JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. In our Vedas for every child three persons are very important to build his future, out of three first person is "mother", therefore, it is said in Vedas that: ^ekr` nsoks Hko%** ^^fir` nsoks Hko%** ^^pk;Z nsoks Hko%** 2. In this appeal we are deciding the allegation made by the prosecution against mother appellant Mamta for committing murder of her two children. As per dictionary definition "mother" is a female parent but in fact mother is more than just a parent. A mother is someone who would jump in a fire just to make sure what child have and need, will run a thousand miles just to get anything for her child but in this case the allegation against the appellant is that she killed her two children daughter Sunita aged about two and half years and son Bhaiya @ Ashok of six months and tried to commit suicide after killing them. 3. As per the facts of the case on 30.4.2006 the complainant PW-1 Valchand husband of appellant Mamita give oral report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO Police Station Mahi Dam, District Banswara at about 8.30 pm alleging therein that today in the morning at 6'O clock his wife Mamta, brother Kanti went in the forest for collecting leafs and came back at 10'O Clock and due to festival "Aakha Teej" prepared food and eat together in outside the house. Thereafter, complainant and his wife, so also, both the children sleep in the house. In the day at about 2.30 pm brother of complainant Kanti went out for selling leafs of Timbro and he went for bath on well. His wife and children were in the house. At about 5.00 pm when complainant came back, he saw that the door of his house was opened and his wife Mamta (appellant) was standing having weapon sharp knife (Chhuri) in her hand and cut the neck of her daughter Sunita and neck of son, due to those injuries by sharp edged weapon knife both the children fell down and died. Due to said occurrence he cried loudly and upon hearing his hue and cry his neighbors Kalu and Jeeva immediately came on spot and tried to catch his wife Mamta, but in front of them Mamta inflicted 3-4 injuries 3 upon her own neck. Due to said occurrence he cried loudly and upon hearing his hue and cry his neighbors Kalu and Jeeva immediately came on spot and tried to catch his wife Mamta, but in front of them Mamta inflicted 3-4 injuries 3 upon her own neck. The complainant and neighbours catch hold her, at that time, number of other villagers came on spot including Tola Ram and Mangi Lal. Information with regard to aforesaid incident was immediately given to the Sarpanch who informed on telephone to the Police Station. As per allegation of complainant Mamta usually going to her parents house at Timtiya but when she is going there, not taking her children with her, therefore, complainant regularly asked her to take her children with her when going to her parents house. The complainant verbally reported the SHO that today his wife again ask to go at parents house but the complainant asked her to take the children to the parents house. As per complainant, upon asking she became angry and killed her both the children and tried to commit suicide. Upon aforesaid verbal report, the SHO Police Station Mahi Dame registered the FIR no.23/2006 under Section 302 and 309 IPC at 11.00 pm in the Police Station and commenced investigation. The investigating officer immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and sent the bodies of children to the MB Hospital, Banswara where post mortem of both the children were conducted on 1.5.2006 in the morning at 10.30 am vide Ex.P/24 of son Ashok and vide Ex.P/25 of daughter Sunita. 4. Accused appellant Mamta was also medically examined at 11.30 pm on 30.4.2006 and report Ex.P/22 was given by the medical jurist of MB Hospital, Banswara and admitted there in the hospital vide admission card Ex.P/23A at 11.40 pm on 30.4.2006. 5. After completing investigation the charge-sheet was filed by the SHO Police Station Mahi Dame against the appellant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghatol from where case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Banswara but transferred to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara for trial. 6. The cloths and weapon knife taken in possession during investigation were sent to the FSL, Udaipur for examination from where, report (Ex.P/21) dated 27.5.2006 was received. 7. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara for trial. 6. The cloths and weapon knife taken in possession during investigation were sent to the FSL, Udaipur for examination from where, report (Ex.P/21) dated 27.5.2006 was received. 7. In the trial after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused appellant charge under Section 302 and 309 IPC were framed, but accused appellant Mamta denied the charges and claimed for trial. 8. In the trial, statement of 17 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 27 documents were exhibited and after recording evidence of prosecution the statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which it is stated by her that allegations are totally false because on the date of incident when she was sitting in the house and children were playing unknown person came there and inflicted injury upon her head and due to said injury she become unconscious. Thereafter, where she became conscious in the Banswara Hospital find that there are 2 injuries upon his body and get information that unknown person has killed her two children. The complainant has filed false FIR against her with connivance of police. It is also alleged that her stitches were cut down in the Central Jail, Udaipur from the head injury. In support of her defence, statement of DW-1 Smt. Sumitra were recorded in the trial. 9. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties, finally delivered the judgment impugned dated 31.7.2006 the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the charges levelled against her for offence under Section 302 and 309 IP d 309 IPC and passed the following sentences: Under Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months SI Under Section 309 IPC Three months SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI 10. The learned Amicus Curiae Sh. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months SI Under Section 309 IPC Three months SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI 10. The learned Amicus Curiae Sh. P.R. Mehta vehemently argued that it is beyond imagination that a mother can kill her own children without any motive and in this case, the motive which is disclosed by the complainant is not of such nature in which a mother can kill her two innocent children, therefore, it is obvious that conviction of the accused appellant is based upon false and fabricated case lodged by the complainant husband PW-1 Vala @ Valchand and the finding of the learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for offence to kill her two children is far from the truth because there was no motive for which such extreme action was alleged to be taken. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that prosecution case is based upon the testimony of PW-1 Valchand husband who is informant eye witness. The allegations levelled by him is not supported by any other independent prosecution witnesses. The weapon knife which was alleged to be used by the appellant was also submitted before the SHO on the next date of incident i.e., on 1.5.2006 by the complainant and same was taken in possession vide Ex.P/3 in front of two witnesses Bhogi Lal and Mangi Lal but upon perusal of their statements and statement of investigating officer it emerges that prosecution has failed to prove recovery of knife, which is alleged to be used by the accused appellant to kill her two children and to commit suicide, therefore, the finding based upon doubtful evidence of the learned trial court deserves to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court ought to have disbelieved the testimony of all the witnesses because there are major contradiction and except PW-1 Valchand there is no other witness to prove the prosecution case but the learned trial court erroneously accepted the testimony of PW-1 Valchand to convict the accused appellant Mamta, which is not supported by any other independent witness, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that prosecution has failed to prove allegation of recovery of weapon. It is also submitted that no evidence of motive is on record, so also, the story stated by the PW-1 Valchand complainant husband cannot be treated as trustworthy or probable evidence because there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the allegation made by the complainant, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that no proper investigation is conducted by the investigating officer as he has accepted the story narrated by the complainant only and conducted investigation, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is a case in which the mother herself killed her two children merely on the ground that she was asked to take them with her when she was going to the house of her parents. The learned trial court considered the entire evidence objectively and while relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more specifically relying upon the testimony of eye witness pw-1 Valchand husband of the accused appellant which has been corroborated by other evidence, rightly come to the conclusion that accused appellant is guilty for offence under Section 302 and 309 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution has proved the recovery of weapon knife and motive, therefore, plea taken by the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted because there is no evidence to support alleged narrated in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the accused appellant, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment impugned. Lastly, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused appellant has rightly been held guilty for committing murder of her two innocent children for small thing that her husband instructed her to take both of them along with her when she is going to the house of her parents, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant on account of her inhuman act for killing her own children. Therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. Therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, first of all, we are of the firmed opinion that no mother can kill her children upon the simple reason narrated by the complainant Val Chand PW-1 in the statement. As per high standard of our society the status of mother stands at highest leave, therefore, in Vedas mother is treated to be first protector of her child. 14. In this case to prove the allegation against the accused appellant, the statements of 17 prosecution witnesses were recorded in trial. 15. First of all, we are examining whether the recovery of weapon from the place of occurrence is proved or not. We have perused the recovery memo of weapon knife (Chhuri) (Ex.P/3). As per recovery memo weapon was produced by the complainant Val Chand @ Valu PW-1 before the SHO on 1.5.2006 at 7.00 am next morning of the incident. The SHO while preparing Ex.P/3 for taking the weapon knife in possession observed following facts which reads as under: ^^mijksDr ekSrchju ds :c: iwrhZ Jh okyw mQZ ckypUn tkfr vkfn] fMUMksj mez 25 o"kZ R/o okMxqu egqoky Ps ekghMse us oDr ?kVuk Jherh eerk W/o okypUn }kjk vius cPpk o cPph lqJh lquhrk dh gR;k djus esa mi;ksx yh xbZ rst /kkjnkj Nqjhuqek pkdw ls gR;k dj Lo;a us Hkh vkRegR;k djus dk iz;kl fd;k gqvk pkdw rst /kkjnkj Nqjhuqek ftl ij [kwu yxk gqvk tks eSaus mldks idM+us ds iz;kl esa mlds edku ds vUnj tehu ij ogkWa ekSds ij iVd fn;k tks eSaus ogha lqjf{kr j[kk tks vkyk, dry Nqjh ns; dh tks ogt lcwy yh tkrh gS ftl ij [kwu yxk gqvk utj vk jgs gSA** Upon perusal of the above assertion made in the recovery memo Ex.P/3 it is obvious that weapon knife was in possession of Val Chand and same produced by him before the Investigating Officer. In the statement of PW-1 Val chand on oath he said that ^^iqfyl us ?kVukLFky ls Nqjh dks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih03 ds dCts esa fy;k ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA** Meaning thereby due to contradictory statement the recovery memo Ex.P/3 dated 1.5.2006 became false because as per statement of PW-1 Val Chand the police himself take knife (Chhuri) in possession from the place of occurrence, whereas Ex.P/3 speaks contrary. We have perused the statement of Bhogi Lal and Mangi Lal before whom the Ex.P/3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Mangi Lal PW-5 stated in his statement before the court that ^^iqfyl us ekSds ls Nqjh dks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih03 ds dCts esa fy;kA** In the cross-examination the said witness stated that ^^iqfyl us ?kVuk ds fnu jkr dks pkdw fy;k o esjs nLr[kr Hkh djk;s FksA ;g xyr gS fd ?kVuk ds vxys fnu Nqjh iqfyl us yh gksA fy[kki<+h okyq ds ?kj ij gh dh FkhA** Similarly, the another witness Bhogi Lal stated in his statement that ^^iqfyl us ?kVukLFky ls pkdw dks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 3 ds iqfyl dCts esa fy;k ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gSA** The Investigating Officer PW-15 Jawahar Lal stated before the court that ^^?kVuk ds vxys jkst eerk ds ifr okyq us eq>s Nqjh is'k dh ftl ij [kwu yxk gqvk FkkA mDr Nqjh dks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 3 iqfyl dCts esa fy;k ftl ij th ls ,p esjs gLrk{kj gSaA** In the cross-examination the SHO stated before the court that ^^;g xyr gS fd ?kVukLFky okys edku dks lhyfpV ugha fd;k gksA eSaus rkyk yxkdj lhyfpV fd;k FkkA ysfdu bldk gokyk i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd edku lhy djus dh QnZ Hkh eSaus ugha cukbZ FkhA eSaus rkyk yxkdj pkch lkFk ysdj vk;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih0 2 esa eSaus tkdj ?kVukLFky ij rkyk [kksyk bldk gokyk ugha gSA** The above statement of Investigating Officer clearly speaks that in whole of the night the house of Val Chand PW-1 was locked and opened in the morning by the SHO. It is very strange that Val Chand @ Valu PW-1, PW-5 Mangi Lal and PW-10 Bhogi Lal categorically stated before the court that knife was taken in possession by the police vide Ex.P/3 from the place of occurrence itself and in whole of the night house was locked then how on the next date of occurrence on 1.5.2006 the knife was produced by Val Chand before the SHO, Police Station, therefore, upon assessment of above evidence it is obvious that recovery of weapon knife (Chhuri) is seriously doubtful, therefore, benefit of doubt goes to the accused appellant. 16. We have examined the truthfulness of the statement Val Chand PW-1 husband of the accused appellant. 16. We have examined the truthfulness of the statement Val Chand PW-1 husband of the accused appellant. In the verbal information given by him to the SHO, Police Station following facts were narrated by him in Ex.P/1, which reads as under: ^^vkt fnukad 30-04-2006 okj jfookj dks lqcg djhc 6 cts esjh iRuh eerk o esjk HkkbZ dkfUr nksuksa iRrs ysus taxy esa x;s tks iRrs ysdj 10 cts djhcu okil ?kj vk;saA ,oe~ vkt vk[kkrht gksus ls ?kj ds ckgj cSBdj [kkuk cuk;k o ge lcus [kkuk lkFk [kk;kA rFkk 12 cts yxHkx eSa o cPpk nksuksa edku dh iMlky esa lks x;s rFkk esjh iRuh o cPph lquhrk Hkh lks x;sA djhcu 1 1@2 cts yxHkx okil mBdj fVem ds iRrs tek;saA tek;sa gqos iRrksa dks esjk HkkbZ dkfUr cspus x;kA tks esa ugkus gsrq dqosa ij x;k rFkk fiNs edku ij esjh iRuh eerk o cPpk ,d o yM+dh lquhrk rhuksa gh FksA eSa dqos ls ugkdj okil djhcu 5 cts yxHkx ?kj vk;k o ns[kk rks edku dk njoktk [kqyk Fkk esjh iRuh eerk ds gkFk esa ,d rst /kkjnkj ns'kh Nqjhuqek ftlesa yksgsa dk ikbZi gRFkk yxk pkdq tks esjh cM+h cPph lquhrk mez 2 1@2 o"kZ dk xyk dkV fn;k o fQj 6 ekg dk cPps dks Hkh mlh /kkjnkj Nwjhuqek pkdq ls xyk dkV fn;k rMQ jgk Fkk ftl esa fpYyk;k rks iM+kSlh edku Jh dkyw S/o ukxth vkfn] R/o okMxqu o mlds ft;kth tks esgeku vk;s gqos Jh thok S/o iquh;k vkfn R/o dSykeSyk nkSM+ dj vk,A rc esa edku ds vUnj tkus yxk o esjh iRuh dks idM+us dk iz;kl fd;k rks mlus mlh Nqjh uqek pkdq ls [kqn dks [kRe djus ds iz;kl esa Lo;a ds xys ij rhu pkj okj pyk;s rc eSaus o dkyw nksuksa us mldks idM+ fy;k o mlus pkdw fups fxjk fn;k fQj gks gYyk lqu xkWao ds dkQh yksx Jh rkSykpUn S/o gjh'k] ekaxhyky S/o ekyh;k vkfn0 R/o okMxqu Hkh vk x;saA mUgksaus Hkh ?kVuk ns[kh rFkk xkWao okyksa us ljiap lkgc dks lwpuk nh mUgksaus viuk eksckbZy ua0 9928164445 ls Fkkus ij VsyhQksu ls crk;k rFkk ljiap lkgc Hkh vk x;sA** 17. Upon perusal of above verbal report (Ex.P/1) it is revealed that as per complainant two and half years old daughter Sunita was first killed in front of him. Upon perusal of above verbal report (Ex.P/1) it is revealed that as per complainant two and half years old daughter Sunita was first killed in front of him. Thereafter, injury was inflicted upon his six months son by the accused appellant and both fell down and due to said incident when he cried Kalu S/o Bagji and Jiyaji came on spot and tired to catch the appellant, but it is very strange that PW-1 Val Chand completely changed the story in the court and stated that: ^^30 vizSy] 06 dh ckr gSaA eSa dq, ij ugkus ds fy;s x;k gqvk FkkA esjk HkkbZ dkfUr fVe: ds iRrs cspu x;k gqvk FkkA esjh iRuh eerk ?kj ij FkhA esjh yM+dh lquhrk vkSj esjk iq= v'kksd ?kj ij FksA eSa 'kke dks djhc ikWap cts ?kj ij vk;kA ?kj vk;k rks ns[kk fd ?kj dk njoktk [kqyk gqvk FkkA edku ds Hkhrj tkdj ns[kk rks esjh yM+dh lquhrk dk xyk dkVk gqvk FkkA vkSj lquhrk tehu ij iM+h gqbZ FkhA esjs csVs dk xyk Hkh dkV fn;k Fkk tks rM+Q jgk FkkA esjh iRuh eerk ds ikl Nqjh FkhA mlus eq>s ns[kdj Lo;a ds xys ij Hkh Nqjh ls okj fd;sA eerk us vius xys ij Nqjh ds rhu pkj okj fd;sA eSa viuh iRuh dks idM+us x;kA rks mlus Nqjh uhps fxjk nhA eSa fpYyk;k rks ekSds ij dkyq vkSj thok vk;sA ge rhuksa us feydj eerk ds gkFk ls Nqjh dks idM+kA eSa fpYykus yxkA eerk ds gkFk ls Nqjh fNuus ds ckn ;s esjs iq= ds ikl fxj xbZA blds ckn rksyk vkSj ekaxhyky esjs ?kj ij vk;sA ekaxhyky us ljiap dks bRryk nh ljiap us iqfyl dks bRryk nh FkhA fQj iqfyl okys ekSds ij vk;s FksA** 18. As per the FIR and statement of PW-1 Val Chand sole eye witness it is obvious that there are major contradiction about the incident because in the verbal information he said that both the children were killed in front of him, but before the court he said that when I reached inside the house, the daughter Sunita and son lying on floor and Mamta appellant was having Chhuri in her hand and inflicted 3-4 injuries upon her neck, but it is very strange that in the injury report (Ex.P/22) there is only one injury upon her neck. 19. 19. We have also perused the statements of other witnesses, though they are not eye witnesses, but they came on spot soon after the occurrence. PW-2 Kalu stated before the court in his statement that when he reached in the house of Val Chand both the children were already died and their bodies were lying on the floor and Valu was crying. The accused appellant Mamta was having knife in her hand and inflicted injury upon her neck. Meaning thereby, the witness PW-2 is not eye witness of killi of killing children by the accused appellant. We have perused the statement of PW-3 Dhulji. The said witness deposed in his statement that on 30.4.2006 at about 4-5 pm when I was at Panchayat Office, Mangi Lal informed that wife of Val Chand killed her two children, therefore, I informed the police upon mobile. Further, said that when I reached on spot both the children were lying dead on floor and blood was coming out from the neck of Mamta and she was also lying on floor. Meaning thereby, this witness is not eye witness. We have perused the statement of PW-4 Tola Chand. The said witness stated that after hearing cry of Valu on 30.4.2006 he went on spot and saw that dead body of two children were lying there and wife of Valu was also lying on floor, so also knife was lying near her body and Valu was crying. It is also stated that on spot there was no talk with Val Chand with regard to incident. PW-5 is Mangi Lal stated that after hearing noise of Val Chand I went on spot and saw that both the children of Val Chand was lying dead and wife was also lying on floor in unconscious condition. He is not eye witness of the incident, but he went on spot subsequently upon hearing cry of Valu. PW-6 Kanti is the brother of complainant PW-1 Val Chand. It is stated by him in cross-examination that there was no quarrel in between his brother and his wife Mamta but some time, the his brother's wife gone to the house of her parents without taking her children with her. PW-6 Kanti is the brother of complainant PW-1 Val Chand. It is stated by him in cross-examination that there was no quarrel in between his brother and his wife Mamta but some time, the his brother's wife gone to the house of her parents without taking her children with her. In the cross-examination it is stated by him that children were not killed by his sister-in-law in front of him and when I reached the house both the children and his brother's wife Mamta were lying on floor and all information was given to him by witness Kalu. The witness PW-7 Durga is not eye witness of the incident but produced by the prosecution to prove conduct of accused appellant. PW-8 Prabhu is brother of the complainant. He is not eye witness, but went to the hospital. This witness stated specifically in the cross-examination that ^^cPpksa dks ysdj HkkbZ o HkkHkh ds chp dHkh >xM+k ugha gqvk FkkA vkSj ,sls Hkh dHkh >xM+k ugha gksrk FkkA HkkbZ HkkHkh cPpksa dks ysdj izse iwoZd jgrs FksA yksxksa us dgus ls eSa dg jgk gwWa okLrfodrk D;k gqbZ eq>s ugha ekyweA esjs HkkbZ us eq>s dksbZ ckr ugha crkbZA** In the cross examination it is stated by him that there was no quarrel. PW-9 Havji is the father-in-law of appellant. The said witness stated before the court in the cross-examination that ^^eSa ?kVuk dh jkr dks okMxqu vk x;k FkkA eSa igqapk rc va/ksjk gks pqdk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd cPpksa dks fdlus ekjk eSaus ugha ns[kkA ;g lgh gS fd eSa x;k rc cPps ejs gq;s Fks vkSj eerk Hkh csgks'k iM+h gqbZ FkhA** PW-10 Bhogi Lal is the witness whose signatures 17 were obtained by the Investigating Officer upon the memos prepared in the investigation. He is neither eye witness or witness of the incident. PW-11 Vaguda is the witness for preparation of Panchnama Ex.P/5 and P/6. The said witness stated that upon hearing he got information that Mamta has killed his two children. Same statement is given by PW-12 Laleng and PW-19 Fuliya. PW-14 is the Photographer. PW-15 Jawahar Lal is Investigating Officer. Upon perusal of the statement it is revealed that Investigating officer categorically stated that no efforts were made by him for taking finger prints of appellant nor the finger prints were taken from the knife which is alleged to be used for killing. PW-14 is the Photographer. PW-15 Jawahar Lal is Investigating Officer. Upon perusal of the statement it is revealed that Investigating officer categorically stated that no efforts were made by him for taking finger prints of appellant nor the finger prints were taken from the knife which is alleged to be used for killing. Meaning thereby the investigation was concluded by him in very casual manner. PW-16 is Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar who examined appellant Mamta and gave its injury report Ex.P/22 and further stated that Mamta was admitted on 30.4.2006 and remained in the hospital till 4.5.2006. In the cross-examination it is stated by him that upon Ex.P/22 neither the thumb impression of injured Mamta is appearing nor her signature is appearing. PW-17 Jair Hussain has forwarded the articles to the FSL for chemical examination. 20. The witness DW-1 Sumitra who was deputed in the hospital when accused appellant was under treatment. It is stated by her that ^^gkftj vnkye vfHk;qDrk eerk dks eSa igpkurh gwWaA fnukad 01-05-2006 ls 04-05-2006 rd eerk xka/kh fpfdRlky;] ckalokM+k esa mipkj vf/ku jgh Fkh rc esjh M~;fV eerk ds ikl yxh gqbZ FkhA eSaus eerk ds xys ij o flj ij pksVsa yxh gqbZ ns[kh FkhA** 21. We have categorically analysed the entire evidence in the light of the fact whether prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt or the learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Val Chand. Before proceeding further, it is required to be served that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant gave following explanation, which reads as under: ^^?kVuk ds fnu eSa ?kj esa cSBh gqbZ Fkh nksuksa cPps esjs ikl [ksy jgs Fks fdlh us fiNs ls esjs flj esa ekjk ftlls eSa csgks'k gks xbZA eq>s ckalokM+k vLirky igqWapk rc eq>s irk pyk fd esjs flj o xys esa pksV gSaA vkSj ;g Hkh irk pyk fd fdlh vKkr us esjs nksuksa cPpksa dks ekj Mkyk gSaA** ^^eSa funksZ"k gwWaA esjs ifr us esjs f[kykQ >wBh fjiksVZ nsdj iqfyl ls feydj eq>s >wBk Qalk;k gSA esjs flj dh pksV ds Vkads mn;iqj tsy esa [kqysA** 22. Upon perusal of the above explanation, it is obvious that the accused appellant stated that some unknown person entered in the house and inflicted injury upon her head and this fact is corroborated from the statement of DW-1 Sumitra lady constable who was deputed in the hospital when accused appellant was under treatment from 1.5.2006 to 4.5.2006. The said witness categorically said that in the hospital I have seen injuries upon neck and head of Mamta accused appellant. In this connection, we have perused the admit card (Ex.P/23A) in which at the time of admission, the doctors stated that there are wounds upon the neck and other part of the body, but it is very strange that in the injury report only one injury upon the neck is shown by the medical jurist. 23. In our opinion, there is no evidence on record to disbelieve the explanation given by the accused appellant in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the contrary upon examination of statement of PW-1 Val Chand in the light of the other evidence of the witnesses, we are of the opinion that the said witness gave contradictory version in the court than the version given by him verbally to the SHO mentioned in the Ex.P/1. In the verbal information given by him, it is stated that both the children were killed in front of him but in the court it is nowhere stated by him that both the children were killed in front of him. More so, he said that Mamta inflicted 3-4 injuries upon her neck but in the injury report of accused Mamta only one simple injury was found. Therefore, in our opining, the finding given by the learned trial court so as to held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 and 309 IPC is not based upon sound appreciation of the facts and evidence. The evidence speaks loudly that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Therefore, in our opining, the finding given by the learned trial court so as to held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 and 309 IPC is not based upon sound appreciation of the facts and evidence. The evidence speaks loudly that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Upon assessment of the entire evidenced, two stories come out; one explained by Val Chand husband who is said to be eye witness of the occurrence which is not corroborated by any other evidence, so also, from his own verbal information given by him whereas the explanation given by the accused appellant in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is proved from the fact that upon the admission card (Ex.P/23A), the doctor who has admitted the accused appellant mentioned that two wounds were in existence. Similarly, the lady constable who was deputed in the hospital during treatment Smt. Sumitra categorically stated in her statement that there were injuries upon the head and neck of appellant. Therefore, the learned trial court was under obligation to consider statement of accused appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the light of the other evidences, but upon perusal of the finding given by the learned trial court in the judgment impugned there is no proper consideration of the evidence of defence. Therefore, obviously, two views are possible in this case because upon prosecution story which is relied upon by the learned trial court there is serious doubt. 25. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and another of his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. 26. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. 26. As discussed above, there are two views possible upon the evidence and circumstances of the case because in this case the allegation is against mother for killing her two children but motive which is alleged by the complainant Val Chand that he was insisting the appellant to take children to the parents house as and when she is going to the parents house but she is not accepting, therefore, she killed her children cannot be accepted because for the said simple reason no mother can kill her innocent helpless children. In our opinion, the motive which is assigned by the complainant for killing two children is totally baseless and deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that no mother can kill her two innocent children. All other relatives stated in their statement that there was no quarrel in between the appellant and PW-1 Val Chand nor there was any other motive. 27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as per golden principle of criminal jurisprudence prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in this case, upon examining the finding of the learned trial court in conjunction with the evidence and other material available on record, we are of the view that it is a case of real doubt which is founded upon the reasons so as to prove case against the accused appellant for commission of offence. The accused appellant is behind the bars since 2006 for the allegation of killing her two children. Upon assessment of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, so also, two views are possible, therefore, the instant jail appeal deserves acceptance. Consequently, this jail appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 31.7.2006 passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Case No.36/2006 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 309 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against her and she may be released forthwith, if not needed in any other case.