narendra Singh by hanging him, but on being failed, suffocation was given. The legature mark occurred due to the first effort so made. We do not find much force in this theory, as no prominent legature mark may occur just by wrapping for few seconds. The prominent legature mark may be caused due to an adequate pressure. In the case in hand the legature mark was quite prominent and even on removing the skin, whiteness was visible. This indicates for putting pressure, but that too is also not determinative. From examination of prosecution story it also reveals that an effort was made to establish that the accused after causing death of Narendra Singh by smothering tried to hang his body on the hook of ceiling fan to give a look of suicide and that would have caused legature mark. The preposition sought to be extended is having no foundation as the legature marks as per medical evidence were antemortem. In view of whatever discussed above, the medical evidence indicates only about homicidal death of Narendra Singh and nothing more than that. On basis of the medical evidence available, no definite finding can be given about causing suffocation or otherwise. In view of it, the prosecution case regarding causing death of Narendra Singh by smothering, a kind of suffocation, requires corroboration from other evidence. The other evidence available in the case is recovery of a pillow and the extra judicial confession made before Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-19). So far as recovery of pillow is concerned, that was effected on basis of a disclosure made by accused Smt. Man Kanwar on 22.10.2007 at 09:00 AM. The pillow was recovered on the same day as per the recovery memo Ex.P/9. The pillow was not subjected to any scientific examination as that was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the document Ex.P/9, the pillow was having a cover, but no reference of any stains, may that be of blood or saliva, is given. The pillow was recovered on the same day as per the recovery memo Ex.P/9. The pillow was not subjected to any scientific examination as that was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the document Ex.P/9, the pillow was having a cover, but no reference of any stains, may that be of blood or saliva, is given. The pillow was recovered from a stone slab installed in a room in the house of the accused. Availability of a pillow at such stone slab is quite usual, as such the recovery of pillow independently in no manner connects it with the crime in question. The prosecution much relied upon the extra judicial confession said to be made before Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Suresh Kumar (PW-19). The statements given by these witnesses deserve minute examination being the most important corroborative evidence. As per Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10), he is resident of Jaipur and his friend Chetan introduced him with Man Kanwar a year earlier from the date of incident. The introduction said to be made was telephonically. Subsequently, a friendship developed between this witness and accused Man Kanwar and they were in contact telephonically. This witness was invited to join marriage ceremony of Man Kanwar but he did not come. Accused Man Kanwar after her marriage conveyed this witness that her husband is a drunkard and she was not interested to stay with him. It was also conveyed that accused Man Kanwar did not consume intercourse with Narendra Singh even after her marriage and she was desirous to remove him from the way. On 18.10.2007 this witness received a call from accused Man Kanwar and she stated that her husband was staying with her, she wanted to remove him from way on that day. On next day i.e. on 19.10.2007, Man Kanwar again made a call to this witness and conveyed that she and her mother has killed Narendra Singh by pressing a pillow on his face. She also conveyed that before putting pressure on the face by keeping pillow and sitting thereon, hands and legs of Narendra Singh were fastened by her mother Smt. Lad Kanwar. She also conveyed that before putting pressure on the face by keeping pillow and sitting thereon, hands and legs of Narendra Singh were fastened by her mother Smt. Lad Kanwar. As per Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10), Man Kanwar also conveyed that an effort was made to hang dead body of Narendra Singh on the ceiling fan, but being failed, the dead body was left on floor and information was given in this regard to her in-laws. In cross examination, this witness accepted that he was not having any illicit relations with Man Kanwar, but was maintaining relations like brother and sister. From minute examination of the statements of this witness, it reveals that he developed relations with accused Man Kanwar telephonically. He visited Man Kanwar only once and that too in the month of October, 2007 itself. The extra judicial confession said to be made was also telephonically. It is quite strange that the accused made a telephone to this witness at about 8-9 AM on 19.10.2007, the day on which investigation was in full swing as the death was caused at 11:00 PM in night of 18.10.2007. It is important to notice that the police team after receiving a telephonic information reached at the spot of occurrence at about 11:00 PM in the night of 18.10.2007 and the body of deceased Narendra Singh was taken to the hospital. The accused Man Kanwar being wife of deceased also went to the hospital and remained there. The entire police team was at hospital and then dead body was taken to the residence of the deceased. In this entire period investigation was going on and the site plan was prepared by the investigating agency on that day itself. In this highly tensed atmosphere, the accused made a call to Vineet Sharma and confessed her crime. In normal course, making an extra judicial confession before a casual friend in very charged atmosphere is very difficult and does not appear to be in consonance to normal behaviour of a human being. At the cost of repetition, suffice to mention here that the accused was not maintaining any intense relationship with Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and whatever relationship existing as per this witness was casual and telephonically. It is further interesting to note that no call details of having any telephonic conversation between the accused and Vineet Sharma is part of evidence. At the cost of repetition, suffice to mention here that the accused was not maintaining any intense relationship with Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and whatever relationship existing as per this witness was casual and telephonically. It is further interesting to note that no call details of having any telephonic conversation between the accused and Vineet Sharma is part of evidence. The accused while deposing as defence witness in very specific terms stated that she was even not knowing Vineet Sharma. She further stated that on 19.10.2007, she was at her home and police was also there and as such she was having no occasion to make any call to anybody. Having considered the entire statement of Shri Vineet Sharma and also looking to the facts noticed above, we are having all doubts about genuineness of the statements made by Shri Vineet Sharma, as such, we are not convinced to accept those. The trial court also relied upon the extra judicial confession said to be made by both the accused ladies before Shri Suresh Kumar Prajapat (PW-19). This witness at the first instance was declared hostile and permission was granted to the Public Prosecutor for his cross examination. In cross examination, this witness stated that he was working as a waiter in a restaurant owned by Shri Avinash, situated below the National Handloom Corporation, Jodhpur. About 7-8 months earlier to the date of incident Man Kanwar came to the restaurant and had ice cream. Man Kanwar wrote her telephone numbers on the table of the restaurant and thereafter they both were in contact telephonically. This witness was invited in marriage of Man Kanwar but he did not join the same. After marriage Man Kanwar informed him that her husband is not a good man and, therefore, she called this witness at her home. This witness then went to the house of accused Man Kanwar, who introduced him with her mother Smt. Lad Kanwar. On that day this witness had intercourse with Man Kanwar. As per this witness, Man Kanwar conveyed him that she was not interested in staying with her husband Narendra Singh and was desirous to remove him from her way. As per this witness, Man Kanwar was keeping illicit relations with several other boys at Jaipur and Jodhpur. On that day this witness had intercourse with Man Kanwar. As per this witness, Man Kanwar conveyed him that she was not interested in staying with her husband Narendra Singh and was desirous to remove him from her way. As per this witness, Man Kanwar was keeping illicit relations with several other boys at Jaipur and Jodhpur. On 18.10.2007 at about 11:00 PM Man Kanwar and Lad Kanwar made a call to this witness and conveyed about killing of Narendra Singh by them. As per this witness, Man Kanwar stated on telephone that she and Lad Kanwar killed Narendra Singh and then tried to hang him with the aid of a legature just to give a look to the site as of suicide by the deceased. In next morning, at about 07:00 AM, this witness went to the house of accused ladies, where a police team was present. Man Kanwar was also sitting there. She while sitting alone in a room of the house made confession before this witness about killing of Narendra Singh. This witness reiterated that Man Kanwar as well as Lad Kanwar both made confession before him about their crime. We are having all doubts about the facts narrated by this witness. As per this witness, accused Man Kanwar at the first instance gave her telephone numbers by writing the same on a table and thereafter he was keeping relations with her telephonically. On the first day when he went to her house on calling, he consumed intercourse with Man Kanwar. Subsequent thereto he was not keeping much relations with Man Kanwar as she was said to be having illicit relations with several other boys at Jaipur and Jodhpur. However, as per this witness, accused Man Kanwar after killing Narendra Singh gave a call to him and accepted the crime committed by her. The other accused Lad Kanwar, mother of Man Kanwar, also accepted commission of crime before this witness on telephone. In next morning this witness visited house of the accused persons where a police team was present and accused Man Kanwar in such tense circumstance again confessed her crime before this witness. Suffice to mention that no call details pertaining to the telephonic conversation said to be happened with this witness in the night of 18.10.2007 is part of evidence. In next morning this witness visited house of the accused persons where a police team was present and accused Man Kanwar in such tense circumstance again confessed her crime before this witness. Suffice to mention that no call details pertaining to the telephonic conversation said to be happened with this witness in the night of 18.10.2007 is part of evidence. In normal course no accused could have made any extra judicial confession with a casual friend that too telephonically, immediately after commission of crime. We are having a reasonable doubt in accepting the statements given by this witness. After having reasonable doubt about the evidence adduced by Shri Vineet Sharma (PW-10) and Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-19), we are of the considered opinion that the chain of circumstances made by the prosecution to establish guilty of the accused ladies is not sufficient enough to indicate only one conclusion i.e. definite participation of the accused ladies in the crime. It is also pertinent to notice that in the house, where Shri Narendra Singh died, one other male Shri Kishore Singh Shekhawat, father of accused Man Kanwar and husband of accused Lad Kanwar was also present. As such, instant one is also not a case where it can be said that the fact about death of Narendra Singh could have been under the knowledge of the accused persons only. In view of the discussions made above, by taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record, we are having a reasonable doubt in believing the prosecution case. The accused, thus, are entitled for getting benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 6.3.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No.03/2008, is quashed and set aside. Accused Smt. Man Kanwar and Smt. Lad Kanwar are acquitted from the charge pertaining to commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Let they be released from State custody forthwith, if not otherwise required in any other case.