JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Appellant-convict Roshan Lal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 9.10.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Roshan Lal, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? pay fine of `5000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused Roshan Lal had a dispute with his wife Meena Devi (deceased). Despite his assurances of mending his ways, cruelties continued to be perpetuated. He would beat not only his wife but also his children. In the evening of 26.9.2008, accused again quarreled with the deceased. He also gave a blow with a danda on her head, resulting into her death. On 27.9.2008, he of his own went to Police Station, Jogindernagar and confessed with SHO Dorje Ram (PW-16) of having committed murder. Version narrated by the accused was fed in the Computer by HC Mangat Ram (PW-12) and print of the statement (Ex. PW-16/A) so taken out was read over and explained to the accused, which was signed by him. Accordingly, FIR No.189, dated 27.9.2008 (Ex.PW-16/A) was registered at Police Station, Jogindernagar. The SHO called Sanjeev Kumar (PW-7) and Manoj Sharma (PW-15) to the Police Station, in whose presence accused again made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-7/A) of having murdered his wife and getting the incriminating articles identified and recovered. In the presence of independent witnesses Ward Member Durga Singh (PW-1) and Up Pradhan Durga Singh (PW-14), accused got the danda, blood stained clothes and dead body recovered from his room. Dorje Ram got the spot photographed. He prepared inquest report (Ex. PW-1/A) and sent the dead body for postmortem. On the spot, he seized Danda (Ex.P-2), blood stained clothes (Ex. P-10 and P-11), blood stained pillow cover (Ex.P-12) and other incriminating material, which were sealed with seal impression ‘T’. Blood stained clothes (Ex.P-4 & P-5) of the accused, which he had washed, were also seized by the police. Dr. Mikesh Kumar (PW-6) and Dr. R.N. Jarial (PW-8), conducted the postmortem and issued report (Ex. P-10 and P-11), blood stained pillow cover (Ex.P-12) and other incriminating material, which were sealed with seal impression ‘T’. Blood stained clothes (Ex.P-4 & P-5) of the accused, which he had washed, were also seized by the police. Dr. Mikesh Kumar (PW-6) and Dr. R.N. Jarial (PW-8), conducted the postmortem and issued report (Ex. PW-6/C), which revealed the deceased to have died on account of injury to vital of the brain. Incriminating material recovered from the spot was sent for chemical analysis and report of the FSL, Junga (Ex.PW-6/B) obtained and taken on record. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: “I am innocent and a false case has been prepared/registered against me. Also stated that on dated 27-09-2008, I and my wife got up in the morning then, I went to answer the call of nature in the field/Nala and when after some time I returned back to my house I saw the blood stains scattered in the verandah. Then I went to my room and saw my wife lying on the cot and I checked her. I found that she was dead and her head and clothes were stained with blood. Then I came out from my room and called the neighbourer, but no-one came out from their houses. Then, I shut the door of my house and went to the police station to lodge the FIR but when I reached at the police station and told the police that somebody has murdered my wife and I don’t know who has murdered my wife. But the police official slapped me and gave beatings to me and told me that it is me who has murdered my wife and took my signatures forcibly on some blank papers.” Accused preferred not to lead any evidence in defence. 5. But the police official slapped me and gave beatings to me and told me that it is me who has murdered my wife and took my signatures forcibly on some blank papers.” Accused preferred not to lead any evidence in defence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. None has seen the accused murder the deceased. It be also observed that accused has not led any evidence to probablize his defence. Neither any neighbour nor his family has supported him. Accused also did not protest against the alleged beatings given by the police officials. Accused has not explained the reason of not informing the factum of death of his wife either to his children, neighbour or anyone of his relatives. It is not that village Aal lies in the remotest corner of the State, which is totally cut-off by all means of communication. It is also not that the accused has no relatives, to whom he could have disclosed the factum of murder of his wife. 7. Not only in his statement, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also from the line of cross-examination, it is apparent that dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the accused. He was last person to be in the company of the deceased. Even according to the accused, he had gone to the fields only to ease out himself. Shortly he returned and saw his wife dead. Normal human conduct would have been to call the relatives or the Pradhan, if neighbourhood not responded to his oral calls. 8. Law with regard to circumstantial evidence is now well settled. It is a settled proposition of law that when there is no direct evidence of crime, the guilt of the accused can be proved by circumstantial evidence, but then the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature, to fully connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the proved circumstances should be consistent, only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, being totally inconsistent with his innocence. While appreciating the circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and great caution must be taken to evaluate the circumstantial evidence. [See: Pudhu Raja and another Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 11 SCC 196 ; Madhu Versus State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399 ; Dilip Singh Moti Singh versus State of Gujarat, (2010) 15 SCC 622, Mulakh Raj and others Versus Satish Kumar and others, (1992) 3 SCC 43 ; and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 .]. 9. Also, apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, following tests must be satisfied: “(1) the circumstances 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; and (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 such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” (Also see: Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 ; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259; and Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 11 SCC 436 ). 10. Each case has to be considered on its own merit. Court cannot presume suspicion to be a legal proof. In the absence of an important link in the chain, or the chain of circumstances getting snapped, guilt of the accused cannot be assumed, based on mere conjectures. 11. 10. Each case has to be considered on its own merit. Court cannot presume suspicion to be a legal proof. In the absence of an important link in the chain, or the chain of circumstances getting snapped, guilt of the accused cannot be assumed, based on mere conjectures. 11. The apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 286, while cautioning the Courts in evaluating circumstantial evidence, held that if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is reasonable, capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. This of course must precede the factum of prosecution having proved its case, leading to the guilty of the accused. 12. Prosecution wants the Court to believe that the accused, after committing the crime, went to the police station and confessed his guilt with Dorje Ram. Version so narrated by the accused was typed out on the Computer by Mangat Ram (PW-12) and print thereof was registered as FIR (Ex. PW-16/A). 13. Admissibility of the confession made by the accused, before the Police Officer, at the time when he was not in custody, has been dealt with by the trial Court. Without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the same, we clarify that we have not taken into account this confessional statement, while coming to the conclusion as to whether prosecution has been able to establish its case, against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt or not. 14. When we peruse the testimony of Dorje Ram, we find that there is some doubt with regard to the version so narrated by him. The doubt emanates only on account of tardy investigation, which he has conducted in the present case. It is not that the witness has deposed falsely or that his statement is rendered to be uninspiring in confidence, on material facts. It is also a settled position of law that mere faulty investigation would not render the prosecution case to be fatal. Such part of the statement, which inspires confidence, can be considered for determining the guilt of the accused. 15. Dorje Ram states that on 27.9.2008, accused came to the Police Station and disclosed that on 26.9.2008, he quarreled with his wife, for the reason that she had returned late from the fields. Even prior thereto, they had several quarrels, as a result of which he used to beat her. 15. Dorje Ram states that on 27.9.2008, accused came to the Police Station and disclosed that on 26.9.2008, he quarreled with his wife, for the reason that she had returned late from the fields. Even prior thereto, they had several quarrels, as a result of which he used to beat her. On the fateful day, he gave a blow of danda on the head of the deceased, as a result of which she died. After locking his house, he has come to the Police Station demanding legal action. Mangat Ram (PW-12), after typing his statement, took out the print, which was read over and explained to him, which he admitted to be correct. The same was registered as FIR (Ex. PW-16/A). Witness further states that thereafter he associated independent witnesses Rajiv Kumar (PW-7) and Manoj Sharma (PW-15), before whom accused again made a similar statement (Ex. PW-7/A). He then associated independent witnesses Ward Member Durga Singh (PW-1) and Up Pradhan Durga Singh (PW-14), in whose presence accused identified the room, where the dead body was lying; got recovered the dead body; and handed over the weapon of offence. Witness further states that he took into possession blood stained clothes (Ex.P-10 & P-11) of the deceased and pillow cover (Ex. P-12). The seized articles were sealed with seal impression ‘T’. He prepared inquest report (Ex. PW-1/A) and sent the dead body for postmortem. The spot was got photographed. Also spot map Ex.PW-16/B) was prepared on the spot. The sealed samples were sent for chemical analysis and reports (Ex.PW-6/B & PA) obtained and taken on record. He presented the challan (main and supplementary) in the Court. 16. Now, in cross-examination, we find that on material fact of recording of disclosure statement (Ex. PW- 7/A) and recovery of the incriminating articles, linking the accused to the crime, there is either any improvement nor any contradiction or embellishment. The witness can be believed to have deposed truthfully. He admits that arrest memo of the accused is not on the Court file and that the factum of FIR being sent to the Magistrate is not so recorded in the FIR (Ex. PW-16/A) or that the photographs, taken on the spot, are also not on the Court file. We have dealt with this point in the later part of the opinion. PW-16/A) or that the photographs, taken on the spot, are also not on the Court file. We have dealt with this point in the later part of the opinion. He admits to have enquired from the neighbours about the accused, yet did not record their statements. He admits not to have obtained finger prints from danda (Ex. P-2), lock and key (Ex. P-7 & P-8). It has come on record that the matter was also investigated from the point of view of involvement of third person in the crime. Only for these reasons, we have initially expressed our doubt with regard to the correctness of his version. But, then as we have observed, there are factors concerning faulty investigation and not germane to the fact in issue and material aspect about the guilt of the accused. We do find the Magistrate was otherwise promptly informed of the crime. In the teeth of otherwise inspiring testimony of the witnesses to recovery, no finger print sampling was required. 17. Now, when we examine the testimonies of Rajiv Kumar and Manoj Sharma, before whom confessional statement (Ex. PW-7/A) was made, we do not find any illegality or discrepancy. Rajiv Kumar categorically states that on 27.9.2008, on the asking of the SHO, he went to Police Station, Jogindernagar. In his presence, as also in the presence of Manoj Sharma and the SHO, accused made a disclosure statement to the following effect: “In the evening of 26-9-2008 he gave the danda blow on the head of his wife and he killed her and the dead body, danda and blood stained clothes are kept in the house/room and he can effect the recovery of dead body, danda and blood stained clothes.” After such statement was recorded, on further query, accused disclosed the cause of crime. He had a fight with his wife. We do not find testimony of this witness to have been impeached in any manner. 18. Though Manoj Sharma corroborates such version but does state that the accused gave his statement in Mandyali language (local dialect). However, Dorje Ram has clarified that the statement was read over and explained to the accused and only after admitting the contents thereof to be correct, accused and the witnesses appended their signatures on the same. It is not the case of the accused that he is not conversant with Hindi language. However, Dorje Ram has clarified that the statement was read over and explained to the accused and only after admitting the contents thereof to be correct, accused and the witnesses appended their signatures on the same. It is not the case of the accused that he is not conversant with Hindi language. In fact, from his statement, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also document (Ex.PW-7/A), it is apparent that accused having signed in English was familiar with all languages. It is not that he is a rustic villager. 19. Thus, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the circumstance of confessional statement so made by the accused, admitting his guilt. 20. The next circumstance, pressed by the prosecution is recovery of the dead body, weapon of offence and other incriminating articles. 21. That dead body was recovered from the house of the accused is not disputed by him. We have already observed that the accused has not been able to probablize his defence. Be that as it may, from the conjoint reading of testimonies of Durga Singh (PW-1), Durga Singh (PW-14) and Dorje Ram (PW-16), it is evident that dead body was recovered from the house of the accused. 22. Circumstance of the accused showing the place where the dead body was lying and other articles were recovered stood proved by independent witnesses. Durga Singh (PW-1), who is Panch of Gram Panchayat, Dar, states that on 27.9.2008, he was associated as a witness by the police. In his presence, accused opened the lock of his house with the key, which he had kept in his pocket. In the second room of the house, dead body of Meena Devi, wife of the accused, was lying on the cot. Since the room was dark, dead body was lifted and placed outside, in the Courtyard. Police inspected the dead body and there were injuries on the face. The dead body was identified by him as also Durga Singh (PW-14). Whereafter accused brought danda (Ex.P-2) and handed it over to the police. It was sealed with seal impression ‘T’, specimen of which is (Ex. PW-1/C). Clothes of the accused (Ex. P-4 & P-5) were also recovered vide memo (Ex. PW-1/D). Blood stained clothes of the deceased and pillow cover (Ex.P-12) were also seized and sealed with seal impression ‘T’. Whereafter accused brought danda (Ex.P-2) and handed it over to the police. It was sealed with seal impression ‘T’, specimen of which is (Ex. PW-1/C). Clothes of the accused (Ex. P-4 & P-5) were also recovered vide memo (Ex. PW-1/D). Blood stained clothes of the deceased and pillow cover (Ex.P-12) were also seized and sealed with seal impression ‘T’. Blood stained ashes (Ex.P-15) were taken into possession vide Memo (Ex.PW- 1/H), and broken bangles (Ex. P-18) and ear-rings (Ex.P-19 & P-20) belonging to the deceased were also seized by the police vide Memo (Ex.PW-1/J). Now, in cross-examination, we do not find testimony of the witnesses to have been impeached at all. Witness only admits an incident of previous quarrel between accused Roshan Lal and his neighbour Khem Singh. But, this does not, in any manner, probablizes the defence of the accused. Except for suggesting it to this witness, defence of animosity qua Khem Singh has not been put to any other witness. 23. Statement of this witness, as we have seen, is fully corroborated by Dorje Ram. Thus, prosecution has been able to establish that the accused opened the lock of his house with the key which he had in his pocket and took the police inside the room, where the dead body was lying, which was so recovered by the police. Prosecution has also been able to prove recovery of the danda and other incriminating articles. 24. We further find that viscera and incriminating articles were deposited with MHC Mangat Ram, who made entries in the Malkhana Register (Ex.PW-12/B). The sealed parcels were handed over by Mangat Ram to Milkhi Ram (PW-11), who vide road certificate (Ex.PW-12/C & 12/D) took the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory (Junga), where it was deposited on 4.10.2008. Witnesses admit that so long as the property remained with them, it was kept in safe custody. Report dated 29.4.2009 (Ex. PA) of the Forensic Science Laboratory reveals that blood was found on the weapon of offence and clothes of the deceased, but the result was found inconclusive in respect of blood group. However, blood found on the shirt (Ex.P-25) and Salwar (Ex. P-24) matched with that of the deceased and the blood found on the shirt of Roshan Lal was insufficient for further examination. However, second report (Ex.PW-6/B) conclusively establishes that no alcohol/poison was detected in the viscera. 25. However, blood found on the shirt (Ex.P-25) and Salwar (Ex. P-24) matched with that of the deceased and the blood found on the shirt of Roshan Lal was insufficient for further examination. However, second report (Ex.PW-6/B) conclusively establishes that no alcohol/poison was detected in the viscera. 25. In the absence of any positive scientific evidence with regard to blood on the weapon of offence, can it be said that the prosecution case is rendered doubtful? In our considered view – No. This we say so for the reason that the doctors (PW-6 and P-8), who conducted the postmortem of the dead body, have uncontrovertedly opined that deceased could have received the injuries with the danda (Ex.P-2). Cause of death, according to the doctor was injury to “vital of brain underlying fracture right temporal bone of skull”. On physical examination doctors found that the deceased, who was well built, had received an injury on the right temporal region of the skull, where blood had clotted, and the bone was fractured. Postmortem report (Ex. PW-6/C) corroborates such fact. 26. Thus, prosecution has been able to establish the cause of death being blow given with danda (Ex.P-2), which was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. 27. We find the motive of crime, so stated by the witnesses to the confessional statements, to have been corroborated by other witnesses examined by the prosecution. Kanshi Ram (PW-2), father of the accused, has deposed that the accused would often beat the deceased. A meeting of the Panchayat was called in which accused agreed to improve his conduct. Also, six months prior to the incident, accused had desired the deceased to vacate the house as he wanted to sell the same to his brother Om Parkash. From his unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony, it is apparent that accused was not having any independent income and as such was not in a position to bring up his family. From his testimony, it also stands established that school going son and daughter of the accused were not staying with him, but in the house of their maternal grandparents and uncles. The witness denies having made any application, alleging involvement of one Prakash Chand in the crime. 28. Govind Ram (PW-3), son of the accused, has corroborated the version of his grandfather Kanshi Ram. 29. The witness denies having made any application, alleging involvement of one Prakash Chand in the crime. 28. Govind Ram (PW-3), son of the accused, has corroborated the version of his grandfather Kanshi Ram. 29. Neena Devi (PW-4), an acquaintance of the deceased, has further established and corroborated the prosecution version of the accused giving beatings to the deceased. She clarifies that on 26.9.2008, she and deceased had cut the grass together in the fields. Thereafter, deceased went to her house where she was residing with her husband. 30. Sohan Lal (PW-5) is the Up Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. He has corroborated the version of Kanshi Ram of having convened the Khangi Panchayat, on the complaints of the deceased. The factum of accused giving beatings to the deceased is also deposed by this witness. In fact, from his testimony it is clear that accused not only confessed to his misconduct but undertook to improve his conduct and not beat his wife again. From his testimony, it is evident that the accused did not mend his ways. 31. We find that for unexplainable reason, Patwari Jai Singh (PW-9), who prepared Tatima (Ex.PW-9/A) of the house, resiled from his previous statement. However, through the testimony of Khem Chand (PW-13), previous statement (Ex.PW-13/A) of this witness, which was so recorded by the police, with which the witness was confronted, stands proved on record. In any event, factum of the witness not supporting the prosecution, would have no bearing as the place of recovery of the dead body, and the factum of the house belonging to the accused, is not in dispute. 32. Contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses, with regard to timing, stands succinctly dealt with by the trial Court in Para-73 of the judgment. FIR was received by the Judicial Magistrate in his Office on the very same day at 2 p.m. Also, it cannot be alleged that there was any ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution to have deliberately delayed the same. There is no suggestion of due deliberation and consultation before recording of the FIR. Remand papers reveal the accused to have been arrested very same day. 33. We find non-examination of the neighbours would not render the prosecution case to be doubtful, for it is nobody’s case that such persons were prime suspects. 34. We find the accused to have taken a false defence. Remand papers reveal the accused to have been arrested very same day. 33. We find non-examination of the neighbours would not render the prosecution case to be doubtful, for it is nobody’s case that such persons were prime suspects. 34. We find the accused to have taken a false defence. He admits that on 27.9.2008, his wife was alive. In the morning, he went to answer the call of nature and on his return saw blood stains scattered in the veranda and inside the room. His wife was lying dead on the cot. He called his neighbours but none came from their houses. Thereafter, shutting the door of his house, he went to the police to lodge the report. Now significantly, it is alleged that police not only gave him beatings but after forcibly getting blank papers signed, falsely implicated him. None has been examined by the accused in the Court to prove that deceased was alive in the morning of 27.9.2008 or that any beatings were given by the police. He never protested against his false implication or beatings at the time of his remand. In fact from his admission circumstance of the deceased being last in the company of the deceased stands proved. 35. From the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution witnesses that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence charged for. There is sufficient, convincing, cogent and reliable evidence on record to this effect. The circumstances stand conclusively proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events stand conclusively established and lead only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. It cannot be said that accused is innocent or not guilty or that he has been falsely implicated or that his defence is probable or that the evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent, unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable. It cannot be said that the version narrated by the witnesses in Court is in a parrot-like manner and hence is to be disbelieved. 36. It cannot be said that the version narrated by the witnesses in Court is in a parrot-like manner and hence is to be disbelieved. 36. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence and other incriminating material. 37. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.