JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Appellant-convict Durga Singh alias Suresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused) aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.6.2016, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, Circuit Court at Jogindernagar, District Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 59/2015 has preferred the present appeal in this Court. The trial Court vide impugned judgment has convicted him for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 IPC whereas to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 201 IPC. 2. In an unfortunate incident, having taken place on 19.4.2014 around 10:00 PM, Pammi Devi, a young lady aged 40 years who happened to be the wife of accused had lost her life. The allegations against the accused, in a nut shell, are that it is he who strangulated her with a piece of rope (Ext. P-5) knowing fully well that by doing so, he would cause her death and allegedly committed the offence of murder. Not only this, but after commission of offence of murder of his wife, the deceased with a view to screen the evidence he had made to understand that she had hanged herself and committed suicide and that he has no hand in her death. 3. The record of this case reveals that the deceased was married to accused 20-22 years ago. Out of this wed-lock, PW-2 Kumari Kirna, PW-5 Kumari Pooja and PW-6 Master Ankush were born to the deceased. The deceased was living with accused and her children as well as her mother-in-law Smt. Jai Dei (PW-3) in her matrimonial house at Village Bhagehar PO Khajur, Tehsil Lad Bharol, under the jurisdiction of PS Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi. On the fateful day, the couple attended some function where the accused consumed alcohol also. As per the prosecution case, in the evening hot exchanges had taken place between them in the house. The accused was heavily drunk. He allegedly had been administering beatings to his wife, the deceased under the influence of liquor. On the fateful day, he strangulated her with rope Ext. P-5 and to make the others understand that she had committed suicide tied her neck with her dupatta Ext. The accused was heavily drunk. He allegedly had been administering beatings to his wife, the deceased under the influence of liquor. On the fateful day, he strangulated her with rope Ext. P-5 and to make the others understand that she had committed suicide tied her neck with her dupatta Ext. P-1 to show that she had hanged herself and committed suicide. 4. The FIR Ext. PW-20/A was registered at the instance of Naginder Singh (PW-1), brother of the deceased. He reported to the police on 9.4.2014 around 10:00 PM, he was informed over telephone by his younger sister Rita that something wrong has happened in the house of Pammi Devi, the deceased. Rita further informed PW-1 that Pammi had committed suicide. On hearing this PW-1 Naginder Singh accompanied by his brother Bhag Singh rushed to the house of the deceased. He reached there and found the dead body of Pammi lying on the floor. Since he had informed the police of PS Jogindernagar also, therefore, the police reached the spot early in the morning i.e. around 4:00 AM. From the surrounding circumstances, he observed that his sister had not committed suicide but she was strangulated and murdered. He accordingly made the statement Ext. PW-1/A which was recorded by the police on the basis thereof FIR Ext. PW-20/A was registered. 5. A red coloured Dupatta Ext. P-1, found to be cut with sickle was brought from another room along with sickle Ext. P-2 were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/B to which PW-1 Naginder Singh is one of the attesting witnesses. The police photographed the dead body and prepared the inquest papers. The dead body was taken into possession by the police. On an application Ext. PW-7/A made for getting the autopsy on dead body conducted, PW-7 Dr. H.S.Sabarwal has conducted the autopsy and submitted the report Ext. PW-7/D. The post mortem report reveals that initially in the opinion of PW-7 Dr. H.S. Sabarwal, the cause of death was found to be ante mortem hanging, however, word “hanging” by way of cutting was replaced with word “strangulation”, as per the entries against item No. VI “certificate of cause of death”. However, final opinion was left open to be given on receipt of the report from FSL. The report was received and as in view of testimony of PW-8 Dr. However, final opinion was left open to be given on receipt of the report from FSL. The report was received and as in view of testimony of PW-8 Dr. Niti Prakash Dubey, Assistant Director, RFSL, Mandi, no alcohol, poison, narcotic drug and psychotropic substance etc. were found in the stomach contents, pieces of small and large intestines, liver spleen and kidney as is apparent from the perusal of report Ext. PW-8/A also, therefore, the opinion qua cause of death remained the same. The rope Ext. P-5 was shown to PW-7 Dr. H.S. Sabarwal and on seeing the same, he further opined that strangulation could have been caused thereby. Being so, the case which initially was registered under Sections 498A and 306 IPC was converted into a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 6. The I.O. PW-19 SI Yog Raj conducted the investigation. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW-19/A and got the dead body photographed vide photographs Ext. PW-19/B-1 to Ext. PW-19/B-10. He also recovered dupatta Ext. P-1 and sickle Ext. P-2 at the instance of accused Durga Singh and taken the same into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. On the same day, he recovered salwar (red and green coloured) Ext. P-3 of the deceased which was produced by her daughter Kirna (PW-2) and taken the same into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/F. The supplementary statement of PW-1 Naginder Singh and his brother Bhag Singh as well as Kirna (PW-2) were also recorded by him. He also completed the inquest papers Ext. PW-19/C and PW-19/D and moved the application Ext. PW-7/A to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar for conducting the autopsy on the dead body of Pammi Devi. 7. Further investigation was conducted by PW-20 Amar Singh, the then SHO, PS Dharampur. The accused was interrogated by him and thereafter arrested. The information qua his arrest was given to his brother vide memo Ext. PW-20/C. He had also taken into possession compromise deed Ext. PW-1/D vide memo Ext. PW-1/A which was produced by Naginder Singh, the complainant in the presence of PW-4 Kamla Devi. He recorded the statements of PW-4 Kamla Devi, PW-3 Jai Dei Ext. PW-20/D and that of PW-5 Pooja Devi Ext. PW-20/E, that of PW-6 Ankush Ext. PW-20/F, allegedly as per their version. The statements of PW-9 Ramesh Chand Ext. PW-20/G and PW-20/H Krishan Chand were also recorded by the I.O. PW-20 Insp. Amar Singh. He recorded the statements of PW-4 Kamla Devi, PW-3 Jai Dei Ext. PW-20/D and that of PW-5 Pooja Devi Ext. PW-20/E, that of PW-6 Ankush Ext. PW-20/F, allegedly as per their version. The statements of PW-9 Ramesh Chand Ext. PW-20/G and PW-20/H Krishan Chand were also recorded by the I.O. PW-20 Insp. Amar Singh. It is he, who on receipt of the post mortem report Ext. PW-7/D, converted the case from Section 306 IPC to 302 IPC. The accused allegedly made confessional statement on 25.4.2014 that his wife had not committed suicide with her dupatta but it is he who strangulated her with rope of jute ¼'ksy½ . He further disclosed before the I.O. PW- 20 Insp. Amar Singh that the rope was concealed by him in the room. The disclosure statement Ext. PW-18/A of the accused was recoded in the presence of Const. Pratap Kumar PW-18. On the basis of the statement Ext. PW-18/A, rope Ext. P-5 was recovered and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-9/A. On receipt of the chemical examiner’s report Ext. PW-20/K, opinion Ext. PW-7/D and Ext. PW-20/L according to which blood was found on the rope Ext. P-5, offence punishable under Section 201 IPC was also added in the FIR against the accused. PW-20, IO Amar Singh has prepared the spot map Ext. PW-20/M consequent upon the disclosure statement PW-18/A made by the accused. 8. On completion of the investigation and finding that the accused had committed offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by PW-20 Insp. Amar Singh and filed in the Court. 9. As point out at the outset, learned trial Court on prima-facie finding a case under Section 302 and 201 IPC made out against the accused, had framed charge against the accused accordingly. 10. Now, if coming to the evidence, the material prosecution witnesses are Naginder Singh, brother of the deceased (PW-1), Kirna Devi, Pooja Devi and Ankush Kumar (PW Nos. 2, 5 and 6), daughters and son of deceased, respectively, Jai Dei, mother-in-law of deceased (PW-3), Kamla Devi, the Pradhan Gram Panchayat (PW-4), Ramesh Chand and Krishan Singh, the witnesses to the recovery of rope (PWs 9 & 10), respectively, Const. Partap Kumar (PW-18) a witness to the disclosure statement Ext. PW-18/A. The another material witness examined by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial Court is PW-7 Dr. Partap Kumar (PW-18) a witness to the disclosure statement Ext. PW-18/A. The another material witness examined by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial Court is PW-7 Dr. H.S. Sabarwal who had conducted autopsy on the dead body and opined that the cause of death of deceased was ante-mortem strangulation. 11. The remaining prosecution witnesses i.e. Dr. Niti Prakash (PW-8) a scientist in RFSL, Hari Dass Patwari (PW-11), Hem Singh Kanungo (PW-12), Rajesh Kumar, Asstt. Director, RFSL, Mandi (PW-13), HC Kamlesh Kumar (PW-14), HHC Deepak Raj (PW-15), Const. Rakesh Kumar (PW-16) and HC Gopal Chand (PW-17) are formal who remained associated with the investigation of the case in one way or the other. 12. The I.Os of this case are PW-19 SI Yog Raj and PW-20 Insp. Amar Singh. 13. Besides the ocular evidence, the prosecution has also produced in evidence the documentary evidence, as referred to hereinabove. 14. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution with the help of cogent and reliable evidence has satisfactorily proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who has murdered his wife deceased Pammi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused has been accordingly convicted and sentenced. 15. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter alia that as per the evidence available on record, the deceased had been leading happy married life with the accused. The material prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case that the accused used to torture the deceased under the influence of liquor and as such caused her death by strangulating her with rope Ext. P-5. The evidence that on the day of occurrence, the accused having consumed lot of alcohol in some function and was almost lying in an unconscious condition in the kitchen, has not been considered at all. There being no allegation that he after marriage ever demanded dowry from the deceased or her parents, no motive can be assigned to the alleged murder of his own wife by the accused. The unequivocal and categoric statements made by PW-2 Kirna Devi, PW-5 Pooja Devi and PW-6 Ankush Kumar, children of deceased and by PW-3 Jai Dei, her mother-in-law discarding the prosecution story being wrong has also been erroneously brushed aside. The unequivocal and categoric statements made by PW-2 Kirna Devi, PW-5 Pooja Devi and PW-6 Ankush Kumar, children of deceased and by PW-3 Jai Dei, her mother-in-law discarding the prosecution story being wrong has also been erroneously brushed aside. No weightage is stated to be given to the statement of PW-1 Naginder Singh that after the compromise, the deceased and accused were leading happy married life and that his sister, the deceased was short tempered. Not only this, but his testimony that there was conflict of thoughts between his sister and accused, has also been erroneously brushed aside. On the other hand, learned trial Judge allegedly satisfied itself while convicting the accused without any iota of evidence. The doctor PW-7 Dr. H.S. Sabarwal at one stage has opined that the deceased committed suicide by way of hanging was not taken into consideration. When PW-7 Dr. H.S. Sabarwal did not notice any struggle mark and even the bangles of the deceased were intact on her wrists, the present cannot be said to be a case of strangulation at all. The Court below forgetting that it was dealing with human being has mis-construed the evidence available on record at its whims and fancies and recorded the findings of conviction which are not legally sustainable. No one was associated from the locality to show that the relations of the accused were not cordial with the deceased. The evidence which does not substantiate the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC even remotely, has been misappreciated to record wrong findings. There being no iota of evidence qua the date, time and place of the mal-treatment of the deceased by the accused, no case under Section 302 IPC was made out against the latter. The very important and relevant aspect i.e. accused on that day had attended some function in the village along with the deceased and when returned to home being under the influence of liquor slept in the kitchen itself whereas deceased before she committed suicide had her dinner in the room has been erroneously brushed aside by the trial Court. Since the deceased was short tempered, therefore, she had committed suicide by hanging herself with dupatta. The accused had no role to play in her death. The prosecution has concocted and engineered a false case against him. Since the deceased was short tempered, therefore, she had committed suicide by hanging herself with dupatta. The accused had no role to play in her death. The prosecution has concocted and engineered a false case against him. Since the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the accused should have been acquitted of the charge. 16. Sh. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate learned counsel representing the convict-accused, while drawing our attention to the oral as well as documentary evidence has argued with all vehemence that the present being a case of no evidence, no case under Sections 302 & 201 IPC is made out against the accused. According to Mr. Dadwal, learned trial Court while convicting the accused has based its findings on hypothesis, conjectures and surmises. It has been pointed out that learned trial Court by convicting and sentencing an innocent person has erred in law and on facts. Being so, the impugned judgment has been sought to be quashed. 17. On the other hand, Mr. Virender Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused has urged that no illegality or irregularity can be attached to the judgment under challenge as according to him, the Court below has appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective. Since the evidence available on record establishes the guilt of the accused, therefore, he according to Mr. Verma, has rightly been convicted and sentenced. 18. On analyzing the rival submissions as well as reappraisal of the evidence available on record, the only question which needs consideration in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution has satisfactorily pleaded and proved that it is the accused alone who murdered his wife and tried to introduce a false story that he had no hand in her death or it is she who herself has committed suicide. 19. The poser so arise for our determination needs appraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record. However, before that it is desirable to note as to what constitutes the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in legal parlance. 20. 19. The poser so arise for our determination needs appraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record. However, before that it is desirable to note as to what constitutes the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in legal parlance. 20. As per Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder firstly if the offender is found to have acted with an intention to cause death or secondly with an intention of causing such bodily injury knowing fully well that the same is likely to cause death of someone or thirdly intention causing bodily injury to any person and such injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or if it is known to such person that the act done is imminently dangerous that the same in all probability shall cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 21. Culpable homicide has been defined under Section 299 IPC. Whoever causes death by way of an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death can be said to have committed the offence of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Expression “intent” and “knowledge” postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of different degree. We are drawing support in this regard from the judgment of Apex Court in Jagriti Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2869 . 22. The ingredients of culpable homicide amounting to murder therefore are; (i) causing death intentionally and (ii) causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death. Whether the present is a case where the evidence available on record is suggestive of that it is the accused who strangulated the deceased with rope Ext. P-5 intentionally to cause her death and such an act on his part amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or not, needs re-appraisal of the evidence available on record. Whether the present is a case where the evidence available on record is suggestive of that it is the accused who strangulated the deceased with rope Ext. P-5 intentionally to cause her death and such an act on his part amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or not, needs re-appraisal of the evidence available on record. However, before that it is deemed appropriate to point out that if the accused had motive to cause the death of the deceased, the eye witness count of the occurrence may not be required, however, where the motive is missing, the prosecution is required to prove its case with the help of testimony of eye witnesses. 23. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution has not attributed any motive to the accused nor is its case that it is due to such motive he has caused the death of his own wife that too when he was residing with her for the last 20-22 years and gave birth to three children out of her wed-lock with him. The only allegation that the accused was habitual drunkard and used to torture and administer beatings to the deceased seems to be correct only to the extent that he had been consuming liquor, however, while under the influence of liquor he had been treating the deceased with cruelty and also maltreating her, is not proved from the evidence available on record. The reference in this regard can be made to the testimony of daughters and son of the deceased who have stepped into the witness-box as PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6. They all, while in the witness-box, have stated in one voice that their father, the accused had been consuming liquor. They, however, ruled out the allegation that he was habitual drunkard and had been beating the deceased under the influence of liquor. Similar is the version of the mother of accused, PW-3 Smt. Jai Dei. No doubt, PW-6 Master Ankush tells us about some hot exchanges having taken place between the accused who had consumed liquor and the deceased. He, however, denied the suggestion that his father, the accused had been administering beatings to the deceased under the influence of liquor. Not only this, but it has further come in the prosecution evidence by way of their respective testimony that on the day of occurrence, there was some function in the village. He, however, denied the suggestion that his father, the accused had been administering beatings to the deceased under the influence of liquor. Not only this, but it has further come in the prosecution evidence by way of their respective testimony that on the day of occurrence, there was some function in the village. The couple i.e. the accused and the deceased both had attended that function. The accused consumed excessive alcohol and on his return to the house had slept in the kitchen in an unconscious condition. Therefore, they have not supported the prosecution case rather had turned hostile. When cross-examined, they have denied their statements having been recorded by the police during the investigation of the case. Similar is the version of their grand-mother PW-3 Jai Dei. Even, as per the testimony of PW-2 Kirna Devi and Pw-5 Pooja Devi, sometimes, their mother the deceased and their grandmother (PW-3) also used to consume liquor. As a matter of fact, it is the children of the deceased and her mother-in-law PW-3 Jai Dei who were present in the house. Since the children have love and affection towards both the parents and sometimes on higher side to the mother as compared to the father, therefore, the testimony of PW-2 Kirna Devi, PW-5 Pooja Devi and PW-6 Ankush Kumar which does not implicate the accused should have not been discarded at all by learned trial Judge. In view of the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, in our considered opinion, no doubt, the accused had been consuming liquor, however, not treating the deceased with cruelty or beating her under the influence of liquor. The hot exchanges occasionally, if any, between the couple is wear and tear of normal married life and even if it is believed that the couple had been quarreling with each other, such occasional quarrel cannot be made basis to arrive at a conclusion that the accused had intention to kill his wife, the deceased. 24. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate learned counsel representing the accused is, therefore, absolutely justified in arguing that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated by the trial Court in its right perspective and rather misconstrued and misunderstood to record the findings of conviction against the accused by hook and crook. 25. 24. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate learned counsel representing the accused is, therefore, absolutely justified in arguing that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated by the trial Court in its right perspective and rather misconstrued and misunderstood to record the findings of conviction against the accused by hook and crook. 25. In the impugned judgment, much has been said about the medical evidence which has come on record by way of post mortem report Ext. PW-7/B and the testimony of PW-7 Dr. H.S.Sabarwal. Interestingly enough, the report Ext. PW-7/B reveals that no wound or ante mortem marks could be noticed by PW-7 Dr. H.S.Sabarwal while conducting the autopsy on the dead body except for ligature mark and the fracture of cricoids cartilage. The report Ext. PW-7/B reveals that the cause of death in the opinion of PW-7 was ante mortem hanging i.e. hanging by a person himself which generally happens in a case of suicide. However, by way of over writing and cutting, word “hanging” has been replaced by word “strangulation”. The explanation, therefor, as has come on record in the testimony of PW-7 Dr. H.S.Sabarwal is that the cutting in the report is in his hand and under his initials. He, however, has not explained as to how he initially opined that the cause of death was ante-mortem hanging. No doubt, when the Court questioned him in this regard, it is clarified that he got confused and could not understand the question put to him by learned defence counsel and it is for this reason words “hanging mark on the neck” occurred in his cross-examination. As a matter of fact, PW-7 Dr. H.S.Sabarwal in his cross-examination has admitted the suggestion that there were hanging ligature mark on the body of the deceased. Therefore, in view of his testimony to this effect also, there being cutting in the opinion given in the post mortem report Ext. PW-7/B, the possibility of change in his opinion that the cause of death was ante-mortem strangulation under some pressure or for extraneous consideration cannot be ruled out. Otherwise also, the opinion of an expert cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of the occurrence and rather is one of the piece of evidence required to be considered and appreciated along with other evidence available on record. 26. Otherwise also, the opinion of an expert cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of the occurrence and rather is one of the piece of evidence required to be considered and appreciated along with other evidence available on record. 26. In the case in hand, the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses referred to hereinabove, is not suggestive of that the deceased was strangulated by the accused whereas the testimony of PW-2 Kirna, PW-3 Jai Dei and PW-5 Pooja Devi to the effect that when PW-2 Kirna and PW-5 Pooja Devi went to collect utensils from the room of their parents where the deceased had taken her meals, they noticed the dupatta Ext. P-1 around the neck of their mother and she was lying hanged with wooden rafter ¼cjy½ in the roof of the room. They raised hue and cry which attracted the attention of PW-3 Jai Dei and local residents to the site of occurrence. The dead body was brought down and the knot of dupatta around the neck of the deceased got cut with the help of sickle. 27. True it is that it was suggested to PW-5 Pooja Devi that at 9:00 PM, her father, the accused called them and told to come down and see their mother who was not talking, however, she denied the same being wrong. It was also denied that on the call of her father, she came to the room and noticed that the neck of mother was tied with dupatta and dead body lying on the floor. She rather admitted that it is her sister PW-2 who raised alarm in the courtyard and started weeping loudly. She has also denied that the accused had planned to kill the deceased. It is also denied that accused had killed the deceased with her own dupatta. PW-6 Master Ankush, no doubt, has admitted that on the call of his father, he went down in the room of his parents along with his sisters and it is his sister PW-2 Kirna Devi who cut the knot of dupatta around the neck of the deceased with the help of sickle. PW-6 Master Ankush, no doubt, has admitted that on the call of his father, he went down in the room of his parents along with his sisters and it is his sister PW-2 Kirna Devi who cut the knot of dupatta around the neck of the deceased with the help of sickle. However, in view of testimony of PW-2 Kirna, PW-3 Jai Dei and PW-5 Pooja Devi nothing of the sort did take place because they are categoric and specific while stating that the dead body was seen hanging in the room by PW-2 Kirna Devi who had gone there to collect the utensils. The accused was sleeping in the kitchen at that time under the influence of liquor. The prosecution case that the accused first strangulated the deceased and thereafter called children and his mother to the site of occurrence to see the deceased, who was not talking, is not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 28. Much has also been said about the so called disclosure statement Ext. PW-18/A made by the accused. No doubt, according to PW-18 Const. Pratap Kumar, the disclosure statement Ext. PW-18/A that it is the accused who had strangulated his wife with the help of a jute rope and that it is he who can get the rope recovered which has been concealed by him in his bed room behind the iron drum was made by the accused. The recovery of the rope Ext. P-5 in the manner as claimed by the prosecution is, however, not at all proved because as per the version of PW-9 Ramesh Chand, a witness to the recovery memo Ext. PW-9/A whereby the rope was recovered and taken into possession, the same was recovered from a cow-shed and not from a place behind iron drum in the bed room. PW-10 Krishan Singh, the another witness to recovery of the rope has also not supported the prosecution case at all as according to him he remained associated in the investigation of the case with his brother-in-law Ramesh Chand (PW-9), however, nothing was taken into possession in his presence. He, however, in his cross-examination, has admitted his signature over the recovery memo Ext. PW-9/A. It has also come on record by way of testimony of PWs 2, 3 & 5 that no drum was lying in the bed room of the accused and deceased. 29. He, however, in his cross-examination, has admitted his signature over the recovery memo Ext. PW-9/A. It has also come on record by way of testimony of PWs 2, 3 & 5 that no drum was lying in the bed room of the accused and deceased. 29. It is significant to note that not only the complainant PW-1 Naginder Singh, the brother of the deceased but PW-2 Kirna and PW-5 Pooja have also stated that the deceased was a short tempered lady. As noticed supra, she also used to consume liquor. PW-1 Naginder Singh has also admitted that the accused and deceased used to pick up quarrel on trifles. Since on the fateful day, her husband, the accused was under the influence of liquor and she might have coerced him for that, therefore, hot exchanges between the two seems to have taken place only due to that. In view of she being short tempered, the possibility of the deceased having hanged herself at her own on account of being fed up with the habit of consumption of liquor by her husband had put an end to her life cannot be ruled out. It is for this reason, initially the case was registered under Section 306 IPC. The offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused by the investigating agency only on the basis of receipt of the post mortem report and also on the basis of ligature i.e. rope Ext. P-5, the recovery whereof is not at all proved on record, as noticed by us in earlier part of this judgment. Even the opinion of the doctor that the cause of death was ante-mortem strangulation, for the detailed reasons hereinabove, is also not proved and rather in the given facts and circumstances as well as the evidence available on record, the present is a case of ante mortem hanging i.e the commission of suicide by the deceased at her own and without any provocation or instigation from the side of her husband. 30. The so called date of compromise Ext. PW-1/B has also been pressed into service. As per the prosecution case, the compromise was arrived at between the accused and the deceased on an occasion when she was beaten up by him and she left the matrimonial home as well as started living in the house of her parents. 30. The so called date of compromise Ext. PW-1/B has also been pressed into service. As per the prosecution case, the compromise was arrived at between the accused and the deceased on an occasion when she was beaten up by him and she left the matrimonial home as well as started living in the house of her parents. As per the version of PW-1 Naginder Singh in his cross-examination, the Panchayat was called to their house and compromise Ext. PW-1/B was arrived at. The same, according to him, was taken into possession in the presence of Kamla Devi PW- 4 by the police. PW-4 Kamla Devi, while in the witness-box though has supported the prosecution, however, may be being the resident of the same village to which the complainant belongs. Her testimony further reveals that deceased Pammi never complained to her qua her ill-treatment by her husband, the accused. The compromise deed is dated 23.8.2007 whereas the occurrence pertains to 19.4.2014 i.e. after about 7 years of the said compromise. The Pradhan Gram Panchayat and the witness to this document were not examined by the prosecution to the reasons best known to it. Otherwise also, as per the testimony of PW-1 Naginder Singh, after the compromise was arrived at between the deceased and the accused, they were leading happy married life. As per the own testimony of PW-1 Naginder Singh, PW-2 Kirna Devi had told him that her mother had hanged herself whereas her father the accused was sleeping while being under the influence of liquor. Being so, there was no question for the accused to have strangulated the deceased. Otherwise also, it is not possible for a person under the influence of liquor to strangulate a person like the deceased having average built body and that too without there being any mark of struggle on the body of the person so strangulated. As per the post mortem report, no mark of struggle or any injury could be noticed on the body of the deceased. Even bangles on her wrists were found to be intact. The bangles in her wrists are visible in the photograph Ext. PW-19/B- 7. Had she been strangulated by the accused, obviously she would have struggled to save herself and in that process, what to speak of receiving injuries on her person, her bangles would have been broken. Even bangles on her wrists were found to be intact. The bangles in her wrists are visible in the photograph Ext. PW-19/B- 7. Had she been strangulated by the accused, obviously she would have struggled to save herself and in that process, what to speak of receiving injuries on her person, her bangles would have been broken. The non-availability of such evidence on record also belies the prosecution case against the accused. Learned trial Judge though seems to have been influenced with the presence of blood on Ext. P-5 rope without there being any evidence that it was human blood. Above all, it is not the prosecution case that blood had oozed out from the ligature around the neck of the deceased. The present, as such, is a case where the Court below has based its findings on assumptions and presumptions in utter disregard of the evidence available on record. 31. The remaining prosecution evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of formal witnesses would have been of some help to the prosecution case had its case against the accused been otherwise proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Above all, such evidence, i.e. the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Niti Prakash Dubey, Asstt. Director, RFSL, Mandi, no alcohol, poison, narcotic drug and psychotropic substance could be detected in the stomach contents, pieces of small and large intestines, liver spleen and kidney sent for analysis. Whereas PW-11 Hari Dass, Patwari on an application Ext. PW-11/A moved by the I.O. had prepared the aks Tatima of the house of the accused Ext. PW-11/B and the Jamabandi Ext. PW-11/C. PW-12 Hem Singh Kanungo had counter signed the Jamabandi Ext. PW-11/C. PW-13 Rajesh Kumar is again Asstt. Director RFSL, Mandi. He, on analysis of the exhibits i.e. dupatta and sickle had opined that death was possible by hanging with dupatta, however, no fiber could be detected on the sickle. He, therefore, has proved his report Ext. PW-7/B. PW-14 Kamlesh Kumar, the MHC of the Police Station Jogindernagar has supported the prosecution case qua deposit of the case property with him and transmission thereof to the FSL for analysis. PW-15 HHC Deepak Raj has proved the rapat Ext. PW- 15/A which was entered on the basis of information qua this incident received from PW-1 Naginder Singh. PW-7/B. PW-14 Kamlesh Kumar, the MHC of the Police Station Jogindernagar has supported the prosecution case qua deposit of the case property with him and transmission thereof to the FSL for analysis. PW-15 HHC Deepak Raj has proved the rapat Ext. PW- 15/A which was entered on the basis of information qua this incident received from PW-1 Naginder Singh. Accordingly, PW-19 SI Yog Raj accompanied by other police officials were deputed to the spot vide rapat Ext. PW-15/B. PW-16 Const. Rakesh Kumar had supported the prosecution case qua taking the case property to FSL and deposit thereof in safe condition there whereas PW-17 HC Gopal Chand has stated that a cloth parcel containing the case property of this case was handed over to him by PW-19 SI Yog Raj which he entered in the malkhana register and retained the same in safe custody. PW-18 Const. Pratap Kumar, as already noticed is a witness to the so called disclosure statement Ext. PW-18/E which is not at all proved. The remaining witnesses PW-19 SI Yog Raj and PW-20 Insp. Amar Singh are Investigating Officers. Therefore, when the prosecution has failed to make out a case against the accused, it is not desirable to elaborate the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of above formal witnesses which at the most could have been considered as link evidence. On the other hand, the plea the accused raised in his defence that he is innocent and that only one PW i.e. PW-1 Naginder Singh has deposed against him falsely and at the instance of his enemies seems to be nearer to the factual position. 32. In view of the re-appraisal of the facts of this case and also the evidence available on record, in our considered opinion, the present is a case where this incident has not only taken away the valuable and precious human life but at the same time recording of findings of conviction and sentence against the accused on highly inadmissible evidence is also travesty of justice. The accused and deceased who lived in the company of each other for 20-22 years and had three children as well as old mother to support he would have not caused the death of the deceased, his own wife and that too without any motive therefor. The accused and deceased who lived in the company of each other for 20-22 years and had three children as well as old mother to support he would have not caused the death of the deceased, his own wife and that too without any motive therefor. Recording findings of conviction and awarding the punishment for life imprisonment against the accused, the children i.e. two young daughters and a school going son have been rendered orphan and liability to support and look after them is shifted upon their old grand mother. 33. The present, as such, is a case where innocent person has been convicted and sentenced to jail and thereby caused injustice to him. The impugned judgment, as such, is not legally sustainable and as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused either under Section 302 IPC or under Section 201 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 34. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is serving out the sentence in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Release warrants be issued accordingly. 35. The appeal stands finally disposed of.