Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 893 (HP)

Raju alias Raj Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-07-14

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 14.9.2010/20.9.2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2010, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to a pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for the commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused was having strained relations with his wife deceased Smt. Pritamo Devi alias Asho. On 20.12.2009, accused in the company of his wife, deceased Smt. Pritamo Devi alias Asho, are alleged to have proceeded to the house of her maternal aunt. However, enroute, she was strangulated by the accused with a plastic ribbon and her body was thrown by him on the side of the path. Thereafter, the accused proceeded to Chamba, enroute, he met the cousin of the deceased and told him that he had killed his wife. He is also stated to have disclosed to his brother on telephone that he has killed his wife. On the way, when he reached Rakh, he took clothes from a lady, who was from his village and was residing there, since his clothes were wet. The accused is stated to have worn the clothes and thereafter gone to a nearby dhaba, where, he disclosed this fact to a dhaba worker. Thereafter, he went to the police station and disclosed to the police the fact of his having murdered his wife. He was kept in the police station and thereafter one ASI went to the spot. Large number of people had already assembled there. Statement of the brother of the deceased under Section 154, Cr. P.C., was recorded which was sent for registration of the FIR. On the next morning, the accused was taken into custody. The matter was thereafter investigated. The viscera etc., collected at the time of conducting post mortem of the body of the deceased, were sent for chemical examination. Medical Examination of the accused was also conducted. As per the investigation conducted, it was found that since the accused was suspecting the chastity of the deceased, he, strangulated his wife and thereafter surrendered before the police. 3. The viscera etc., collected at the time of conducting post mortem of the body of the deceased, were sent for chemical examination. Medical Examination of the accused was also conducted. As per the investigation conducted, it was found that since the accused was suspecting the chastity of the deceased, he, strangulated his wife and thereafter surrendered before the police. 3. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused was charged for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined many witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused. 5. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box in proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1 Sudershan Kumar, the brother of the deceased. He deposed that his sister Pritamo Devi had been enticed about 7 years ago by the accused. Both had been living as husband and wife and out of the wedlock two daughters were born. He deposed that on 20.12.2009, he had gone to the house of the accused. He continues to depose that his elder sister is married to the elder brother of the accused in Village Kulwara, where his house is situated. One Chaman Lal has been deposed to have given telephonic information to the brother-in-law of PW-1, namely, Kailasho, conveying therein that Pritamo Devi has been killed by the accused at place Chhitti. On receiving the telephonic information, he along with Satish, Chaman and Kailasho went in search of Pritamo Devi and found that on the side of a public path the dead body of Pritamo Devi was lying with a rope of white colour, tied around her neck. Her shoes were lying near the dead body. The accused has been deposed to have been working at Baddi in a factory. The deceased, sister of PW-1 has also been deposed to have been working at Baddi. Her shoes were lying near the dead body. The accused has been deposed to have been working at Baddi in a factory. The deceased, sister of PW-1 has also been deposed to have been working at Baddi. However, 2-3 months prior to the incident, the deceased has been deposed to have come back and started residing at home. The accused has been deposed to have been giving beatings to his deceased sister. The fact of maltreatment of the deceased by the accused has been deposed to have been tolerated by the family of the deceased with the hope that the accused would make amendments in his behaviour. PW-1 has proved his statement, Ex.PW1/A, made to the police. The shoes of the deceased has been deposed to have been identified by PW-1. The shoes of the deceased were packed and sealed on the spot qua which memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared, which has been deposed to have been bearing the signature of this witness. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the marriage inter se the accused and the deceased was a love marriage. Though, in cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the accused had taken the deceased to Baddi along with his children. He deposes that he had stated to the police that the accused used to administer beating to his sister. Nonetheless, the said fact of deposition of PW-1 in Court is an improvement, in as much, as, the said fact has remained unrecorded in his statement Ex.PW1/A. 6. PW-2 Tej Singh deposes, that, on 20.12.2009, while he was returning from Rakh, then, at about 6 P.M., after his having crossed the river, when he was at some distance from village Jatta, the accused met him and apprised him that he has killed his sister. He deposes that he did not believe the accused and proceeded home. The parents of the deceased have been deposed to be at his house and he deposes that he apprised them that there was some quarrel inter se the accused and the deceased. He deposes that he, as well, as, the parents of the deceased arrived at their house, at, 11 p.m. He deposes to have made a telephonic call to Kailasho, the elder brother of the accused, apprising him of the fact that the accused had divulged to him that he had killed Pritamo. He deposes that he, as well, as, the parents of the deceased arrived at their house, at, 11 p.m. He deposes to have made a telephonic call to Kailasho, the elder brother of the accused, apprising him of the fact that the accused had divulged to him that he had killed Pritamo. Kailasho has been deposed to have affirmed the said fact that the accused had also confided/confessed the fact of his killing the deceased. In cross-examination, he admits the fact of the deceased being the daughter of his maternal aunt. 7. PW-3 Des Raj, who is working, at, the Dhaba of one Bani Ram at Rakh, deposes that on 20.12.2009, at about 5.45/6 P.M., the accused confessed to him that he has killed his wife and thereafter he left the dhaba towards Chamba. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that when the accused visited his dhaba, some other people were also sitting there. 8. PW-4 Ramesh Kumar deposes, that, on 20.12.2009, at about 7.00 P.M., Kailasho, the brother of the accused told him, that, his cousin Pritamo alias Asho had been killed by her husband, near a place known as Chhitti, when they were proceeding to the house of some relatives, by tying a rope around her neck. He continues to depose that he in the company of Atish had proceeded to the spot and found that the dead body of Pritamo was lying there. Her shoes have been deposed to be lying near the dead body. A white coloured stick (patta) has been deposed to be found tied around her neck, as, visible from photographs Mark-A to D. The shoes were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B, which has been deposed to have been signed by this witness at circle B. Shoes Ex.P-1 and P-2 and parcel Ex.P-3 has been deposed to have been the same. Inquest report Ex.PW1/D has been deposed to have been prepared in his presence and bearing his signatures. 9. PW-5 Uttam Chand deposes, that, on 20.12.2009, at about 5.45/6 p.m., when he was at his shop, accused Raju came there. On inquiry, the accused has been deposed to have told him that he wanted to sit inside his shop where he was sitting, in front of a heater to make himself warm. The accused also sat there. 9. PW-5 Uttam Chand deposes, that, on 20.12.2009, at about 5.45/6 p.m., when he was at his shop, accused Raju came there. On inquiry, the accused has been deposed to have told him that he wanted to sit inside his shop where he was sitting, in front of a heater to make himself warm. The accused also sat there. He deposes that the accused confided/confessed before him that he has killed his wife by tying a rope around her neck. After making the statement, PW-5 deposes that the accused had left his shop. During his cross-examination, he has deposed that the accused had remained in his shop for about 5 minutes. He has denied that the accused did not make any conversation with him. 10. PW-6 Smt. Dhuno, the mother of the deceased, deposes that the deceased was enticed by the accused. Out of the wedlock two daughters were born. Both have been deposed to have been working at Baddi. The accused has been deposed to be suspecting the chastity of the deceased. The deceased has been deposed to have visited her parental home five days prior to her death. However, PW-6 deposes that the deceased had not disclosed to her about the maltreatment. However, she deposes that the deceased had apprised her that the accused suspect her chastity. In cross-examination, he admits the fact of the accused and the deceased having contracted a love marriage. 11. PW-7 Smt. Suniti Devi deposes that on 20.12.2009, at about 5.45/6 p.m., the accused came to her house at Rakh. He has been deposed to be adorning wet clothes and having apprised her that he had fallen into the river on account of which his clothes had gone wet. PW-7 deposes that her husband was on duty at that time. The accused requested to her for new clothes be provided to him, as, he was feeling cold with the wet clothes which he was wearing. PW-7 deposes that she acceded to his request and provided him with pant, shirt and jacket. Subsequently, the accused has been deposed by PW-7 to have left her house to a destination, of, which she was unaware and which was not disclosed to her by the accused. She deposes that on the police visiting her house on 23.1.2009, she had apprised the police that she had provided clothes to the accused since he was shivering. Subsequently, the accused has been deposed by PW-7 to have left her house to a destination, of, which she was unaware and which was not disclosed to her by the accused. She deposes that on the police visiting her house on 23.1.2009, she had apprised the police that she had provided clothes to the accused since he was shivering. The wet clothes, which the accused abandoned outside her house, have been deposed to be two pants, 2-3 shirts, one sweater. The clothes which were kept outside her house by the accused have been deposed to have been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW7/A by the police, which have been deposed to be bearing her signature. This witness did not support the prosecution case qua the fact of the accused having made any confession to her of his having killed the deceased, hence, this witness was declared hostile and she was permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. During the course of her cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, on her having come to be declared hostile, she denied the suggestion that the accused had confided/confessed before her that he had killed his wife. 12. PW-8 Chaman Singh deposes that on 20.12.2009, he had accompanied the police to the place of occurrence. He further deposes that the accused had also accompanied the police at that time. He continues to testify that the accused took the police to the place known as Chhitti, where the crime had taken place. He deposes that memo Ex.PW8/A was prepared qua the site of occurrence, which was signed by him. 13. PW-9 Ishwar Chand deposes, that, on 20.12.2009, he had gone to the house of pandit in village Bhadera. At about 5 P.M., he had seen the accused Raj Kumar and his wife near Panihara at village Bhadera, towards Dharedi path. The deceased, has been stated by PW-9 to have been walking ahead of the accused on the public path. On return home, at about 6 p.m. he came to know that the deceased had been killed by the accused by tying a rope around her neck. On receiving the information, he deposes that he went to the spot and had seen the dead body. On return home, at about 6 p.m. he came to know that the deceased had been killed by the accused by tying a rope around her neck. On receiving the information, he deposes that he went to the spot and had seen the dead body. In his cross-examination, he deposes that he had seen the accused and the deceased together from the compound of the house of the pandit in village Bhadera when they were at a distance of 15-20 meters. However, on being, confronted with his previous statement made to the police, this fact has not come to be stated by this witness to the police. 14. PW-10 Rattan Chand also deposes that, on, 20.12.2009 at about 4.45 p.m. when he was returning home with fodder, he had seen the accused and the deceased together, going towards Bhadera. He deposes that the accused was ahead of the deceased. He has testified that at about 6 p.m., he came to know that the accused had killed his wife near Bhadera in a Nallah. On receiving the information, he visited the site of occurrence and noticed that a white coloured rope was tied around the neck of the deceased. In cross-examination, he deposes that he had seen the accused and the deceased together from a short distance. Both the deceased and the accused have been deposed to have seen to be passing through a common passage. He deposes that none, other than the accused had met him on the way while he was returning home with fodder. 15. PW-11 Smt. Parkasho, the sister of the deceased, deposes that the accused had enticed away Pritamo about 1 ½ years after her marriage and were deposed to be living at Baddi and had returned home about one year back. She deposes that last year in the month of Posh on Saturday being 6th of local month, the accused came to his house and had killed the deceased on the next day i.e. Sunday. The accused has been deposed by her to have been administering beatings to the deceased and not allowing her to talk to anyone. The accused has been deposed to be doubting the chastity of the deceased. She deposes that, in case, of any attempt by her to rescue the deceased, the accused used to give beatings to her also. The accused has been deposed by her to have been administering beatings to the deceased and not allowing her to talk to anyone. The accused has been deposed to be doubting the chastity of the deceased. She deposes that, in case, of any attempt by her to rescue the deceased, the accused used to give beatings to her also. At about 4.30 P.M., the accused has been deposed to have persuaded the deceased to accompany him to go to the house of her maternal aunt at Dharbheta. The deceased has been deposed to have been refusing to go there on the pretext of toothache. She deposes that when they left the house, she was at home. Chaman, the brother in law has been deposed by PW-11 to have received an information that the deceased had been killed by the accused. After receiving the information, she, her husband and younger brother had gone to the spot. In crossexamination, she has admitted that the deceased and the accused had contracted the love marriage. She deposes that the deceased had told her that the accused used to beat her at Baddi, also. She has denied the suggestion that the accused has not killed the deceased. 16. PW-12, Dr. M.M. Marol, deposes that on an application, Mark X, being moved by the police he had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved on record Ex.PW12/A, the post mortem report which contain observations of the following injuries on the person of the deceased: “I. External appearance:- The deceased was well built, stout body, wearing blue salwar, Kameez, blue Dupatta, grey colour jacket and sweater and socks on foot with light brown colour. There were multiple bruise marks on back and lumber region, circular mark around the whole neck with abrasion about 1.5 cm. breadth. Total 8 round of white colour elastic ribbon tied tightly around the neck. Four knots in front of neck and three knots on left side of neck. There was abrasion mark around the neck to the occipital region and whole neck. Swelling and Odema in front of neck and collection of blood (hematoma) and liquid blood was present below the muscle of the neck. Finger nail mark present on neck. Ligature marks were present about 1 cm. breadth around the whole beck horizontally and completely form circular grooves around neck with reddish and ecchymosis margin. Swelling and Odema in front of neck and collection of blood (hematoma) and liquid blood was present below the muscle of the neck. Finger nail mark present on neck. Ligature marks were present about 1 cm. breadth around the whole beck horizontally and completely form circular grooves around neck with reddish and ecchymosis margin. II Cranium Spinal Cord. Brain was conjected and show peticheal haemorrhage. Spine normal. III-THORAX. Walls, ribs and cattilages were normal. Pleurac markly congested and showing haemorrhage. Larynx and treachea-found broken and congested containing mucus. Right and left lung found hemorrhage and congested. Pericardium, heart and large vessels were found congested and heart chamber full of dark fulid blood. IV Abdomen. Walls were bluish and pale in colour. Peritoneum-edematus. Mouth, harynx and oesephagus-mouth was open, larynx-congested and containing mucus. Oesophagus was found normal. Stomach and its contents- Food particles were found and sent for chemical analysis. Small intestines and their contents- Oedematoms and congested and sent for chemical analysis. Large intestines and their contents-oedematus and congested. Liver, spleen, kidney were sent for chemical analysis. Bladder was found empty. Organs of generation external and internal were nothing abnormal was detected. V. Muscle, Bones Joints. Fracture of hyoid bone and muscle of base of the neck, mark groove pale with reddish and echymosis margin. There was abrasion and echymosis in skin adjacent to ligature marks. Effusion of blood in soft tissue along in part of the trachea. Both eyes were found openh and prominent. Extravasations of blood in subcotanious tissue under the ligature mark as well as in the adjacent muscles of neck.” PW-12 has opined that the deceased died due to strangulation by means of ligature of ribbon around her neck and the probable time which elapsed between the injury and the death was within 5-6 minutes and between the death and the post mortem, was 18-20 hours. She deposes that as per the report of the Forensic expert, no alcohol or poison was detected on examination of viscera. In cross-examination she deposes that after the death, rigor mortis appears which start from the lower part of the body. 17. PW-13 Dr. Vishal Mahajan, has medically examined the accused on 21.12.2009 and proved on record MLC Ex.PW13/A. He found abrasion on the left side of the fore head of the accused, 2x 2 cms. Reddish in colour. 18. In cross-examination she deposes that after the death, rigor mortis appears which start from the lower part of the body. 17. PW-13 Dr. Vishal Mahajan, has medically examined the accused on 21.12.2009 and proved on record MLC Ex.PW13/A. He found abrasion on the left side of the fore head of the accused, 2x 2 cms. Reddish in colour. 18. PW-14, C. Deepak Kumar has brought original of daily diary No.45, dated 20.12.2009 and daily diary No.47, dated 20.12.2009 of P.S. Sadar, Chamba and proved their copies Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B, respectively. The same have been deposed to be correct as per the original. PW-15 Ajay Singh proved on record copies of jamabandi Ex.PW15/B and Tatima Ex.PW15/C respectively. The same have been deposed to be bearing his signatures. PW-16 Kailash Walia, Inspector has prepared the challan in this case and put in the same in the Court. 19. PW-17 Inspector Mukesh Kumar, deposes, that, on 20.12.2009, accused Raj Kumar came to the police station and informed him that he has killed his wife by strangulating her with a rope, on, which report No.47, Ex.PW14/B was entered in the daily diary of P.S. Sadar, Chamba. He deposes that, he, recorded the FIR Ex.PW17/A which bears his signature. In cross-examination, he, has denied the suggestion that the accused had neither come to the police station nor confessed that he had killed his wife. 20. PW-18 Inspector Diwan Chand deposes that on receipt of telephonic information, on, 20.12.2009, that at a place known as Chhitti, a lady had been murdered, rapat No.45, Ex. PW 14/A was recorded in the police station. He proceeded to the site of occurrence along with police personnel. He has deposed to have recorded the statement of Sudershan, Ex.PW1/A on the spot, who put his signature on, it, after admitting its contents to be true and correct. Statement Ex.PW1/A, has been deposed to have been sent, through, C. Pawan Kumar to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Photographs, of the spot have been deposed by PW-18 to be bearing Ex.PW18/A-1 to Ex.PW18-5. Site plan Ex.PW18/B has been deposed to have been prepared by PW-18. Inquest report Ex.PW1/D, was, also prepared. The shoes of the deceased have been deposed by PW-18, to, have been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B, after packing and sealing in a parcel with seal ‘S’. Site plan Ex.PW18/B has been deposed to have been prepared by PW-18. Inquest report Ex.PW1/D, was, also prepared. The shoes of the deceased have been deposed by PW-18, to, have been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B, after packing and sealing in a parcel with seal ‘S’. The specimen of seal has been deposed by this witness to have been taken on a separate piece of cloth, Ex.PW1/C. In cross-examination, he deposes that the information was received at about 8 p.m. on telephone. The informant had not disclosed his identity. He deposes, that, they left the police station immediately and reached the site of occurrence, at, about 10/10.30 p.m. He has denied the suggestion, that, he had not visited the spot and no shoes were recovered by him from the spot. 21. PW-19, ASI Sher Singh deposes, that, on 21.12.2009 at about 6.40 P.M. the case file was handed over to him for investigation. He arrested the accused at about 7.30 p.m and thereafter the medical examination of the accused was got conducted at R.H. Chamba, vide application Ex.PW19/A and obtained the MLC Ex.PW13/A. On 22.12.2009, the accused has been deposed by this witness, to, have been taken to the site of occurrence and site plan Ex.PW19/B, has been deposed to have been prepared at the instance of the accused. Memo Ex. PW8/A, regarding the demarcation, of, the spot, at, the instance of the accused, was also deposed, to, have been prepared, at, the instance of the accused by this witness. PW-19 ASI Sher Singh deposes that, on, an application Ex.PW14/A, he, obtained the revue record, i.e. jamabandi Ex.PW15/B and tatima Ex.PW15/C. On 23.12.2009, the accused identified the clothes, which he had changed at Rakh, near the house of Breno comprising of one shirt, one sweater and one T-shirt, which were packed and sealed in a parcel at the spot and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A, in presence of Joginder and Breno. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the house of Suniti Devi nor recovered the clothes from her house. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statements of witnesses Joginder Pal, Breno Ram and Suniti Devi, as per their versions. 22. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the house of Suniti Devi nor recovered the clothes from her house. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statements of witnesses Joginder Pal, Breno Ram and Suniti Devi, as per their versions. 22. PW-20, H.C. Pawan Kumar deposes, that, on 23.12.2009, LHC Sunita Devi, No.46 deposited with him one parcel sealed with ten seals of RH Chamba along with seal impression containing viscera of the deceased along with one sealed envelope sealed with seals of RH Chamba addressed to FSL Junga. He made the entry of the same in the Malkhana register. The aforesaid viscera and envelope were sent to FSL, Junga on 27.12.2009 vide R.C. No.264/09 through LHC Joginder Singh. He deposes that on the same day ASI Sher Singh deposited with him one sealed parcel with 12 seals of seal impression ‘S’ along with specimen seal, containing clothes of the accused which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. He deposes that another parcel sealed with nine seals of seal impression ’S’ containing shoes of the deceased was deposited with him. He made the entries in the Malkhana Register. 23. The accused and the deceased were living as husband and wife for about 7 years and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. The deposition of PW-12, Dr. M.M. Marol, who, carried out the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and proved Ex.PW12/A, the post mortem report, unfolds the factum of the death of the deceased being attributable to strangulation by means of ligature of ribbon around her neck. He deposes, that, there could be no other cause for the demise of the deceased, than hers being strangulated with the user of the ribbon, as, the report of the FSL, dispels the fact of death of the deceased having been caused by administration of poison or consumption of poison or alcohol. 24. He deposes, that, there could be no other cause for the demise of the deceased, than hers being strangulated with the user of the ribbon, as, the report of the FSL, dispels the fact of death of the deceased having been caused by administration of poison or consumption of poison or alcohol. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused sought to underscore/undermine, the efficacy of the deposition of PW- 12, in his concluding, that, the demise of the deceased, is, attributable to her strangulation by means of tying rope around her neck, on, the score that (a) in the absence of the recovery of ribbon allegedly/purportedly used by the accused for strangulating the deceased by tying it around her neck, as also, a consequent, omission in the deposition of PW-12; (b) of such recovered ribbon being possibly used, by the accused, to strangulate the deceased with it, sequels, an inference that there, is, no forthright and categorical evidence on record, firmly connecting the user of the ribbon by the accused with whose user, as, opined by the doctor (PW-12) strangulation of the deceased took place. As such, it is urged that for want of its production and its being shown and testified by PW-12, to be the same ribbon with which the deceased was done to death by the accused, renders, the prosecution case, qua, its user and its being the consequent cause of demise of the deceased, to be suspect as well, as, vulnerable to suspicion. Besides, it has been urged that the testimonies of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 do not inspire confidence qua the fact of theirs having last seen the accused and the deceased together, as, all are related to the deceased, hence, their testimonies are interested, sequeling their testimonies to have then acquired the taint of interestedness. As such, their testimonies are contended to be deprived of probative worth and value. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant has proceeded to assail the efficacy of the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, to whom the accused purportedly made an extra judicial confession qua his guilt, on the score that their testimonies, too, for want of disinterestedness, are, deprived of probative efficacy. 25. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant has proceeded to assail the efficacy of the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, to whom the accused purportedly made an extra judicial confession qua his guilt, on the score that their testimonies, too, for want of disinterestedness, are, deprived of probative efficacy. 25. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has contended with vigour and force, that, the findings of conviction recorded against the accused are based, on, a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and, hence, necessitate no interference by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 26. The instant case is a case of circumstantial evidence. The motive, though, is an essential link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and the same has been deposed to have been comprised in the deposition of PW-6, Smt. Dhuno, the mother of the deceased, in the accused rearing a suspicion about the chastity of the deceased. However, even if, the said motive remains unproved by potent evidence, nonetheless, the other links in the chain of the circumstances, as, projected by the prosecution, to, connect the accused in the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased by the accused comprised, in, the (a) testimonies of PW-9, Ishwar Chand, PW-10, Rattan Chand, and PW-11 Smt. Prakasho, who had last seen the accused and the deceased together; (b) the extra judicial confession made to PW-2 Tej Singh, PW-3 Des Raj and PW-5 Uttam Chand, by the accused, immediately subsequent to the commission of the offence of the murder of the deceased. (c) The deposition of PW- 12 comprised in Ex.PW12/A evidencing the fact of the demise of the deceased being attributable to the user of the ribbon by the accused for strangulating the deceased with it, forcefully and formidably connect the accused, in, the offence of the murder of his deceased wife. True, it is that PW-9, Ishwar Chand, PW-10 Rattan Chand and PW-11 Smt. Prakasho, all of whom had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused, are related to the deceased, nonetheless, the mere fact of theirs being related to the deceased would not imbue their testimonies with the taint of interestedness, so as, to, render their testimonies discardable, on the said score. The testimonies of the witnesses related to the deceased would not necessitate outright discarding, on the mere fact of theirs being related to the deceased, unless, on a close and incisive, scanning and reading of their testimonies and that, too, in, a wholesome manner, it, emerges that the testimonies of such witnesses are unreliable or uninspiring, hence, necessitating theirs being discarded. However, on a wholesome reading of the testimonies of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, though related to the deceased, nonetheless, when, on, a wholesome and incisive reading of the testimonies of these witnesses, it emerges that their depositions in the examinations-in-chief underscores of theirs having seen the accused and the deceased last together, in as much, as, (i) PW-9 having seen, both the accused and the deceased together from the house of a pandit which he had visited at about 5.00 p.m. and that, too, from a distance of 15/20 meters, is, a credible and volunteer deposition, dehors the fact that he had omitted to depose the said fact to the police in his previous statement made to the police, yet, when it is apparently clear from a reading of his examination-in-chief that, he, had visited the house of the pandit on 20.12.2009, hence, when his presence there is manifest, the aforesaid omission would not strip his deposition of the truth, qua the fact of his having last seen both together. (ii) Moreover, there exists on record the deposition of PW- 10 Rattan Chand, the other witness, who had also last seen the deceased and the accused together, whose deposition, too, is both inspiring, volunteer and trustworthy, as, nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination of PW-10, for, rendering the conclusion, that, he had not met both on the common passage while, he, was returning home with fodder. As a sequel, when the testimonies of PW- 9, PW-10 and PW-11, unearth the fact of all having last seen the accused in the company of the deceased which testimonies for the reasons aforesaid acquire the hue of theirs being inspiring and trustworthy, in aftermath, the mere fact of theirs being related to the deceased, is, not a factor so as, to be, hence, rendering their testimonies to be discardable, on the score of, theirs having acquired the taint of interestedness. 27. 27. The evidence of the accused having extra judicially confessed his guilt, is, comprised in the testimonies of PW-2 Tej Singh, PW-3 Des Raj and PW-5 Uttam Chand. PW-2 Tej Singh, has been forthright and unequivocal in his examination-in-chief, in, deposing that the accused had extra judicially confessed his guilt to him. His cross-examination omits to divulge the fact that, either, the accused had not met him or had not made an extra judicial confession qua his guilt before him, nor also during the course of cross-examination of PW-2, it, emerges that the accused did not have any capacity nor enjoyed any fiduciary relationship with this witness, which, would constrain the accused, in, making an extra judicial confession to him. Even if, the deceased was his cousin, hence, related to PW-2, as such, prima facie, it may appear that it would be a dissuasive factor for the accused to make an extra judicial confession to PW-2, as also, hence, the deposition of this witnesses qua the accused having confessed before him his guilt being unbelievable, yet, in the face of the tinge of naturalness, running, throughout the testimony of PW-2, as also, their being no incisive cross-examination of PW-2, by the defence counsel unraveling the fact of his unfolding an tutored and concocted version. Besides, when, as a matter of fact, his, too, having a relationship with the deceased, hence, enjoying a fiduciary capacity with him, so, as to inspire the accused to make a confession of his guilt to him or construing him to be a repository of his trust, rather, to the considered mind of this Court, dehors, the fact that he, is, related to the deceased would not, given the thread of naturalness running throughout his testimony, deprive his testimony of truth or of the fact of its partaking on the score of voluntariness. Added vigour and potency, is, lent to the factum of the accused having extra judicially confessed his guilt to PW-2, by the testimony in terms para materia, rendered by PW-3, Des Raj, who, too, is, believable and by the testimony of PW-5, Uttam Chand, a, person running a general store and whose shop was, too, visited by the accused and, in, whose cross-examination there, is, no elicitation, at, the instance of the learned defence counsel, portraying and personifying the fact that the accused never visited the shop of PW-5 or his having no fiduciary relationship with PW-5 or any capacity, so as, to, inspire him to make any extra judicial confession to him. Consequently, such omissions aforesaid, rather, render open a conclusion, that, the accused had a fiduciary relationship with PW-5, as, a friend and had also visited his shop. Therefore, was goaded to make extra judicial confession before him. Consequently, the factum of extra judicial confession of guilt, as, deposed to have been made by PW-5, by the accused, acquires probative vigour and tenacity. In aftermath, it comprises an important proof of a vital link in the chain of circumstances, at, the instance of the prosecution and eliminates any trace of doubts qua the guilt of the accused, in, the murder of his wife. 28. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has argued that though, the ribbon was opined by PW-12, Dr. M.M. Marol, to be the strangulatory material used by the accused, however, the omission of the investigating Officer to take it, into possession or its having not come to be convincingly established, by its production before the doctor, who prepared post mortem report Ex.PW12/A, as also, before the Forensic expert, to be, the one with which the deceased was strangulated by the accused, leaves an important link in the chain of the circumstances to be unproved, as such, the benefit of doubt be accorded to the accused. However, the above argument, is, rudderless and necessitates its being straightway discarded and rejected in the face of the unequivocal deposition of PW-12 that the murder of the deceased was possible by tying a ribbon around her neck. However, the above argument, is, rudderless and necessitates its being straightway discarded and rejected in the face of the unequivocal deposition of PW-12 that the murder of the deceased was possible by tying a ribbon around her neck. In a sequel, its, non production before either PW-12 or before the Forensic expert by the Investigating Officer, as also, the effect of omission, if any, by either, to pronounce it to be the stragulatory material, in the face of, it, having been testified, by, PW-12 of it being the strangulatory item stands effaced and obliterated. Besides, effaced the effect, if any, of lapse or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in its collection and production either before the doctor and the Forensic expert. 29. In view of the aforesaid analysis and discussion, the appeal, preferred by the accused/appellant, is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, rendered on 14.9.2010/20.9.2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2010, is affirmed and maintained.