JUDGMENT : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia J. Parvati Dei, deceased and Puran Dei, present accused-appellant herein, are real sisters, being daughters of Dallaram. They were residing together in Anand Nagar Colony situated in the town of Bharatpur. 2. It has come in the evidence that Parvati Dei, deceased was suffering from disability and was a handicapped. 3. Case of the prosecution, as spelt out in the charge, is that the present appellant - Puran Dei on the night of 20th July, 2006 at around 12:00/12:30 A.M. in her house situated in Anand Nagar Colony had committed murder of Parvati Dei by strangulating her. 4. Present appellant, namely Puran Dei was tried by the Court of Id. Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 18.01.2007, held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo six month’s additional simple imprisonment. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the appellant has preferred present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. Prosecution, to secure conviction of the appellant, had examined as many as ten witnesses and also relied upon documents Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/16 respectively. 7. No witness was examined in defence. The defence only got exhibited statement of complainant, namely Kamruddin (PW-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-D/1. 8. In the present case, complainant - Kamruddin (PW-1) who claim himself to be a neighbour of the deceased - Parvati Dei, on 20.07.2006 had presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1) before Kailash Meena (PW-10), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali District Bharatpur. 9. The said written report (Exhibit-P/1), when translated into English reads as under :- "To, The Station House Officer Saheb, Police Station, Kotwali Bharatpur Sir, It is submitted that occurrence pertains to 20.07.2006 between 12:00 to 12:30 A.M. Two daughters of my neighbour-Dallaram, namely Puran Dei and Parvati were residing in Anand Nagar, in front of my house. On 20.07.2006 between 12:00/12:30 A.M. Puran Dei carried Parvati, her handicapped sister from the cat to her room. On 20.07.2006 between 12:00/12:30 A.M. Puran Dei carried Parvati, her handicapped sister from the cat to her room. Puran Dei, after carrying Parvati inside the room placed her on the cot, pressed her neck and killed her. After hearing hue and cry, I along with neighbours - Ramveer Gurjar and Babu Mirasi and other residents of the vicinity reached at the house of the deceased and accused. We knocked at the door of the room and later after breaking the door went inside the room and saw that Puran Dei had caused death of Parvati by throttling her. Hence, report is lodged for taking legal action." 10. On the basis of above written report (Exhibit-P/1) a formal First Information Report bearing No. 213/2006 (Exhibit-P/2) was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur. 11. Kamruddin appeared in the Court as PW-1. He deposed in the Court that two daughters of Dallaram, namely Puran Dei and Parvati were residing in his neighbourhood. Parvati was suffering from disability and was not doing any work. Due to the expenses incurred on her, there used to be dispute between Puran Dei and Parvati. Three month’s ago on the day of 20th of the month, Kamruddin (PW-1) was sleeping in his house at 12:00 A.M. He heard cries of Parvati. She was saying that ‘Kamru bhaiya save me’. After hearing noise, he went running towards the house of Parvati. The room of the house was bolted from inside. He made efforts to open the door of the room, but none had unbolted the door. He gathered persons of the vicinity. Ramveer Gurjar and Babu Mirasi etc. and many others arrived at the spot. The door of the room was broken and Parvati was found dead on the cot. Puran Dei was sitting on the cot. The witness stated that he presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2) was drawn. The witness further stated that the Police arrived at the scene and prepared a memo (Exhibit-P/4) containing description of the dead-body. The Police also prepared panchnama/inquest (Exhibit-P/5). The Police handed over dead-body to Gulab Singh vide memo (Exhibit-P/6). 12. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had made a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) on the asking of the Police. The witness stated that he had not seen Puran Dei pressing the neck of Parvati. The Police also prepared panchnama/inquest (Exhibit-P/5). The Police handed over dead-body to Gulab Singh vide memo (Exhibit-P/6). 12. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had made a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) on the asking of the Police. The witness stated that he had not seen Puran Dei pressing the neck of Parvati. The witness further stated that the operative portion in the written report (Exhibit-P/1) that Puran Dei had pressed neck of Parvati, has been recorded on the asking of the Police. Lastly, this witness stated that the Police had never taken his statement. 13. It will be apposite to reproduce here entire cross-examination of the testimony of Kamruddin (PW-1) : ^^ftjg& ,Dth ih0 1 fjiksVZ eSaus iqfyl okyksa ds dgus ls fy[kh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd geus iwjunsbZ dks ikoZrh dh xnZu nckrs gq, ugha ns[kkA rgjhj fjiksVZ ,Dth0 ih&1 dk lh Vw Mh Hkkx iwjunsbZ us ikoZrh dks rc rd xnZu nckdj tku ls [kRe dj fn;k gS lqudj xokg us dgk fd ;g ckr eq>ls iqfyl okyksa us fy[kok;h FkhA iqfyl esa esjk dksbZ c;ku ugha gqvkA iqfyl c;ku ,Dth0Mh0&1 dk , Vw ch Hkkx rks ns[kk fd iwjunsbZ us ikoZrh nsoh dks vanj fcNh [kkV ij iVdj mldh Nkrh ij cSBdj xnZu nckdj ekj fn;k o iwjunsbZ us ikoZrh dh gR;k dj nh lqudj xokg us dgk ,slk c;ku eSaus iqfyl dks ugha fn;kA esjs dejs esa ?kqlus ls igys dksbZ vanj ugha x;k FkkA lc lkFk lkFk x;s FksA** 14. Rikhab Chand (PW-2) stated that after hearing noise of Kamruddin (PW-1), he had reached at the spot. They had broken the door of the room. They found Parvati and Puran Dei inside the room. The witness stated that they found dead-body of Parvati on the cot and Puran Dei was also sitting on the cot. The witness further stated that he is not aware as to how Parvati had died. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution and was cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. 15. Gulab Singh (PW-3) has also not supported the case of prosecution. The witness stated that both the sisters were living happily. Lastly, this witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution. 16. Rajveer Singh (PW-4) has also not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. 17. Vijaykishore Jain (PW-5) stated that Puran Dei and Parvati both sisters were residing in a house. The witness stated that both the sisters were living happily. Lastly, this witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution. 16. Rajveer Singh (PW-4) has also not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. 17. Vijaykishore Jain (PW-5) stated that Puran Dei and Parvati both sisters were residing in a house. Parvati was suffering from disability. The witness further stated that on the night of 19th & 20th of July, 2006, Kamru called him at his house and stated that Parvati has died. This witness further stated that as to how Parvati died, he is not aware. This witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution having resiled from his previous statement. 18. Babu (PW-6) has also not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. 19. Dr. Sanjay Kulshrestha (PW-7) had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Parvati on 20.07.2006. 20. In the Postmortem Report (Exhibit-P/13), Doctor had found following three injuries on the person of the deceased :- 1. Abraded bruise 3 x 2 cm over left side of neck supra clavicular region. 1 2. Abraded bruise 2 x 1 cm over supra clavicular notch left side. 3. Bruise 11/2x1 cm at thyroid level. 21. Before the trial Court, this witness (PW-7) deposed that he had sent viscera to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur and kept s the opinion regarding the cause of death pending to await report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. No opinion regarding cause of death was given by the Doctor. The prosecution has also not proved cause of death. 22. Roop Singh (PW-8) had carried three sealed packets to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur. 23. Arjun Lal (PW-9) proved on record various facets of the investigation. 24. Kailash Meena (PW-10) has stated that Kamruddin (PW-1) had presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1) before him and on the basis of which n he had drawn a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2). 25. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances and stated that she had not committed murder of her sister. 26. In the present case, all witnesses, except Kamruddin (PW-1) have turned hostile to the prosecution and have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have resiled from their previous statements made to the Police under Section 161 Cr.RC. 26. In the present case, all witnesses, except Kamruddin (PW-1) have turned hostile to the prosecution and have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have resiled from their previous statements made to the Police under Section 161 Cr.RC. Kamruddin (PW-1), being neighbour/informant, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he had not 2 made any statement to the Police and whatever was recorded in the written report (Exhibit-P/1), same was at the behest of the Police. 27. Only evidence, which prosecution has been able to prove is that dead-body of deceased - Parvati, and the accused were found in one room, which was bolted from inside and on arrival of the 3 neighbours, the door of the room was broken and the dead body was found in the room, and the cot where dead body was lying, accused was also sitting. 28. Taking into account the above circumstances, we would have upheld the conviction of the appellant by invoking Section 106 of the Indian; Evidence Act, as the accused-appellant was bound to disclose the facts which were especially in her knowledge. But before we invoke Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, a crucial question raised before us is that as to how the deceased has died. 29. In the Postmortem Report (Exhibit-P/13), abraded bruise 3 x 2 cm has been found on the side of the neck on supra clavicular region. Another abraded bruise measuring 2 x 1 cm was found on the supra clavicular notch on the left side. A bruise of 1½ x 1 cm was found at thyroid level. The above three simple bruises were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 30. In the Postmortem Report (Exhibit-P/13), Doctor has not noted any injury on scalp, skull and vertebrae, membranes or to the brain or spinal cord. Hyoid bone of the deceased was intact. There was no injury present on the larynx and trachea. Except abraded bruises, no other injury has been found on the vital portion of the body. Three bruises, being superficial in nature could not cause death. 31. In the cross-examination, Dr. Sanjay Kulshrestha (PW- 7) admitted that no opinion regarding the cause of death was given by him. We shall reproduce here entire cross-examination of Dr. Except abraded bruises, no other injury has been found on the vital portion of the body. Three bruises, being superficial in nature could not cause death. 31. In the cross-examination, Dr. Sanjay Kulshrestha (PW- 7) admitted that no opinion regarding the cause of death was given by him. We shall reproduce here entire cross-examination of Dr. Sanjay Kulshrestha (PW-7); who had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased:- ^^ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk eqyftek% izn'kZ ih0 13 ij e`R;q dk le; o rkjh[k iqfyl }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij fy[kh xbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd iksLVekVZe djus ds ckn eSaus viuh dksbZ Qkbuy vksfifu;u ugha nh vkSj eSaus viuh jk; dks ,Q ,l ,y fjiksVZ vkus rd lqjf{kr j[kk FkkA izn'kZ ih0 13 esa xyk nckdj gR;k djus dh lwpuk Hkh iqfyl ds }kjk gh nh xbZ FkhA 'ko ds xnZu ij rks pksVsa ikbZ xbZ Fkha] og pksVsa pkjikbZ ls ;fn dksbZ O;fDr lksrk gqvk fxj tk;s rks mlls Hkh ;s pksVsa vkus dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 32. In the present case, viscera was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur is on the record as Exhibit-P/16. The operative portion of the report of S.F.S.L. is reproduced as under :- "On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-5) and blood sample (6) from three packets marked A, B and C gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides." 33. Admittedly, no poison has been found. There is no medical opinion on the record that the deceased had died due to asphyxia. Doctor, who had conducted autopsy, has not stated that the cause of death was asphyxia. There is no material before us to infer unnatural death. There is no injury to the vertebrae or hyoid bone. Three simple bruises found or the neck are not sufficient to cause death. There is no medical opinion that the deceased died due to strangulation or throttling or hanging. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record the cause of death. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove as to how, when and in what manner deceased had died. There is no medical opinion that the deceased died due to strangulation or throttling or hanging. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record the cause of death. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove as to how, when and in what manner deceased had died. Since on this material aspect, there is no evidence with the prosecution, we cannot sustain conviction of the appellant and hence, are constrained to accept the present appeal by recording the acquittal of the appellant. Hence, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her. 34. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an understanding that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.