JUDGMENT : S. PANDA, J. This Jail Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2002 (Arising out of G.R. Case No.333 of 2001 corresponding to Udala P.S. Case No.122 of 2001) in convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.11.2001 Dasarathi Hansda reported before the police that his cousin brother Sadha Hansada had committed suicide by hanging. He stated that on the same day at 3 P.M. while he was returning by observing Science fair, on the way, his cousin brother Musuram Hansda told him that his younger brother Sadha Hansada had already committed suicide by means of a rope. The informant came to the spot and found Sadha Hansda to be dead by hanging himself with a rope. Accordingly U.D. Case No.24 of 2001 was registered and A.S.I. took up the inquiry. He examined the informant, visited the spot and conducted inquest over the dead body. He also seized axe, fire wood, Barshi, Knife, two pieces of rope at the spot and nearby place. He sent the dead body for P.M. examination. The O.I.C received the P.M. report and filed plain paper F.I.R treating the case to be a murder case. He also examined some persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and all of them stated about the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the deceased was beaten by the appellant. The O.I.C, Sarbeswar Pattnaik, P.W.15 seized one cot made with rope stained with blood. He also seized one stick and a spade. The cot was given in zima and the appellant, who is the wife of the deceased and was subsequently arrested. He also made certain queries from the doctor and basing upon the opinion of the doctor and on completion of inquiry, he filed the charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 and 325 IPC. 3. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial to the occurrence and she stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. 4. In order to bring home the charge, during trial the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and exhibited documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to Ext.17. 3. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial to the occurrence and she stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. 4. In order to bring home the charge, during trial the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and exhibited documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to Ext.17. The prosecution proved six material objects, which have been marked as M.O.I to M.O.VIII. On the other hand, the defence examined one witness but exhibited no document. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after threadbare discussion of the materials available on record, came to a conclusion that the appellant was the author of the crime. Hence, the guilt of the appellant was established and she was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. So far as charge under Section 325 I.P.C was concerned it was found that the deceased was caused with grievous hurt before he was killed by fixing rope on the neck. The simpler offence under Section 325 I.P.C merged with the graver offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Thus no separate punishment was attracted for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. Accordingly the court below sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are against the weight of evidence on record and contrary to law. It is based on surmises and conjectures. The deceased committed suicide by hanging with the help of rope against a beam fixed to the ceiling of the house. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was suffering from leprosy as deposed by the prosecution witnesses and committed suicide. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct eye witness to the occurrence. It is also the prosecution case that the appellant was living separately and on the previous night there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife and family members intervened, for which she was living in her in-laws. In absence of any specific evidence regarding the assault made by the appellant and such assault caused the death, the finding of the court below is erroneous one. In absence of any specific evidence regarding the assault made by the appellant and such assault caused the death, the finding of the court below is erroneous one. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable and liable to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Standing counsel submitted that in this case, the prosecution has able to prove the circumstantial evidence. P.W.1, the elder brother of the deceased had deposed about the injury on the dead body. P.W.2 was the witness to the quarrel between the appellant and deceased and also injuries on the fore-head. P.W.7, the daughter of the deceased and the appellant, had deposed about the assault made by the appellant to the deceased with a stick in the previous night. The said fact was also corroborated with the medical evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrant no interference in this appeal. This criminal appeal, therefore, being devoid of merit liable to be dismissed. 8. Perused the L.C.R. and went through the evidence on record carefully. Admittedly there was no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution basically founded its case on the Circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the close relatives and villagers show that the deceased and appellant were found quarrelling in the previous night. The deceased had sustained injuries on different parts of the body. The appellant was found holding a stick and deceased receiving injuries remained in his house. In the next morning the dead body of the deceased was found inside the house at about 12 O’ Clock. A rope was fixed with the ceiling and that was cut from the middle. However, none of the witnesses saw in which manner the murder took place. The doctor does not rule out possibility of suicidal death. The Trial court convicted the appellant basing on the circumstantial evidence. 9. P.W.10 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body. She found three injuries, out of which the injury No.1 is as follows:- One ligature mark present horizontally encircling the neck at the region of thyroid cartilage starting from back side of the left ear to the right ear length about 16” wide ½ cm. in size. Reddish brown in colour ecchymastic present around the edges of the legislature mark. She found three injuries, out of which the injury No.1 is as follows:- One ligature mark present horizontally encircling the neck at the region of thyroid cartilage starting from back side of the left ear to the right ear length about 16” wide ½ cm. in size. Reddish brown in colour ecchymastic present around the edges of the legislature mark. Extravsion of blood into the subcutaneous tissue under the ligature mark. Fracture of tracheal limbs and thyroid cartilage and facture of thyroid bone. According to the Doctor, the cause of death was due to asphyxia on account of suicide by hanging. She has also stated that the death may not be instantaneous by receiving the injuries. She also stated that ligature mark was on the front portion of the neck which was possible in case of suicide. 10. According to Modi’s text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology as to whether the death can be caused by hanging, it has been mentioned that one can safely say that death was due to hanging, if, in addition to the cord mark, there was dribbling of saliva from the angle of mouth, ecchymoses and slight abrasions around the ligature-mark, laceration of the intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood within their walls and the post-mortem signs of asphyxia, besides if there are no evidence of a struggle, scratches and nail marks, fatal injuries or poisoning. Whether hanging was Suicidal, Homicidal or Accidental, it has been stated therein that hanging is usually suicidal. Of the 32 cases of hanging that came under Modi’s observation during a period of over six years, 30 were suicidal. Circumstantial evidence also has an important bearing. Homicidal hanging, though rare, has been recorded that usually, more than one person is involved in the act unless the victim is a child or very weak and feeble, or is rendered unconscious by some intoxicating or narcotic drug. In a case, where resistance has been offered, marks of violence on the body and marks of a struggle or footprints of several persons at or near the place of occurrence are likely to be found. 11. The Apex Court in the case of R. Rajendran Nair v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 SC 1 held that circumstantial evidence on the allegation that accused assaulted deceased wife as a result of which she became unconscious. 11. The Apex Court in the case of R. Rajendran Nair v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1998 SC 1 held that circumstantial evidence on the allegation that accused assaulted deceased wife as a result of which she became unconscious. Thereafter he left his house with his daughter. Presence of accused in his house when hanging took place not proved by the prosecution. Defence version that when he came back, he found her hanging. In absence of evidence to prove that the deceased was alive when accused returned home, the defence version cannot be rejected altogether. The prosecution story of hanging doubtful in absence of evidence that deceased continued to remain unconscious till she was allegedly strangulated. No evidence also to support story of electrocution falsely circulated by accused. Circumstance not pointed out towards guilty of accused. Therefore, the conviction of accused was set aside. In the said decision, it was held that for an individual to hang a living person (who would certainly make all possible efforts to extricate himself) after lifting him to a certain height seems to be rather improbable. Presumably, in that context, the prosecution sought to prove that the appellant took assistance of other to accomplish his evil design. 12. The witnesses P.Ws. 8 and 9 have categorically stated that the appellant was residing in her in-laws house after quarrel between the deceased and the appellant in the previous night. The post mortem report reveals that the death was in between 9 A.M. to 12 O’ clock of the next date. There was no evidence to prove that the deceased was alive when the appellant came back to the house in the morning. The prosecution story is nothing but doubtful in absence of evidence that the deceased was unconscious before he was hanged or strangulated. We are unable to accept the prosecution story in absence of symptoms regarding struggle, scratches and nail marks, that the deceased was murdered by hanging. The fact that the deceased was depressed with the attack of the disease Leprosy and keeping in view the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the deceased, it cannot be ruled out that the death was suicidal. 13. There is no specific evidence with regard to the overt act performed by the appellant. The circumstances also did not point out towards the guilt of the appellant. 13. There is no specific evidence with regard to the overt act performed by the appellant. The circumstances also did not point out towards the guilt of the appellant. The appellant in this case was arrested on 24.11.2001 and inside the custody. She was released on bail by virtue of the order of this Court dated 08.11.2010. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court allows the Jail Criminal Appeal and sets aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed in the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2002 (Arising out of G.R. Case No.333 of 2001 corresponding to Udala P.S. Case No.122 of 2001). Accordingly the appellant be set at liberty, her bail bond be cancelled and she shall be discharged from the criminal liability.