JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar dated 19.07.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.40/2008 by which the accused-appellant was convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000, in default whereof, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. 2. Facts of the case are that SHO Police Station, Losal District Sikar received a telephonic information in the night intervening on 24th and 25th September, at 12.10 AM about the accused-appellant having committed murder of his wife. He made an entry thereabout in the rojnamcha and along with police party reached at the place of incident, where Purna Ram, father of deceased submitted a written report (Ex.P9) to the effect that his daughter Anita @ Nannu was residing with her husband for last one and half years. Bhagirath, R/o Rewasi, his brother-in-law informed him on telephone on 24.9.2008 at about 12.10 AM that his daughter had reached Rewasi along with her husband at about 5.00 PM. She has been murdered by her husband i.e. appellant by a sharp edged weapon. Informant further stated that he reached village Rewasi with certain other persons and saw the dead body of his daughter. He saw deep wounds on her neck caused by sharp edged weapon. On the basis of the said written report, FIR no.133/08 was registered on 25.9.2008 itself. Police on conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet u/s.302 IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents, whereas defence produced 2 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents in their defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant vide impugned judgement in the manner as stated above. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Kapil Gupta, learned amicus curiae for the appellant has argued that guilt of the accused-appellant cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. While the prosecution witnesses alleged that the appellant along with his wife and child reached Village Rewasi only a day earlier, but no one has alleged that he saw accused-appellant committing murder of his wife. While the prosecution witnesses alleged that the appellant along with his wife and child reached Village Rewasi only a day earlier, but no one has alleged that he saw accused-appellant committing murder of his wife. He has referred to the statement of Purna Ram (PW13), who is the informant and submitted that all what he has stated is merely a hearsay and there is no evidence thereabout at all. Even from his statement, it is evident that accused-appellant used to earn his livelihood outside his village and the deceased was residing with him. It cannot be believed that the appellant would bring his wife to village Rewasi only with a view to commit her murder. He has stated that Bhagirath (PW15) informed him about the fact that appellant has committed murder of his wife Nannu by use of sharp edged weapon and her dead body was lying on the roof. Learned amicus curiae submitted that Mali Devi (PW8) has claimed that she was the first, who heard the hue and cry from the house of the appellant and went to call Bhagirath. This witness (Mali Devi) has not stated a single word whether she saw murder of Nannu or heard any cry of her, asking for help. Merely because this witness stated that accused-appellant was at his home with his wife, this cannot be regarded as proof of murder against him. In cross examination, this witness stated that she was hard of hearing and if that was so, it was not possible for her to hear the sound of cry. In cross examination, she has also stated that accused- appellant came to the village after about one and half years and she did not know where did he reside all that time. She has also proved that Bhagirath was not arrested but was taken by the police with them. Learned amicus curiae submitted that Sugna Ram (PW11) has stated that he heard the sound of hue and cry. He came out of his house and heard accused-appellant-Kishna Ram crying that he has murdered his wife. However, on that basis, it cannot be proved that the accused-appellant was the only one, who committed the murder of deceased. This witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D3) where he did not state that accused-appellant Kishna Ram was crying from the roof top that he committed murder of his wife. However, on that basis, it cannot be proved that the accused-appellant was the only one, who committed the murder of deceased. This witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D3) where he did not state that accused-appellant Kishna Ram was crying from the roof top that he committed murder of his wife. This witness has stated that there were two programs of jagran; one in Shivji temple, which is situated about 60 yards away from the house of Kishna Ram and another at Ramdevji temple, which is about 50-60 yards away from the house of Kishna Ram. It was, therefore, not possible for anyone to hear the sound of alleged hue and cry, especially not for Mali Devi (PW8), who in cross examination has stated that she was hard of hearing and her vision was also very poor. 4. Learned amicus curiae argued that there are material contradictions between what has been stated by Sugna Ram and Bhagirath. While Bhagirath (PW15) has stated that Mali Devi (PW8) came from the temple Ramdevji and informed him that Kishna Ram was beating deceased Nannudi on the roof of his house. He along with Dilip Singh went to the house of Kishna Ram, but Dalip Singh (PW10) has stated that Mali Devi informed that she heard some unusual sound on the roof of house of Kishna Ram and that thereafter he along with Bhagirath went to the house of Kishna Ram. Thus obviously Dilip Singh (PW10) has not stated that Mali Devi has stated him that Kishna Ram was beating his wife. Witness have made lot of improvements in the statements. In fact, Dilip Singh (PW10) has stated that when they reached the house of Kishna Ram, they found deceased Nannu Devi in pool of blood and she was already dead. This witness on the basis of hearsay stated that Kishna Ram, his wife and daughter were alone in the house, whereas there is no basis for his this knowledge. 5. Shri Kapil Gupta, learned amicus curiae referred to the statement of Investigating Officer Sanjay Sharma (PW6) and argued that the recovery of kulhari at the instance of accused-appellant allegedly made by this witness vide Ex.P15 is nothing, but false. The said kulhari was found in the bathroom situated in the open land in the house of the accused-appellant. 5. Shri Kapil Gupta, learned amicus curiae referred to the statement of Investigating Officer Sanjay Sharma (PW6) and argued that the recovery of kulhari at the instance of accused-appellant allegedly made by this witness vide Ex.P15 is nothing, but false. The said kulhari was found in the bathroom situated in the open land in the house of the accused-appellant. That means that anybody could come and commit the murder and not necessarily the accused-appellant. It is argued that neither the blood group of deceased could be determined from her clothes i.e. loogri, nor from the blood smeared lime and control lime and even from the kulhari, which was alleged recovered. Learned amicus curiae submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and in the present case, none of the witnesses are alleging that they saw accused-appellant committing murder of his wife. Kulhari has been found almost at the same place where the incident took place and thus it could not be recovered with the accused-appellant. Learned amicus curiae submitted that accused-appellant, in fact, has taken a categorical defence that while he used to stay in Jaipur for earning his livelihood with his brother Madan, the deceased was staying at Village Rewasi at his house. He has not murdered his wife Nannu @ Anita and that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His defence is substantiated from the statement of his brother Madan Lal (DW1), who has stated that accused-appellant was staying with him at Jaipur and deceased was staying at Rewasi and was looking after the work of agriculture. This witness has stated that at about 8.00 AM in the morning of 25.09.2008, Bhagirath called him on telephone and informed that Kishna Ram's wife was sick and that he and accused-appellant Kishna Ram should come immediately. Thereafter, they reached village Rewasi at 11.00 AM on the same day and found that Kishna Ram's wife was already dead and the police had caught Bhagirath Mal, who was Panch of the Gram Panchayat and Dilip and it is only due to political pressure of the Bhagirath that accused-appellant was made an accused. Poorni @ Durga (DW2) sister of the accused-appellant has stated that the day on which Nannu @ Anita died, she and her husband Ganpatram went to met her. Poorni @ Durga (DW2) sister of the accused-appellant has stated that the day on which Nannu @ Anita died, she and her husband Ganpatram went to met her. They reached there at about 10.00 AM and left for their village at 6.00 PM. At that time, accused- appellant-Kishna Ram was at Jaipur. They received the information about murder of Nannu at 6.00 AM on the following day and reached Rewasi at about 9.00 AM. At that time, police caught Bhagirath, who was having a kulhari in his hand. Her brother has been falsely implicated. This defence was promulgalised even from the statement of Mali Devi (PW8), who stated that Bhagirath was the first, who went on the roof of the house of Kishna Ram when the incident took place. It is argued that in this case, motive has not been proved and in the absence of motive, particularly when the other circumstances against the accused-appellant are of weak nature, the guilt of the accused-appellant cannot be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the police has started investigation even before the formal FIR was registered and, therefore, the FIR is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and there is no allegation by the informant or any other witness that accused-appellant ever harassed or subjected her wife to beating. There is no specific evidence against the accused of being lastly seen in the company of the deceased. Most of the statements were based on evidence of hearsay. Accused-appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. 6. There is no specific evidence against the accused of being lastly seen in the company of the deceased. Most of the statements were based on evidence of hearsay. Accused-appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. 6. Per contra, Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that guilt of the accused-appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming circumstances as well as the circumstances of the last seen and the fact that hue and cry was heard by both neighbours of accused-appellant i.e. Mali Devi (PW8) and Sugna Ram (PW11) almost at the time of incident and Sugna Ram (PW11) has even stated that after the incident, accused-appellant was crying from the roof top that he has committed murder of his wife and immediately thereafter when the police was informed, accused-appellant was arrested within few hours at 5.00 AM in the early morning on the same day and thereafter within one hour, the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. kulhari was made, which as per the FSL report (Ex.P26) is found to have contained the blood stains. Merely because blood group is not mentioned in this report, this recovery cannot be discarded. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Even though there is no direct evidence in this case, but in our opinion, it is an open and shut case. Mali Devi (PW8) has stated that her house is situated on the northern side of the house of accused-appellant Kishna Ram and towards the eastern side, there is house of Bhanwar Singh and there is a way between these houses. If the house of Mali Devi (PW8) is adjoining the house of the accused-appellant, it is quite natural for her to have heard the sound of hue and cry of the deceased, who received multiple number of injuries by kulhari. Sugna Ram, another neighbour of the accused- appellant, who appeared as PW-11 has stated that when he was at his residence around 11.00 PM in the night, he also heard the sound of hue and cry and came out of his house in the gali. He heard Kishna Ram loudly saying from the roof top that he has murdered his wife. Bhagirath and Dilip Singh also reached there. Other persons also came there. Thereafter, in-laws of Kishna Ram also came there. He heard Kishna Ram loudly saying from the roof top that he has murdered his wife. Bhagirath and Dilip Singh also reached there. Other persons also came there. Thereafter, in-laws of Kishna Ram also came there. This witness has stated that his police statement Ex.D3 was recorded in the morning of 25th September and he could not say why the word “my wife” was not written in the statement while referring to the address by accused-appellant-Kishna Ram that he has murdered his wife. When we examine the police statement of Sugna Ram (Ex.D3) we find that he has stated therein that police has recorded his statement to the effect that Kishna Ram was crying from his roof top that “I have murdered”. If we read complete statement, omission of the word “my wife” is inconsequential because immediately after the aforesaid sentence, he also stated that accused-appellant-Kishna Ram ran away from the place of incident. Accused-appellant and his wife came to the village after about one and half years, only a day before the incident. In the recording of statement by police if the words “my wife” are omitted, that cannot be relied to argue that this witness (Sugna Ram) is making improvement in his original version and besides that, original version was obtained by the police early in the morning of 25th September itself. The statement of Sugna Ram (PW11) that immediately after committing the crime, he heard the accused crying from the roof top that he murdered his wife, would be in view of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, an evidence admissible by doctrine of res-gestae because it was almost simultaneously after commission of crime that the accused made such address. 9. In the above context that when we examine the statement of Mali Devi (PW8), who was also neighbour of the accused-appellant, it becomes clear that she too went to call Bhagirath from the temple where jagran (religious discourse) was taking place. Mere fact that in cross examination, she has stated that Bhagirath was taken by police with them, does not mean that Bhagirath was arrested by the police. Mali Devi (PW8) has also stated that at the time of incident, Kishan Ram and his wife were alone in the house. Mere fact that in cross examination, she has stated that Bhagirath was taken by police with them, does not mean that Bhagirath was arrested by the police. Mali Devi (PW8) has also stated that at the time of incident, Kishan Ram and his wife were alone in the house. Bhagirath (PW15) has also corroborated the statement of Mali Devi (PW8) that she came to call him to the temple of Ramdevji and told him that accused-appellant Kishna Ram was beating his wife Nannu. From the statement of Mali Devi (PW8) we find that she is an old lady of about 70 years. Her examination-in-chief is very brief, but that would only mean that she did not make a detailed statement. Although when we read her cross examination, it appears that she was subjected to intensive cross examination therein she made answers to the questions put by the defence counsel, but remained unshaken. In so far as her version in examination-in-chief is concerned, she has stated that her house was on the northern side of the house of accused-appellant and the house of Sugna Ram was on the southern side. She has thus proved the location of the houses of the two witnesses. Bhagirath (PW15) has also stated that he along with Dilip Singh climbed to the roof of the house of accused-appellant where a female girl was crying and dead body of Nannu was lying in pool of blood. He has also proved the recovery of kulhari at the instance of accused-appellant Kishna Ram vide Ex.P16. 10. Dilip Singh (PW10) has also stated that when he and Bhagirath were at the jagran in Ramdevji temple, Mali Devi came there to call them. She has stated that lot of hue and cry was taking place on the roof of house of accused-appellant Kishna Ram. When they reached there, they found a female child crying and dead body of Nannu lying on the roof in a pool of blood, but accused- appellant Kishna Ram was not present there. Purna Ram (PW13) has also proved the recovery of kulhari at the instance of accused-appellant vide Ex.P16 within one hour of his arrest. This kulhari was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short-`the FSL'). The FSL report Ex.P26 has proved the presence of human blood on kulhari, blood smeared soil and lugari of the deceased. Purna Ram (PW13) has also proved the recovery of kulhari at the instance of accused-appellant vide Ex.P16 within one hour of his arrest. This kulhari was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short-`the FSL'). The FSL report Ex.P26 has proved the presence of human blood on kulhari, blood smeared soil and lugari of the deceased. Mere fact that surgical test did not mention blood group, cannot dent the evidentiary value of the FSL report. We may in this connection rely on the judgment of Supreme Court in Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal-(2015) 11 SCC 178 wherein it was held that there is no legal proposition that detection of blood is unworthy of acceptance merely because it was insufficient for serological test and the case of prosecution cannot be doubted on this score. 11. Dr. Ratan Singh Ola (PW4), the Medical Officer, Public Health Center, Losal has proved the postmortem report Ex.P12. The postmortem was conducted on 25.09.2008. The duration of the injuries was 6 to 16 hours. The cause of death was shown to be injury to cervical portion of spinal cord (complete severence apart) resulting in stoppage of action of vital parts of body. The postmortem report shows that the deceased sustained following six injuries:- “1. An incised wound with well-defined margins directed transverse on the mape of neck measuring 9cm x 6cm. gaping & spindle shaped, cutton spinal cord & vertibral column between 2nd cervical & 3rd cervical verti.. There is complete severance of spinal cord & vessels & muscular tissue at the nape of neck. 2. An incised wound 6x4cm on back below the nape of neck directed obliquely downward with clotted blood present. 3. An incised wound 5x4cum on left shoulder directed transverse. 4. An incised wound 4x2cm on left side of face below left pinna directed downwards. 5. An incised wound with laceration of lower part of left pinna 3 x 2 cm. 6. An incised wound with clotted blood present 4 x 2 cm directed obliquely transverse on dorsun of left hand.” 12. Sanjay Sharma (PW6), SHO Police Station Losal has proved the stages of investigation. He has proved the rojnamcha report (Ex.P24), which was recorded at 12.15 AM on 25.09.2008 on the basis of a telephonic information received that Kishna Ram Balai has murdered his wife and the police party startled. Sanjay Sharma (PW6), SHO Police Station Losal has proved the stages of investigation. He has proved the rojnamcha report (Ex.P24), which was recorded at 12.15 AM on 25.09.2008 on the basis of a telephonic information received that Kishna Ram Balai has murdered his wife and the police party startled. It is this information, which was given by Bhagirath (PW15), who has also stated so. This witness has also proved the written report submitted by Purna Ram vide Ex.P9, arrest memo of accused-appellant vide Ex.P14, recovery memo of kulhari and its site plan vide Ex.P16 & P17, site plan of place of incident vide Ex.P18, seizure memo of blood taken from the place of incident vide Ex.P19, panchanama of dead body of deceased vide Ex.P20 and seizure memo of loogri of deceased vide Ex.P21. 13. For a doubt to be reasonable, it is trite that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based on sympathy or prejudice, but rather should be founded on reasons and common sense and should logically derive from the evidence or absence of evidence. 14. Each of the circumstances when joined together fully and firmly rule out possibility of any such hypothesis, which may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-applicant. All the circumstances unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused- appellant. In view of above discussion, in our considered opinion, the learned trial court was fully justified in convicting the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC because his guilty has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.