JUDGMENT Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. In this Criminal appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 77/1986 dated 23.12.1989 is under challenge whereby the learned judge acquitted respondent Mohan Singh from the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC,. 2. As per the facts of the case, on 7th May, 1986, the respondent Mohan Singh appeared before SHO Police Station, Rani and submitted a written report in which it was stated that his wife burnt herself by pouring kerosene upon her body and committed suicide. 3. Upon aforesaid information, after registering report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. an enquiry was commenced by the SHO. Police Station, Rani. 4. During enquiry, upon evidence collected in the investigation the FIR (Ex.P/20) was registered by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Bali PW-13 Mr. Rajendra Kumar Joshi under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. In the FIR it is recorded that a written report was given at 1.00 PM on 7th May, 1986 by the husband of deceased Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Bhom Singh Purohit, in which it was informed to the Police Station that at 9.00 AM in the morning he went to his shop and came back home about 10.30 AM for taking meal, but the door of his house was closed and his son was crying and upon calling his wife, door was not opened by her. The respondent Mohan Singh entered in the house from the wall of his neighbour Pani Bai. First of all, respondent took his son and saw that smoke (Dhuwa) was coming from the room. The respondent Mohan Singh immediately went to his father's house and left his son with father and came back and tried to open the door of room but it was not possible for him to open the door, therefore, by using iron rod, he broken the door and entered inside the room where his wife committed suicide while pouring kerosene oil upon her. It is also stated by him that before leaving home at 9' O Clock a quarrel took place between him and his wife. 5. The above information was registered as information No. 3 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. at Police Station, Rani and enquiry was handed over to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Bali. It is also stated by him that before leaving home at 9' O Clock a quarrel took place between him and his wife. 5. The above information was registered as information No. 3 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. at Police Station, Rani and enquiry was handed over to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Bali. During investigation, post mortem of the body of the deceased Pawan Kanwar was conducted in which three injuries were found upon the head of the deceased, therefore, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Bali registered the FIR No. 221 on 11th May, 1986 at 7.00 PM. 6. The respondent Mohan Singh was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-10) on 12th May, 1986. Thereafter, upon two informations given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to recovery of one wooden pallet (patiya) and white shirt on 16th of May, 1986, vide Ex.P/15, one wooden pallet (patiya) and blood stained shirt were recovered in front of two witnesses Sumer Singh and Hajari Ram. In the post mortem report (Ex.P/9) dated 8th May, 1986 the doctor gave his opinion that cause of death is burning, so also it is observed in the post mortem report that there were three injuries upon the head of deceased. 7. After usual investigation, the Dy. Superintendent of Police filed charge-sheet against respondent Mohan Singh in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, from where the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali for trial. 8. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against the respondent, but respondent denied the charges framed against him and prayed for trial. In the trial, statements of 25 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 31 documents were exhibited by the trial prosecution. In defence, statements of 6 witnesses were recorded and 3 documents were exhibited in the trial. The leaned trial Court finally heard the arguments and decided the case vide judgment dated 23rd December, 1989 whereby respondent Mohan Singh was acquitted from the charges levelled against him on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The leaned trial Court finally heard the arguments and decided the case vide judgment dated 23rd December, 1989 whereby respondent Mohan Singh was acquitted from the charges levelled against him on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The learned trial Court determined 7 points for adjudicating the charges levelled against the respondent in the trial, which read as under: ^^?kVuk LFky ij fnukad 07-05-1986 dks vfHk;qDr }kjk xokg vejflag ih0Mh0 4 o xokg x.ks'k ds le{k dh xbZ tqeZ dh LohdkjksfDr ,DLV~k T;wfMf'k;y dUQs'ku 2- fnukad 07-05-1986 dks vfHk;qDr ds edku ?kVukLFky ls exZ dh tkap /kkjk 174 na0iz0la0 ds rgr mi v/kh{kd ckyh Jh jktsUnz tks'kh }kjk tCr dh xbZ oLrq,Wa ftuesa vkSj.kk o njh [kwu vkywnk Fks vkSj ftUgsa QnZ izn'kZ ih0 4 o ih05 ds tfj;s rsgohy iqfyl esa fy;k x;k FkkA 3- vfHk;qDr }kjk fnukad 16-05-1986 dks ckaxM vLirky ikyh esa iqfyl vf/kdkjh Jh y{e.kflag ih0M0 21 dks cq'kVZ cjken djkus gsrq nh xbZ lwpuk izn'kZ ih0 21 o ikfV;k ydM+h dk cjken djkus gsrq nh xbZ lwpuk izn'kZ ih0 22 rFkk bu lwpukvksa ds vk/kkj ij cq'kVZ dh cjkenxh tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 14 o ydM+h ds ikfV;s dh cjkenxh tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 15 4- iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk mDr cjkenlqnk eky dks rgohy iqfyl esa fy;k tkuk vkSj muds jlk;fud ijh{k.k gsrq mUgsa fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk] t;iqj esa fHktok;k tkukA 5- fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 30 o 31 dk izkIr gksuk ftlds vuqlkj ydM+h ds ikfV;s ij njh ds VqdM+s ij o vkSj.ks ij ekewyh [kwu dk ik;k tkuk vkSj mudk ijh{k.k ugha gksuk D;ksafd [kwu VsLV ds fy;s i;kZIr ugha FkkA vkSj.ks ds VqdM+s ij ekuo jDr ik;k tkuk fdUrq mldk fMl&bUVsxzs'ku gks tkus ds dkj.k [kwu ds xzqi dh tkap ugha gks ikuk vU; oLrqvksa ij [kwu dk ugha ik;k tkuk tks fd izn'kZ ih0 31 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA 6- vfHk;qDr dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr dk [kjkc gksuk] mlds }kjk vius llqjky ls viuh iRuh ds tfj;s :i;s eaxk;s tkuk vkSj e`rdk ds tsoj fxjoh j[k nsuk vkSj iSlksa ds ykyp dh otg ls vijk/k dk fd;k tkukA 7- e`rdk iou daoj ds flj ij ,UVh ekVZe pksVsa yxh gksukA** 10. The learned trial Court first of all considered the evidence of extra judicial confession, which is alleged to be made by the respondent on 7th May, 1986 before witness Avtar Singh (PW-4). The learned trial Court after examining the proceedings of Section 174 Cr.P.C. conducted by the Superintendent of Police Sh. Rajendra Kumar Joshi and the fact that the two witnesses PW-2 Ganesh and PW-19 Lahri Bai, wife of PW-4 Amar Singh, gave finding that the allegation of extra judicial confession made before the witness PW-4 Amar Singh is not corroborated even by his wife. PW-19 Lahri Bai so also his nephew PW-2 Ganesh. We have perused the finding based upon evidence on record. In our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court to disbelieve the allegation of extra judicial confession because there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 11. With regard to question of taking the two articles in possession vide Ex.P/4 and P/5 by the Investigating Officer Dy. Superintendent of Police Sh. Rajendra Kumar Joshi from the place of occurrence, the learned trial Court held that there is no evidence to prove that those articles, i.e., Odhna and blood stained dari were taken in possession and sealed on spot. The learned trial Court discussed the statement of Investigating Officer PW-13 Rajendra Kumar Joshi and gave finding that this witness is not accepting that his signatures are appearing upon Ex.P/4 and P/5. In our opinion, the finding given by the trial Court not to accept Ex.P/4 and P/5 whereby articles Odhna and dari were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer does not require any interference because while giving such findings, the learned trial Court observed that PW-13 Rajendra Kumar Joshi has failed to accept that his own signatures are appearing upon these documents. 12. We have examined the finding given by the learned trial court for question No. 3 in which the trial Court held that prosecution has failed to prove that respondent gave an information Ex P/21 and P/22 with regard to recovery of article-II because the witness PW-12 Sumer, PW-15 Hajari Lal and PW-18 Bhom Singh turned hostile and did not support the recovery though as per prosecution, the recovery was made in front of them. Upon consideration of finding given by the trial Court, we are of the opinion that finding given by the learned trial Court to disbelieve the recovery of wooden pallet (Patiya) and shirt is not proved by the prosecution because there is no evidence of independent witnesses. 13. To adjudicate the question No. 4 we have examined the finding given by the trial Court. The learned trial Court after discussing entire evidence held that articles which are sent to the FSL were sent back with some objection and vide Ex.P/27 the articles were again sent to FSL. Jaipur but learned trial Court held that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that who has removed the objections and sent back the articles to the FSL. The learned trial Court held that it is a case in which linking evidence is absent. In our opinion, the said finding is based upon the facts and evidence on record, therefore, does not require any interference. 14. We have examined the finding given by the learned trial Court with regard to issue No. 5. It is admit case of the prosecution that vide Ex.P/31 it is reported by the FSL that no blood was found upon the articles sent for chemical examination to the FSL. In our opinion, if there is report of FSL that blood was not found upon the articles, then obviously no error has been committed by the trial Court to disbelieve the evidence that blood was found upon the recovered articles. 15. The question No. 6 is related to the fact that there is allegation of prosecution that economic condition of respondent was so bad and he was demanding money from his in-laws through his wife but to prove this fact, an allegation was levelled against the respondent that he has mortgaged the ornaments of his wife deceased Smt. Pawan on 5th May, 1986 with the witness PW-16 Narayan Lal Sunar and borrowed Rs.2,000/- from him, but the said witness stated before the court that no such ornaments were mortgaged by the respondent. Similarly, two witnesses PW-14 Sohan Lal and PW-6 Ranjeet Singh of the recovery memo of ornaments turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also worthwhile to observe that the witness Sohan Lal Sudar stated before the court that no ornaments were handed over by him to the police. 16. Similarly, two witnesses PW-14 Sohan Lal and PW-6 Ranjeet Singh of the recovery memo of ornaments turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is also worthwhile to observe that the witness Sohan Lal Sudar stated before the court that no ornaments were handed over by him to the police. 16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that finding given by the trial Court with regard to allegation of demand of money does not require interference because most of the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. 17. With regard to question no. 7, it is submitted that there were ante-mortem injuries upon the head of deceased Pawan Kanwar, the learned trial Court while deciding question observed that post mortem was conducted by the Medical Board in which three doctors were members. Out of three doctors PW-3 Dr. Jaswant Singh stated that there were three ante mortem lacerated wounds found upon the head of the deceased, whereas two other doctors PW-5 Dr. Ujjwal and PW-24 Dr. C.L. Babmoli stated before the Court that those injuries were not lacerated wounds. More so, as per their opinion those injuries were burn fissuers, which can resemble lacerated wounds. Meaning thereby, there was difference of opinion in between doctors of Medical Board because out of three doctors, two gave their opinion that those mark of injuries were not lacerated wounds, but they were burn fissuers which can resemble lacerated wounds. Learned trial Court observed that as per principle of law if two views are possible then view which supports the accused is required to be followed. Therefore, the learned trial Court gave finding that prosecution has not proved the allegation for inflicting head injury by the respondent before burning. 18. We have considered the entire evidence of this case in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 in which following golden principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which read as under: "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made : "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 19. Upon consideration of the entire facts and the evidence of this case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the learned trial court rightly gave finding that there is no evidence on record to prove the allegation against the respondent. Upon consideration of the entire evidence in the light of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Sharad Birdhichand (supra), we are of the opinion that there is no error in the finding given by the learned trial court to acquit the respondent Mohan Singh from the charges levelled against him under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 20. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed.