JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Smt. Asmeena challenging judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, Bharatpur(for short ‘the trial court’) whereby she has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case as emerging from the record are that a written report(Exhibit P-1) was submitted by Islam son of Moballi to SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Deeg at 2.30 P.M. on 05.10.2009 alleging therein that in the night intervening 2nd-3rd October, 2009, Asmeena and her husband Wahid were alone in their room. At about 12.00-1.00 in the night, Asmeena raised hue and cry, upon which he and his family members went in their room and saw that Wahid was lying dead on the cot. When he, his family members and villagers enquired from Asmeena as to cause of Wahid’s death, Asmeena could not give any satisfactory answer and merely stated that he had suddenly died. Information was given to parents of Asmeena at village Baghola on telephone, upon which Sattar, Suban Khan, Munshi, Samsu, Saleem etc. of village Badhola came there and they talked to Asmeena separately. These persons in the presence of panchas of village admitted mistake of Asmeena and assured that they will further enquire the real cause of death of Wahid from her and requested that for the present her mistake be pardoned. On this, as per decision of the panchas, dead body of Wahid was buried on 03.10.2009. Thereafter, some villagers namely Ruzdar, Ayub, Yunus son of Suka, Chutta, Kursed went to village Baghola and enquired from Asmeena about cause of death of Wahid. Asmeena informed that she mixed poison in Wahid’s milk, which was given to her by Moharram, son of her elder uncle, Khurshi, her jija and his younger brother, due to which he became unconscious. At that time, her cousin Moharram and brother-in-law Khurshi and his younger brother put Wahid to death by strangulating his neck with an electric cord. When the panchas asked Asmeena as to why she did not disclose this information at Kalyanpur, Asmeena told that she at that time was frightened. At that time, her cousin Moharram and brother-in-law Khurshi and his younger brother put Wahid to death by strangulating his neck with an electric cord. When the panchas asked Asmeena as to why she did not disclose this information at Kalyanpur, Asmeena told that she at that time was frightened. On the basis of written report, Mrig Report was registered and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. 3. Thereafter, FIR No. 752/2009(Exhibit P-9) was registered for offences under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon completion of trial, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg and investigation against Fakru was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. After committal, trial of the case was made over to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed by the police against Fakru, trial of which was also made over to that court. Trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant Smt. Asmeena and accused Fakru under Section 147, 302 or 302/149 and 120B IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Statements of accused-appellant and accused Fakru under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Defence produced 6 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 01.10.2011, though acquitted accused Fakru of the charges framed against him, but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant argued that the impugned judgment suffers from numerous illegalities and infirmities. Learned trial court has recorded perverse and erroneous findings inasmuch as it has erred in convicting the accused-appellant. Trial court failed to appreciate that there were material contradictions, omissions as well as improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was highly unsafe to record finding of conviction of accused-appellant on such sketchy evidence. It was evident from the prosecution story that genesis of the incident has been concealed. FIR is grossly delayed by 18 days. Trial court failed to appreciate that there were material contradictions, omissions as well as improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was highly unsafe to record finding of conviction of accused-appellant on such sketchy evidence. It was evident from the prosecution story that genesis of the incident has been concealed. FIR is grossly delayed by 18 days. Distance of place of occurrence from police chowki was about 1 k.m. and the police station was situated at a distance of 10 k.m. There is no explanation as to why the police was not informed immediately. Initial story of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered by strangulation as well as by administering poison has been disbelieved by the trial court because post mortem report (Exhibit P-14) as also Dr. Nandlal Meena(P.W.15) has belied this theory. Cause of death as per post mortem report(Exhibit P-14) was head injury. Although for ascertaining that whether the deceased was put to death by administering poison, viscera was preserved, however, report thereof was not produced by the prosecution. There is no evidence to prove the fact that accused-appellant had committed murder of her husband, except that the deceased was sleeping with her in the room. There is no incriminating evidence which connects the accused-appellant with the crime. Presence of the accused-appellant and her husband in a room being wife and husband was quite natural and could not be taken as a circumstance against her. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that there is complete absence of motive on the part of the appellant as to why she would commit murder of her husband. The trial court has also recorded a finding that relations between the appellant and her husband were cordial. This clearly shows total absence of motive. The trial court grossly erred in not considering explanation given by the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which she corroborated by producing defence witnesses including herself. Defence of the appellant was that elder brother of her husband Kursed tide the deceased with the rope and killed him. One day prior Kursed caught hold of the appellant and he wanted to make relations with her. But the appellant refused. Deceased Wahid saw them in this position. An altercation took place between them and Kursed killed him. The appellant tried to save him. Kursed in order to save himself, has made false allegations against the accused-appellant. One day prior Kursed caught hold of the appellant and he wanted to make relations with her. But the appellant refused. Deceased Wahid saw them in this position. An altercation took place between them and Kursed killed him. The appellant tried to save him. Kursed in order to save himself, has made false allegations against the accused-appellant. All these facts were disclosed by the appellant to village panchas. Apart from this explanation, the appellant has appeared as a witness in defence as D.W.5 wherein she has given this very explanation in detail. She has stated that Kursed had an evil eye on her and he wanted to make her his wife and only for that purpose he has killed her husband. She told the panchas and also to her in-laws that Kursed committed murder of her husband. Kursed in fact came to jail to meet her and told that if she was ready to marry him, he would give ornaments and the land to her. Kursed sometimes even gave to her clothes and eatables in jail. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that statements of the prosecution witnesses have not been appreciated in the true perspective by the trial court. Ruzdar(P.W.1) stated that when the village panchas asked the accused-appellant about cause of death of Wahid, she did not disclose any thing but when her parents and other family members from her native place came, she told that she had administered poison to Wahid and that her Jija, brother-in-law Khurshi had given this poison to her and then Khurshi and Jamshed strangulated his neck by electric cord. Munshi and Fakru caught his hands and legs. Moharram inflicted injuries by danda on his head. This part of his statement has been completely found to be false. Similarly, this witness and other witnesses have made false statement only with a view to save Kursed. Islam(P.W.2) has also made false statement that the appellant confessed having administered poison to her husband Wahid and then committed his murder with the help of Fakru, Munshi, Jamshed, Kursed, Moharram. Kursed(P.W.4) has also stated that Asmeena came to him at 12.00-12.30 in the night and informed that Wahid has been murdered whereupon he allegedly raised hue and cry and many villagerss assembled. In fact, Kursed himself committed murder of Wahid and pretended as if he was innocent. Kursed(P.W.4) has also stated that Asmeena came to him at 12.00-12.30 in the night and informed that Wahid has been murdered whereupon he allegedly raised hue and cry and many villagerss assembled. In fact, Kursed himself committed murder of Wahid and pretended as if he was innocent. Statements of Daud(P.W.12), Rehman(P.W.13), Ayub(P.W.14) and Bassi(P.W.16) also do not prove charge of murder of Wahid by accused-appellant. Asmohammad(P.W.19), investigating officer has failed to give any explanation as to why he did not interrogate Kursed(P.W.4), elder brother of the deceased. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae referred to statement of Rasul Khan(D.W.1), who has stated that he was present when the deceased Wahid was buried, some of the villagers were of the opinion that police should be informed, FIR be registered and post mortem of dead body should be conducted. Mother of the deceased objected to this by saying that family of deceased Wahid has already ruined and now if the police case is registered, another family of Kursed would also be ruined. Therefore, it was decided to bury the dead body of the deceased. Mamta(D.W.2), fellow prisoner of the accused has proved that Kursed used to come to jail to meet accused-appellant. Samsu(D.W.3) has stated that he had gone to village to attend the burial of deceased Wahid. Father, brother and uncle of the appellant were also there. Moharram happened to be son of appellant’s paternal uncle. He was also with them. When they reached house of the deceased, his dead body was lying outside in the chowk. On their enquiry, as to how Wahid died, they told that they did not give any reason of that. They stated that there was no quarrel between the husband and wife. When they insisted mother of the deceased stated that when already one household has been ruined, if the FIR was registered, another household would also be ruined. Therefore, village panchas deliberately decided not to lodge the first information report and a written compromise was drafted out, which was signed by many persons. Asmeena came with them to her parents house. 8. It is argued that Sattar(D.W.4), father of the appellant has also stated that when they received telephonic information about death of Wahid, they immediately went there to attend his burial. Asmeena came with them to her parents house. 8. It is argued that Sattar(D.W.4), father of the appellant has also stated that when they received telephonic information about death of Wahid, they immediately went there to attend his burial. Telephonic call was made to Moharram by one Jafar, resident of village of the deceased that Wahid has died and his burial is taking place. On hearing this information, they went to the village of the deceased. About 50 persons including females were there. When they enquired from the parents of the deceased as to how Wahid died they told that the matter be settled then and there and report will not be lodged. But they did not blame Asmeena for said murder. Panchans asked their wishes and it was told that they also agree for not lodging any FIR. Since, panchas had taken this decision, they also signed compromise document. This compromise was arrived as the mother of the deceased was insisting not to lodge the report with the police saying that this will ruin family of Kursed. In fact, family members of Wahid voluntarily sent Asmeena with them. Mohan Lal Sharma(D.W.6) Assistant Jailor has proved that Kursed came to meet Asmeena in Central Jail, Bharatpur on 16.03.2010, 23.03.2010, 03.04.2010. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the trial court failed to appreciate all the aforesaid facts and wrongly believed testimony of prosecution witness without any scrutiny. 9. Mr. Sudesh Saini, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also record of the case. 11. Earliest version of the prosecution as given in the written report(Exhibit P-1) on 05.10.2009 was that dead body which was buried on 03.10.2009 was exhumed from the burial ground on 05.10.2009. Dr. Nandlal Meena(P.W.15) conducted post mortem on that day and opined that the deceased sustained head injury on frontal part of his head but there were was no mark of injury on his neck. Viscera were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. On the basis of enquiry made in Mrig Report, FIR was registered at the instance of Prabhu Dayal, Sub Inspector of Police Station Deeg. This FIR substantially reiterated same allegation which Islam had made in the written report(Exhibit P-1). Viscera were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. On the basis of enquiry made in Mrig Report, FIR was registered at the instance of Prabhu Dayal, Sub Inspector of Police Station Deeg. This FIR substantially reiterated same allegation which Islam had made in the written report(Exhibit P-1). Therein he alleged that deceased Wahid and his wife Asmeena, i.e. appellant were sleeping in their room in that night. Asmeena raised hue and cry around 12.00-1.00 in the night for help and they reached the room and saw that Wahid was lying dead on the cot. When they enquired from Asmeena about cause of death of Wahid, Asmeena stated that he has died suddenly, but they were not satisfied by her explanation. They informed parents of Asmeena at Village Baghola and asked them to come immediately. Sattar, Suban Khan, Munshi, Samsu, Saleem etc. came from her native village and talked to Asmeena separately. Then they told that Asmeena told them that she had committed mistake and they will talk to her in detail that what exactly was the reason of death of Wahid. They begged for pardon for mistake of Asmeena. Panchas of village decided to bury Wahid. Thereafter, Asmeena went to her family members to her native village. Thereafter, Ruzdar, Ayub, Yunus, Chutta, Kursed went to village Baghola and enquired from Asmeena whereupon she told that she gave poison in milk to Wahid, which was given to her by Kursed. When Wahid drank the milk, he started losing his consciousness. On that day, her cousin Moharram and brother in law Khurshi and his younger brother were there who put electric cord around his neck and then pulled the same in opposite direction, thereby causing his death. She then told this to the panchas in Village Kalyanpur for fear of her life. 12. Surprisingly, cause of death in the post mortem report is neither administration of any poisonous drug, nor strangulation by use of electric cord. Viscera report has not been produced and therefore, it cannot be proved that the deceased was administered poisonous drug. As per Dr. Nandlal Meena(P.W.15), no marks were found around the neck of the deceased and possibility of deceased being strangulated thus stands ruled out. Viscera report has not been produced and therefore, it cannot be proved that the deceased was administered poisonous drug. As per Dr. Nandlal Meena(P.W.15), no marks were found around the neck of the deceased and possibility of deceased being strangulated thus stands ruled out. Allegation that Moharram, cousin of the appellant inflicted a danda blow on the head of deceased was not made in the written report on the basis of which first information report was registered belatedly on 20.10.2009. Most of the prosecution witnesses have repeated similar allegation that Asmeena administered poison by mixing the same into milk to Wahid, which was given to her by Khurshi and when Wahid lost his consciousness, Khurshi and Jamshed put an electric cord around his neck and pulled the same in opposite direction and thereby committing his murder. It is also alleged by this witness that Jamshed, Mushi and Fakru caught his hands and legs. Such allegation has been made by Ruzdar(P.W.1), who was confronted with his police statement(Exhibit D-1) in respect of improvements made by him in the Court statement, he failed to explain such improvements. However, he agreed that in panchnama(Exhibit P-2) prepared in burial ground on 05.10.2009, attesting witnesses did not notice any marks around the neck of the deceased. Informant Islam(P.W.2) has also maintained the same allegations which he made in the written report, but considering that the deceased in the post mortem was ultimately found to have died due to head injury, this witness made marked improvement by stating that Moharram inflicted blow of danda on his head, who in cross-examination when confronted with his police statement(Exhibit D-3), admitted that he did not make any such allegation therein. 13. Imran(P.W.3), brother of the deceased has alleged that Asmeena was in love with Jamshed before her marriage and therefore, Jamshed, Fakru, Munshi, Khussi, Moharram were not happy with wedding of Asmeena with Wahid. Asmeena returned back to her in laws 2-3 days after Eid festival. Munshi called Asmeena on feast on 01.10.2009. Fakru told Wahid on 02.10.2009 that her brother in law Kursed wanted to talk him on phone. Kursed threatened Wahid on phone. Wahid later told Islam, Kursed and this witness that Khussi threatened him on telephone. After some time Asmeena went to well to fetch water. Fakru and Khussi were talking to Asmeena. Asmeena went home. Fakru, Kussi and Jamshed also came with her. Kursed threatened Wahid on phone. Wahid later told Islam, Kursed and this witness that Khussi threatened him on telephone. After some time Asmeena went to well to fetch water. Fakru and Khussi were talking to Asmeena. Asmeena went home. Fakru, Kussi and Jamshed also came with her. They stayed in her house. They enquired from this witness whether he would like to sell shebuffalo. When this witness refused, they returned back. Khussi also went after them. All three of them stayed in the house of Munshi. Then, Munshi, Fakru, Moharram, Jamsed, Kussi came to house of Wahid. Khursid met them there and asked them for dinner. These persons though already had dinner at the place of Munshi, told that they had come to meet Asmeena and Wahid. Thereafter, Khurshid went back to his house. Now this witness had tried to introduce story justifying presence of these persons in the house of Wahid, thus implying that Asmeena has conspired with them to commit murder of her husband. This is evident from the fact that this witness in part of her statement stated that Asmeena raised hue and cry at about 12.00-1.00 P.M. in mid night that something untoward has happened to Wahid. When Khurshid and this witness reached there, Wahid was lying dead on the cot. He was having head injury and also marks on neck and his whole body had turned blue. At that time, Moharram, Munshi, Fakru, Jamshed, Khussi were not present there. In cross-examination this witness stated that his police statement was recorded 21/2 months after the incident. He denied the suggestion that he did not disclose this angle of the story to anyone before that. Kursed(P.W.4) has also made allegations similar to the one made by Ruzdar(P.W.1), Islam(P.W.2) and Imran(P.W.3) but he also failed to give an explanation why in his police statement(Exhibit D-5) recorded during proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., he did not disclose the fact that Fakru, Munshi, Jamshed, Moharram, came to house of the deceased around 9.00-9.30 P.M. and again when his statement was recorded, he could not explain as to why this was not mentioned in the subsequent statement. 14. Obviously a new story was developed by the prosecution subsequently, especially with reference to allegation against Moharram that he inflicted danda blow on the deceased. 14. Obviously a new story was developed by the prosecution subsequently, especially with reference to allegation against Moharram that he inflicted danda blow on the deceased. Rehman(P.W.13) has also been produced to prove extra judicial confession of the accused-appellant but when he was confronted with his police statement(Exhibit D-8), he could not explain the discrepancy between two statements. Ayub(P.W.14) has also made similar allegations with regard to alleged extra judicial confession of accused-appellant having administered poison to the deceased and then Kursed and Fakru having strangulated his neck by cord and Moharram having inflicted a danda blow on his head. When this witness was confronted with police statement he told that he did not make allegation of causing any injury on the head of the deceased against Moharram. He stated that he told this fact to the police, but could not explain why it was not recorded therein. Bassi(P.W.16) wife of Khurshid has also made similar allegations in examination-in-chief but in cross-examination when confronted with his police statement(Exhibit D-9) she denied having given such statement to the police. She also denied having stated to the police in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-10) that some altercation took place between the deceased Wahid and Asmeena in the day time. In fact, she even denied that portion of statement attributed by her to police (Exhibit P-10) where she has been shown to have admitted having administered poison to her husband and then putting him to death by strangulation with electric cord. 15. Even if the defence version that Kursed had evil eye on Asmeena and wanted to marry her and Wahid had seen both of them in compromising position and this led to dispute between two brothers and Kursed put him to death, is not believed, the evidence on record falls short of proving guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The so-called extra judicial confession does not appeal to logic. Moreover when Wahid was found dead, why his body was buried and why the police was not informed immediately? And thereafter when written report was submitted by Islam on 05.10.2009(Exhibit P-1), why proceedings were kept pending under Section 174 Cr.P.C. till lodging of FIR on 20.10.2009? Initial reason disclosed in the Mrig report was that the deceased was administered poison by the appellant, then put to death by strangulation by accused Fakru and Khusi, which has not been substantiated. And thereafter when written report was submitted by Islam on 05.10.2009(Exhibit P-1), why proceedings were kept pending under Section 174 Cr.P.C. till lodging of FIR on 20.10.2009? Initial reason disclosed in the Mrig report was that the deceased was administered poison by the appellant, then put to death by strangulation by accused Fakru and Khusi, which has not been substantiated. Cause of death opined in the post mortem report was head injury by blunt weapon and it is thereafter that the prosecution witnesses have introduced later part in their statements alleging that Moharram inflicted danda blow on the head of the deceased. But no such danda is shown to have been recovered, much less blood stained danda at the instance of Moharram or any one else. Investigation in the present case from beginning to end has been quite lackadaisical and sketchy. In a case of circumstantial evidence, every single hypothesis, which may be compatible with the innocence of accused and remotest possibility of accused being innocent has to be ruled out. Individual circumstances are required to be proved by clinching and cogent evidence and when joined together, they must form a chain of circumstances so complete as to unerringly point towards guilt of the accused and none else. In the present case, chain of circumstances against the accused-appellant is having many missing links, thus, entitling her to benefit of doubt. 16. In view of above discussion, present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment dated 01.10.2011 passed by the trial court convicting her for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and order dated 03.10.2011 sentencing her with life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- are set aside. The accused-appellant Smt. Asmeena is acquitted of the charges for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. She be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 17. 1,000/- are set aside. The accused-appellant Smt. Asmeena is acquitted of the charges for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. She be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 17. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant, namely, Smt. Asmeena is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, she, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.