JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 26.2.2004/1.3.2004 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.72/2003, whereby the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for the offence of Section 304 IPC, was sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the accused Devendra Kumar was married to Smt. Kamlesh in the month of April, 1996. The husband and wife used to quarrel after the marriage. Accused Devendra Kumar and his wife Smt. Kamlesh were residing at Govind Garh, Dehradun. On 2.7.2002 at about 10:30 PM, PW2 Mishri Lal came at the house of complainant and informed him that accused Devendra had assaulted Smt. Kamlesh with a ‘PARANT’. Complainant Sita Ram was further informed that before the actual occurrence, some quarrel took place between the husband and wife i.e. accused Devendra and Smt. Kamlesh. Thereafter, the complainant Sita Ram went to the house of accused and took his sister Smt. Kamlesh to Dr. Ajay Sharma who declared her dead. After that the first information report was lodged. 3. Post-mortem on the body was conducted on 3.7.2002. The doctor noticed contusion on left side of upper abdomen, 16 cms. below the left nipple. The doctor further found that spleen was ruptured and the abdominal cavity was filled with blood. The doctor opined that the cause of death was on account of splenic tear. 4. Police prepared the site plan, recorded statements of the witnesses; the case property was taken into possession. The matter was investigated and the Challan was put up after doing all the codal formalities. 5. Prosecution in support of its case has examined a number of witnesses. Accused was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, he did not produce any evidence. 6. Learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 7. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 8. Mr. Nandan Arya, Deputy Advocate General for the State, has supported the judgment dated 26.2.2004/ 1.3.2004. 9. 6. Learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 7. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 8. Mr. Nandan Arya, Deputy Advocate General for the State, has supported the judgment dated 26.2.2004/ 1.3.2004. 9. I have heard the learned advocates and gone through the impugned judgment very carefully. 10. Prosecution has placed strong reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW2 Mishri Lal and PW3 Smt. Sumitra. According to these witnesses, accused Devendra Kumar had come to their house and informed that Smt. Kamlesh had become unconscious. Accused told PW2 and PW3 that he asked his wife Smt. Kamlesh to take out some wheat from the store and on this, some altercation took place between the husband and wife. Accused threw a ‘PARANT’ on Smt. Kamlesh. Thereafter, Smt. Kamlesh became unconscious. 11. According to the statements of PW2 and PW3, when they reached the house of accused, they noticed that Smt. Kamlesh was lying unconscious. She was taken to a nursing home. PW2 Mishra Lal instructed his wife PW3 Smt. Sumitra Devi to go to the house of complainant Sita Ram. PW2 further states that he stayed in the house for 15-20 minutes. 12. As per the post-mortem report, deceased died due to splenic tear. The post-mortem was conducted by PW4 Dr. B.C. Pathak. According to him, spleen of deceased was ruptured. He further stated that the deceased could have died on 2.7.2002 at 10:30 P.M. He further stated that the injury could be inflicted on Smt. Kamlesh due to hurling ‘PARANT’ at her with force. 13. The instant case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the case, based on circumstantial evidence, the chain should be complete. All the circumstances should point out towards the guilt of the accused. 14. I have gone through the post-mortem report, according to which, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injury causing splenic tear. 15. The first information report was lodged at the behest of the brother. According to the contents of the FIR, the accused hurled a ‘PARANT’ on the head of deceased, however, the Court finds that there is no corresponding injury on her head. Cause of death is the splenic tear. 15. The first information report was lodged at the behest of the brother. According to the contents of the FIR, the accused hurled a ‘PARANT’ on the head of deceased, however, the Court finds that there is no corresponding injury on her head. Cause of death is the splenic tear. The spleen is the most protected organ of the body. In Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition at page no.443, it has been observed as under: - “Spleen – On account of its situation, rupture of a normal spleen is very rare unless caused by considerable crushing and grinding force, such as the passing of a carriage or motor car over the body, or by a crush in a railway accident, or by a fall from a very great height; in such cases it is usually associated with injuries to other solid organs and to the ribs overlying the spleen. A normal spleen may sometimes be ruptured by the broken ends of a rib, which may be fractured by a severe kick or by a blow from a blunt weapon.” 16. Even if it is presumed that the ‘PARANT’ was hurled on the deceased, it could not result in rupture of spleen. It is not the case of prosecution that the spleen was enlarged due to some disease. 17. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 26.2.2004/ 1.3.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, convicting the appellant u/s 304 IPC, is hereby set aside. Accused is already on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds and sureties are discharged. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the court below.