JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, in case FIR No.20/2012 of Police Station Manjakote registered under Section 302 RPC, whereby acquitting respondent Aman-Ullah (hereinafter for short ‘the accused’), the State has preferred the instant criminal acquittal appeal. 2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 07.01.2012 the complainant Mohd Tariq lodged a written complaint with Dy. S.P Headquarters Rajouri alleging therein that his sister Shaheen Akhter wife of Guftar Ahmed has been murdered by Aman-ullah. Upon this complaint proceedings u/sec 174 Cr.P.C was initiated, during the course of inquest proceeding , the statement of the afore named complainant was recorded u/sec 175 Cr.P.C. During the course of the proceedings u/sec 174 Cr.P.C. it came to fore that on 02.01.2012 Guftar Ahmed-husband of deceased was not present at his home as he had gone out with the army in connection with labour work. In his absence the afore named accused the father in law of deceased saw one Walak Hussain S/o Panda Khan caste Domal r/o Dheri Dhara coming out of the house of his afore named son. Upon this the accused came to the house of his son to enquire as to why afore named person had come there in absence of any male member. Resultantly the accused and his daughter-in-law namely Shaheen Akhter (deceased) entered into arguments with each other. Thereafter the accused went to his home and at 9/10 PM with the intention to murder Shaheen Akhter he again came to the house of his afore named son and deliberately started beating his daughter-in-law Shaheen Akhter with some hard object and caused head injuries to her, as a result of which she died on 2/3 January 2012. Thereafter in order to give twist to the case on 03.01.2012 in the morning the accused with the help of some Biradari members took the afore named Shaheen Akhter to Manjakote hospital where the medical staff on duty declared her dead and thereafter having connived with the Baradari the dead body of the deceased Shaheen Akhter was buried by the accused. However, having suspected her death, the heir of the deceased approached the Sr. Police Officer. The Police Headquarters Rajouri also approached the District Magistrate Rajouri for permission to exhume the dead body of the afore named deceased. However, having suspected her death, the heir of the deceased approached the Sr. Police Officer. The Police Headquarters Rajouri also approached the District Magistrate Rajouri for permission to exhume the dead body of the afore named deceased. Thereafter upon the written permission of the Distt. Magistrate Rajouri the dead body of the deceased Shaheen Akhter exhumed in presence of Naib-Tehsildar Executive Magistrate 1st Class. The postmortem on the dead body of the afore named deceased got conducted by a team of doctors. During the course of inspection of the dead body of the deceased Shaheen Akhter injuries on the head found. The police also prepared the injury memo as well as Fard Suret-e-hall on spot. The viscera of deceased sent to FSL Jammu for examination by the postmortem team. 3. Upon this a case FIR No:20/12 offence u/sec 302 RPC registered against the accused with the police station Manjakote and investigation of the case commenced. During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had murdered the deceased Shaheen Akhter by hitting an iron pipe on her head which he has hidden in a room of his residential house. Thereafter at the instance of the accused the recovery of the said iron pipe affected. Site plan etc. was also prepared by the I.O. The statements of some of the prosecution witnesses recorded u/sec 161 Cr.P.C. The statements of some of the prosecution witnesses got recorded in the court u/sec 164-A Cr.P.C. After thorough investigation the challan u/sec 302 RPC was presented and accused was charge-sheeted. Prosecution produced and examined Shabeena Kouser, Shaheen Akhter, Rahila Kouser, Khurshid Begum, Mohd Riaz, Mohd Hussain, Nazir Hussain Khan, Walak Hussain, Naresh Kumar, Mohd-Tariq, Tasleem Akhter, Mukhtiar Ahmed, Mohd Irshad, Aksar Begum, Dr. Vijay Gupta, Ghulam Abas Shah, Dr. Mohd Yaseen Khan, Haroon Rashid, Dr. Javed Sarver Shah, Mohd Ishaq, Nazir Mohd Naib-Tehsildar, Shabeena Akhter, Mohd Shafi, Rubina Kousar and Sarashwer Dev Singh Sub Inspector. 4. Court below after conclusion of trial and appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused 5. We have heard State counsel and counsel for defense. The only question that arises for our consideration in this acquittal appeal is, whether the trial Court was justified in doubting the credibility of prosecution case as projected during trial. 6. 4. Court below after conclusion of trial and appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused 5. We have heard State counsel and counsel for defense. The only question that arises for our consideration in this acquittal appeal is, whether the trial Court was justified in doubting the credibility of prosecution case as projected during trial. 6. The scope of power of appellate court in case of acquittal appeal has been highlighted by Apex Court in case AIR 2014 SC 2200 in case titled ‘Muralidhar alias Gidda & anr. v State of Karnataka’ [Criminal Appeal No.551 with 791 and 1081 of 2011, D/- 9-4-2014], which read as under :- “10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years. 11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "............the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons." 12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court. 13. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court. 13. In ‘Ghurey Lal v State of U.P.’ (2008) 10 SCC 450 , the Court has culled out the principles relating to the appeals from a judgment of acquittal which are in line with what we have observed above.” 7. Before proceeding ahead, the brief resumes of prosecution witnesses reads as under:- PW Shabeena Kouser stated that the accused is known to her, as he is her grandfather. The deceased Shaheen Akhter was her mother. She has two younger brothers. On the day of occurrence her father was not at home, as he used to work with the army. One year and two months ago, the accused came to her home and said to her deceased mother that she is a devil (Shatan) and he would kill her. Thereafter the accused left her home and at 9/10 PM he again came there and knocked the door of her house. Her deceased mother opened the door and the accused went into the kitchen and brought out an iron pipe from there. The accused gave ¾ pipe blows on the neck of her deceased mother resultantly she sustained an injury on her neck, due to which she fell down on the ground. Thereafter having wrapped in a blanket the accused kept her deceased mother on the bed. She further deposed that at that time she and her two younger brothers were present in the room. The accused also threatened them of dire consequence in case they revealed about the occurrence to anyone. The accused also told them that if anyone would enquire from them, tell him that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance. Thereafter having confined them in the room the accused went out in the night. Next day in the morning the accused again came there and kept the mobile phone of her deceased mother in the room which he had taken away with him in the night. She informed her maternal uncle and maternal grandfather about the occurrence telephonically. Thereafter her maternal uncle came there, however, the accused did not allow him to see the dead body of her deceased mother. Thereafter the deceased mother shifted to Manjakote hospital by her maternal uncle and other relatives. She informed her maternal uncle and maternal grandfather about the occurrence telephonically. Thereafter her maternal uncle came there, however, the accused did not allow him to see the dead body of her deceased mother. Thereafter the deceased mother shifted to Manjakote hospital by her maternal uncle and other relatives. She further stated that during the course of investigation her statement was recorded before the court. She also admits the contents of the same which is exhibited as EXTP-2/1. She also identifies the iron pipe with which the accused had hit the deceased. The said pipe is marked as EXTP-2/2. During cross examination she stated that the accused resides separately from them and the distance between two houses is round about 3 KM. She had telephoned her maternal uncle and maternal grandfather in the morning. First of all in morning the accused had come at her home and thereafter her maternal uncle had come there. She had told her maternal uncle as well as maternal grandfather telephonically that the accused had killed her mother with a pipe. Thereafter other people had also come there. Her neighbourers Zainib Bibi, Khushid Akhter, Naseem Akhter, Mohd Rashid, Mohd Riaz, Mohd Hussain, Husan Bano, Pervaiz Akhter, Mohd Tariq, Rahila Kouser etc had also come on spot and one of them had informed the police and the police had also come on spot. All the above named persons and the police came to know that the accused had killed her mother with a pipe. The neck of the deceased was broken. The people and the police had seen the broken neck of her deceased mother. She further stated that at that time her mother had died, but despite that the police had shifted the dead body of her mother to the hospital and after an hour the dead body was brought back from the hospital and on the same day the dead body was buried. She had given her statement before the police that the accused having beaten her mother with a pipe, broken her neck and murdered her. The accused was arrested by the police after 8/10 days. The accused was taken away by the police with them on the day of occurrence. After a month and three days the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and postmortem was conducted. The accused was arrested by the police after 8/10 days. The accused was taken away by the police with them on the day of occurrence. After a month and three days the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and postmortem was conducted. The police also got recorded her statement u/sec 164-A Cr.P.C in the court after two months of the occurrence. On the day of occurrence a Panchayat was also held and she was also present there. Her maternal grandfather Irshad, maternal uncle Mohd Mukhtiar, Mohd Tariq, Aksar Begum, her father Guftar Ahmed, Mohd Iqbal Sarpanch, Aksar Khan member Panchayat, Khadam Hussain Namberdar, Mohd Shafi, Mohd Yaqoob, Mohd Latief, Zakir Hussain, Skiander Hayat, Mohd Jameel, Gul Syed Khan, Mohd Hanief and Mohd Sabir etc were also present in the said Panchayat. The above named persons had given in writing to the police that they had no any doubt about the death of her mother and further that she had died due to disease, owing to which her deceased mother was buried without conducting postmortem. She further deposed that she has been putting up with her maternal grandfather Irshad since the death of her mother. Tasleem Akhter is her maternal aunt. The accused had given a "Fatwa" against her maternal grandfather on the ground that her maternal grandfather had illicit relations with his daughter-in-law Tasleem Akhter, owing to which the relations between her grandfather and maternal grandfather became strained. On a suggestive question she stated that it is wrong that on account of aforesaid enmity her maternal grandfather framed the accused in instant case after getting her false statement recorded in the court after two months. On a further suggestive question she stated that it is wrong that her mother used to remain ill and suffered fits of epilepsy etc. On a further suggestive question she stated that it is wrong that on account of fits of the disease her mother had fallen on the ground owing to which she had suffered an injury on her head. PW-Shaheen Akhter stated that the accused is her father-in-law and the deceased Shaheen was also known to her, she was the daughter-in-law of the accused. Her house is at a distance of 1 KM away from the house of the deceased, however, both the houses are in the same village. PW-Shaheen Akhter stated that the accused is her father-in-law and the deceased Shaheen was also known to her, she was the daughter-in-law of the accused. Her house is at a distance of 1 KM away from the house of the deceased, however, both the houses are in the same village. In the preceding year on 2nd of January at 3 PM the accused had demanded meal from her. After having taken meal the accused had gone to his another house. She further deposed that the accused was saying that the deceased had illicit relations with Walak Hussain so he would thrash her and would not leave her, however, she had forbidden the accused to do so. Thereafter the accused had gone away and in the evening he had returned home. In the morning the daughter of the deceased namely Shabeena Kouser telephoned her that the accused has killed her mother. She too had gone to the house of the deceased. The deceased was shifted to Manjakote hospital. She came to know that the accused had hit the deceased on her head with a pipe. The accused used to suspect her and the deceased. During cross examination she stated that one year ago MohdZubair has given her divorce on the said allegation. The police had also reached on spot when she reached there. She and the daughter of the deceased had told the police that the accused had killed the deceased with a pipe. On their statements the deceased was shifted to the police station by the police and from there she was shifted to hospital where she had died. It is correct that her first statement was recorded by the police on 24.02.2012. On a suggestive question she deposed that it is wrong that on account of being divorced she has enmity with the accused and his family. On a further suggestive question she stated that it is wrong that the deceased used to remain ill and died due to disease. She pleaded ignorance as to whether on the day of occurrence the villagers had convened a Panchayat in connection with the death of the deceased or not. She further stated that it is wrong that on account of enmity she is giving false statement against the accused. PW-Rahila Kouser stated that the accused is known to her and the deceased was also known to her. She further stated that it is wrong that on account of enmity she is giving false statement against the accused. PW-Rahila Kouser stated that the accused is known to her and the deceased was also known to her. The deceased was the daughter-in-law of the accused. The accused is her neighbourer. One year ago the daughter of the deceased namely, Shabeena Kouser had telephoned her that the deceased became unconscious due to fits of the disease. Her parents had gone on spot. Upon this at the request of PP the witness declared hostile and PP permitted to cross examine her. During cross examination by the PP she stated that having heard the noise she had gone to the house of the deceased, however, her father had already gone there. The accused had also come there. It is wrong that the accused used to say that the deceased became unconscious due to consuming of medicines. The deceased was shifted to Manjakote hospital. PW Khurshid Begum stated that the accused is known to her and the deceased was also known to her, as she was her neighbored. On the day of occurrence in the morning the daughter of the deceased namely Shabeena had told her on telephone that her mother had suffered the fits of disease. She had gone on spot and at that time the deceased was alive. Upon this at the request of PP the witness declared hostile and the PP also permitted to cross examine the witness. During cross examination by the PP she stated that it is wrong that Shabeena had told her over telephone that the accused had killed her mother. It is also wrong that when she reached on spot the deceased had died. It is correct that her sister-in-law Naseem Akhter had also gone on spot with her. Zainab had also come on spot and thereafter the other persons had also come there. PW Mohd Riaz stated that the accused is known to him. The deceased was also known to him. The daughter of the deceased had telephoned his daughter that the deceased was ill. Upon this he had gone to the house of the deceased and the other people had also assembled there. The brother of the deceased had also come on spot and he made her to vomit. Thereafter the deceased was shifted to hospital and where she died. The daughter of the deceased had telephoned his daughter that the deceased was ill. Upon this he had gone to the house of the deceased and the other people had also assembled there. The brother of the deceased had also come on spot and he made her to vomit. Thereafter the deceased was shifted to hospital and where she died. Upon this at the request of PP the witness declared hostile and the PP permitted to cross examine him. During cross examination by the PP he stated that it is correct that the deceased was lying on the bed. It is also correct that the husband of the deceased was not at home on that day. PW Mohd Hussain stated that the accused is known to him and deceased was also known to him. The father of the deceased is also his neighbourer. The marriage of the deceased was contracted with Guftar Ahmed round about 12/13 years ago. On the day of occurrence the daughter of the deceased had telephoned his daughter. He had shifted the deceased to the hospital where she had died. He also identifies his signature on the seizure memo relating to a pipe, however, he denies its contents. To the extent of his signature the seizure memo is marked as mark 'M'. Upon this at the request of PP the witness was declared hostile and the PP permitted to cross examine him. During cross examination by the PP he stated that it is wrong that the pipe was recovered from the house of the accused in his presence. At the time of his signature the aforesaid seizure memo was written, however, the police had not read over the contents of the same to him. He had signed the paper as he had seen the pipe there. It is wrong that being the accused his neighbourer he is giving false statement in order to defend the accused. PW Nazir Hussain Khan stated that the accused is known to him and the deceased was also known to him. On the day of occurrence he was not present at his home. He had received the information relating to the death of the deceased over telephone and when he reached at the spot the deceased had died. Many people had assembled there. Thereafter the deceased was shifted to Mangalnar where she was buried. On the day of occurrence he was not present at his home. He had received the information relating to the death of the deceased over telephone and when he reached at the spot the deceased had died. Many people had assembled there. Thereafter the deceased was shifted to Mangalnar where she was buried. Everyone was saying that the accused had killed the deceased, however, some people were saying that it was not a murder. PW-Walak Hussain stated that the accused is known to him. His sister-in-law was married with the son of the accused. His wife had been operated upon in the hospital. Upon this at the request of PP the witness declared hostile and the PP permitted to cross examine him. During cross examination by the PP he stated that 10/11 months ago his sister-in-law was got married with the son of the accused. He had gone to the house of the accused once or twice. It is wrong that on 02.01.2012 he had gone to the house of Guftar Ahmed in connection with some work and Guftar Ahmed had not met him there. PW Naresh Kumar stated that he has a vehicle Wagnor bearing No:1485. On the day of occurrence the brother of the deceased came to him and asked him to shift the deceased to hospital as she was feeling cold. The deceased was put in his vehicle and shifted to Manjakote hospital, where the doctor had declared her dead. He had brought the dead body of the deceased back in his vehicle. The accused was also present there. The accused too had picked up and kept the deceased in the vehicle. PW-Mohd Tariq stated that the accused is known to him. The deceased was his sister who was married with Guftar Ahmed son of the accused about 10/15 years ago of the occurrence. Shabeena Akhter is the eldest daughter of his deceased sister. On 02.01.2012 the deceased had told him over phone that during day time the accused had quarreled with her, as he was leveling allegations against her. He told her that she should talk to her husband, however, on the same night the accused murdered his sister. On 03.01.2012 the daughter of the deceased namely Shabeena Akhter told him over phone that the deceased was unconscious. He told her that she should talk to her husband, however, on the same night the accused murdered his sister. On 03.01.2012 the daughter of the deceased namely Shabeena Akhter told him over phone that the deceased was unconscious. He had gone on spot and shifted the deceased in an unconscious condition to hospital Manjakote, however, he was not allowed to come near the deceased. In Manjakote hospital the doctor had told that the deceased had died ¾ hours ago. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was brought back and buried. At that time he was suspecting the death of the deceased. 2/3 days of the occurrence Shabeena Kouser had told him that on the day of occurrence the accused had come at her home and injured and killed the deceased with an iron pipe. Shabeena had also told that the accused had threatened her of dire consequence. He had made an application before the Deputy Commissioner and after having exhumed postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by the police. His statement u/sec 164-A was recorded. He also identifies his signature on the said statement. He also admits the contents of the same to be true and correct. He had also made a complaint about the occurrence to the police. He also proves the seizure memo relating to the memos which is exhibited as EXTP-1/1. During cross examination he stated that the police had come on spot and recorded his statement. The proceedings u/sec 174 Cr.P.C were also initiated wherein his statement was recorded on 14.02.2012. In the said statement he had told the police that Shabeena Kouser had told him that the accused had killed the deceased. At this stage the witness confronted with his statement dated 14.02.2012 recorded during the course of proceedings u/sec 175 Cr.P.C wherein it has not been mentioned that any information was given to him over telephone. Neither has it been mentioned that the deceased had informed him that on 02.01.2012 the accused had quarreled with her. It has also not been mentioned in the said statement that the deceased was made to lay and the accused was not allowing him to go near her. It has also not been mentioned in the said statement that he had any doubt about the death of the deceased. It has also not been mentioned in the said statement that the deceased was made to lay and the accused was not allowing him to go near her. It has also not been mentioned in the said statement that he had any doubt about the death of the deceased. On a suggestive question he stated that it is wrong that on the day of burial of the deceased the police was present and they had written a Panchayatnama and he too had signed the said Panchayatnama admitting therein that he had no any suspicion about the death of the deceased, which was later handed over to the police. At this stage the defence counsel while presenting a photostat copy of the Panchayatnama requested that the original Panchyatnama is lying with the police station Manjakote same may be called for from the concerned police station. Upon this the statement of the witness deferred and original Panchayatnama dated 03.01.2012 called for from the concerned police station. Thereafter on 31.12.2013 the original Panchyatnama dated 03.01.2012 presented in the court by the PP. The witness identifies his signature over the said original Panchyatnama. The copy of the Panchayatnama placed on the record by the defence counsel as per original Panchyatnama is true and correct which is exhibited as EXTP-DT. The dead body of the deceased was exhumed after 32 days of its burial for the purpose of postmortem. His statement was got recorded in the court by the police after two months. It is correct that he had suspected the death of the deceased after two months. Tasleem Akhter is his sister in law. He pleaded ignorance as to whether any "Fatwa" was given in connection with the illicit relations of his father with Tasleem Akhter or not. It is wrong that due to this enmity they got registered a false case- against the accused. PW-Tasleem Akhter stated that the accused is known to her. The deceased was also known to her as she was the wife of his brother-in-law. On 2/3 Jan. 2012 she was at her home. In the morning at 6 AM Tariq had told her over phone that the accused had killed the deceased. She had reached on spot where ¾ persons were assembled. The husband of the deceased had gone out with the army in connection with labour work. The accused had kept her in a wrapped condition. 2012 she was at her home. In the morning at 6 AM Tariq had told her over phone that the accused had killed the deceased. She had reached on spot where ¾ persons were assembled. The husband of the deceased had gone out with the army in connection with labour work. The accused had kept her in a wrapped condition. The deceased was shifted to Manjakote hospital where the doctor declared her dead. The deceased was buried and the accused attacked. The children of the deceased were saying that the accused had killed the deceased with a pipe. Shabeena Kouser daughter of the deceased was saying that the accused had threatened her. The accused also used to beat the deceased prior to the occurrence. During cross examination she stated that prior to the burial of the deceased the children of the deceased were saying that the deceased was killed. The police personnel were present on spot and in their presence the children of the deceased were saying so. The police had also recorded the statement that the deceased was killed. The children of the deceased i.e. a daughter and two sons were saying so and the police had recorded their statements. Thereafter the accused had attacked upon the police and the police too had retaliated. The police had also lathi-charged, however, none was injured. Many people of the village were present on spot and everyone was knowing that the deceased had been killed. She pleaded ignorance about the Panchayatnama. She too had given her statement before the police on 5th March after two months of the occurrence. He pleaded ignorance as to why the police had recorded her statement after two months. Her father-in-law's name is Irshad. It is wrong that her father-in-law had maintained illicit relations and in this regard Molvi had given "Fatwa". PW Mukhtiar Ahmed stated that the accused is known to him. The deceased was his sister. The accused was the father-in-law of the deceased. On the day of occurrence he was at his home. At 7 AM his brother Mohd Tariq had told him over phone that the deceased was ill and required to be shifted to the hospital. Thereafter he came to the house of the deceased. The deceased had already been brought back from the hospital. On that day the husband of the deceased was not present at home. At 7 AM his brother Mohd Tariq had told him over phone that the deceased was ill and required to be shifted to the hospital. Thereafter he came to the house of the deceased. The deceased had already been brought back from the hospital. On that day the husband of the deceased was not present at home. The accused used to tease her (deceased) as he wanted to maintain illicit relations with her. The accused had also maintained illicit relations with his younger daughter-in-law on account of which she was divorced. He came to know that the accused had killed the deceased with a pipe, as the daughter of the deceased had told him about the same. During cross examination he stated that his phone number is 9859423224, however, he does not remember the phone number of his brother. Mohd Tariq had telephoned him on 02.01.2012 in the morning. When he had reached on spot the police and other people were present there. The deceased was buried in presence of the police. No any Panchyatnama was prepared prior to the burial of the deceased. At this stage the witness identifies his signature over Panchayatnama i.e. EXT-DT, however, he denies its contents. He further stated that they got registered the case after 32 days of the occurrence because the heirs of the accused used to quarrel with them and they had also lodged a report with respect to the said quarrel. They wanted to lodge an FIR but the heirs of the accused did not allow them to do so. They had lodged FIR after one month and two days because at that time the accused were on one side and they got the time to get registered the case. After six years of the marriage the accused had maintained the illicit relations with the deceased and in this regard many Panchayats were held. The deceased herself had told about the illicit relations of the accused. His statement was not recorded by the police. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C attributed to him is not his statement. In the aforesaid statement it has wrongly been recorded that when he used to enquire from the deceased about the illicit relations of the accused with her she used to deny the same. Tariq was told about the occurrence by the younger daughter. PW Mohd Irshad stated that- the accused is known to him. In the aforesaid statement it has wrongly been recorded that when he used to enquire from the deceased about the illicit relations of the accused with her she used to deny the same. Tariq was told about the occurrence by the younger daughter. PW Mohd Irshad stated that- the accused is known to him. Shaheen Akhter was his daughter and she was got married with the son of the accused namely Guftar Ahmed. The deceased and Guftar Ahmed have three children. The accused and the husband of the deceased were residing separately. The accused used to beat the deceased. Walak Hussain used to come at the house of the deceased and so the accused used to suspect her. On the day of occurrence he was with his cattle. A day prior to the occurrence the deceased had met him and told that the accused beat her as Walak Hussain came at her home. The deceased used to say that the accused threatened her of dire consequence. In the morning his son Mohd Tariq told him over phone that he was told over phone by Shabeena that the deceased had been killed. He had gone to the house of the deceased but at that time the deceased had been shifted to hospital. After 2 hours the deceased was brought back from the hospital in a dead condition. Shabeena Kouser had told him that during the night time the accused had come and hit the deceased with a pipe on her head. His son Tariq had lodged the report with the police station. The accused used to suspect the deceased that she had illicit relations with Walak Hussain. His statement was recorded by the police. He also proves the seizure memo relating to memos which has already been exhibited EXT-Pl/1. During cross examination he stated that the deceased had died on 02.01.2012 at 5 AM. On 02.01.2012 Shabeena Kouser had told him that the accused had killed the deceased. At the time of burial of the deceased her all children and his other relatives were present on spot. The police personnel were also present there. Some respectable of the Biradari were also present on spot at that time. A Panchayat has also taken place prior to the burial of the deceased and thereafter the deceased was buried. At the time of burial of the deceased her all children and his other relatives were present on spot. The police personnel were also present there. Some respectable of the Biradari were also present on spot at that time. A Panchayat has also taken place prior to the burial of the deceased and thereafter the deceased was buried. His signature was also taken on the Panchayatnama but at that time the paper was blank. At this stage the witness also identifies his signature on the copy of Panchyatnama. A day prior to the occurrence the deceased had met him at Dheri Dhara and at that time he was with his cattle and deceased was also with her cattle. Walak Hussain used to go to the house of the deceased six months prior to the death of the deceased. He further stated that Shabeena Kouser had told the police at that time that the accused had killed the deceased but the police had not done their job. His first statement was recorded by the police on the day of death of the deceased and his 2nd statement was recorded after one and a half months. In his first statement recorded u/sec 175 Cr.P.C he had not made mention about coming of Walak Hussain at the house of the deceased and suspicion of the accused. Upto the burial of the deceased he did not know about the murder of the deceased. It is wrong that at the instigation of the people he got registered a false case against the accused. PW Aksar Begum stated that the accused is known to her. The deceased was her daughter and she was got married with the son of the accused namely Guftar Ahmed. The deceased has a daughter and two sons. The name of the daughter of the deceased is Shabeena Kouser. After marriage up to 5/6 years the deceased and her husband used to come at her home, thereafter the accused did not allow the deceased to come there. The deceased used to meet her secretly from the accused. The accused and the deceased had illicit relation as her daughter used to tell her but on account of shame she did not dare to tell to anyone about the same. Her daughter used to say that the accused would kill her at any time but she used to console her. The accused and the deceased had illicit relation as her daughter used to tell her but on account of shame she did not dare to tell to anyone about the same. Her daughter used to say that the accused would kill her at any time but she used to console her. On the day of occurrence in the morning Shabeena Kouser the daughter of the deceased told her son Mukhtiar over phone that the deceased had died. Thereafter they had gone to the house of the deceased. The deceased was wrapped in a blanket by the accused and the accused was saying about shifting of the deceased to hospital, as she was ill. The accused did not allow her to see the face of the deceased. The deceased was shifted to hospital and her son Mohd Tariq had also gone there with her. However, the doctor had declared her dead. Thereafter she was buried. After 10 days Shabeena Kouser telephoned that no any action has been taken relating to the death of her mother and she also told that the accused had caused an injury on the head of the deceased with a pipe and killed her. On the day of occurrence the accused had also put some poisonous substance in the mouth of the deceased so that it could be taken as suicide. The police had recorded her statement. During cross examination she stated that the occurrence had taken place on 03.01.2012. It is correct that her statement was recorded by the police after two months. Prior to that she had not told the police that Shabeena Kouser had told her over phone with respect to killing of her mother by the accused. The police had also come on spot prior to the burial of the deceased. On that very day she had not told the police that she was suspecting about the death of the deceased. On the day of occurrence the accused party had thrashed them and made them to flee about 2/3 KM away. The police was present there but they did not take any action against the accused. The police had taken her thumb impression on a blank paper and the police was saying that they would conduct the proceedings after having taken the deceased to Manjakote. The police was present there but they did not take any action against the accused. The police had taken her thumb impression on a blank paper and the police was saying that they would conduct the proceedings after having taken the deceased to Manjakote. The accused party had again beaten up them and they were made to flee from the spot and the deceased was buried. She further stated that the contents of the Panchyatnama EXT-DT are incorrect, however, she identifies her thumb impression on the same. When her statement was recorded on 05.03.2012 she had told about the excess of the police who had come on spot on the day of burial of the deceased. At this stage the statement recorded u/sec 161 Cr.P.C. dated05.03.2012 read over to the witness but it has not been made mention about the aforesaid statement. She further stated in her statement u/sec 161 Cr.P.C it has wrongly been mentioned that the accused and the deceased had illicit relations. On the day of occurrence Shabeena Kouser had telephoned Mukhtiar and told him that the deceased had been killed with a pipe, however, it has not been mentioned in her statement recorded u/sec 161 Cr.P.C. She had not gone to the hospital with the deceased as she had returned back as the deceased was shifted to the hospital in a vehicle and she was going on foot so she could not reach in the hospital. Tasleem Akhter is her daughter-in-law. It is wrong that her husband had maintained illicit relations with Tasleem Akhter. It is also wrong that in this connection a "Fatwa" was issued by the Molvi. It is also wrong that on account of said enmity a false case had been registered against the accused. It is also wrong that she is intentionally giving false statement against the accused. PW Ghulam Abas Shah stated that in the year 2012 he was posted at the police station Manjakote. On 24.02.2012 the accused had made a disclosure statement to the effect that he has kept hidden a piece of water pipe in his house. In this connection a disclosure memo was prepared. He proves the same which is exhibited as EXTP-7/1. During cross examination he stated that the name of the deceased was Shaheen Akhter. The accused was arrested on 20/22 Feb, and he had made disclosure statement after arrest. In this connection a disclosure memo was prepared. He proves the same which is exhibited as EXTP-7/1. During cross examination he stated that the name of the deceased was Shaheen Akhter. The accused was arrested on 20/22 Feb, and he had made disclosure statement after arrest. At the time of disclosure statement many civilians were present and the name of one of them is Zulifkar. He does not know as to what is Zulifkar to the deceased. He does not know the names of the other civilians. At the time of disclosure statement the accused had told that he had kept hidden an iron pipe in his residential room about which only he knows. The accused had also disclosed that length of the said pipe is 7 to 6 inch. The accused had made the disclosure statement at 10/11. At the time of the disclosure statement the accused was in the SHO's room. At the time of the disclosure statement he was also sitting in the room of the SHO. Note: The witness is not answering the question properly and his behavior is not able to give statement. PW Haroon Patwari stated that in the year 2011-12 he was posted as Patwari Halqa Saroola. The village Dheri Dhara falls in his Patwar Halqa. The copies of Aks Latha and Khasra Girdawari on record were issued by him at the request of the police. The aforesaid copies as per the original record brought by him are correct and bear his signatures, they are exhibited as EXTP-15/1 and EXTP-15/2. In the map the place of occurrence has been shown as per the Nishan dhei of the police. During cross examination no question put to the witness. PW Dr. Javed Sarver Shah stated that in the year 2011-12 he was posted at Manjakote Hospital. On 03.01.2012 at 7 AM he was going outside his quarter, in the meanwhile his NO Mohd Asaq told him that a patient had been brought there. In the meanwhile a Wagnor came from which a person asked him to check a woman in the said vehicle. Thereafter having gone into the said vehicle he felt the pulse of a woman and he came to know that she had already died. When he asked them that it was a police case and the police was required to be informed in this regard. Thereafter having gone into the said vehicle he felt the pulse of a woman and he came to know that she had already died. When he asked them that it was a police case and the police was required to be informed in this regard. Upon this those people fled away along with the said woman and the vehicle and they also said that they had nothing to do. During cross examination he stated that the police had enquired from him about 2/3 months later. PW Mohd Ishaq- stated that in the year 2011-12 he was posted as N.O. at PRC Manjakote. In those days he was discharging his night duty. In the morning at 7 AM one white vehicle came in the hospital and he had asked the Dr. Javed that a patient had been brought in the hospital. The doctor had checked the patient in the vehicle and the name of the said patient was Shaheen Akhter. After having checked the doctor had told that the patient had died. Dr. had asked the attendants of the patient to inform the police but they did nothing and took away the deceased to their home. During cross examination he stated that after having taken the said patient he had remained in the hospital. He pleaded ignorance as to whether the said vehicle was taken in the police station or not. PW Nazar Mohd stated that in the year 2011-12 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Manjakote. On 03.02.2013 he received a written order from the District Magistrate Rajouri whereby he was directed to accompany the police and the doctors to the graveyard Chirawala Kalan for exhuming the dead body of a girl. He further stated that he had gone there at 4/5 PM and the dead body was exhumed. The grave of the deceased was identified by her father and in this connection a paper was also prepared. He had signed the identification memo of the grave. He proves the said memo which is exhibited as EXTP 22/1. The dead body of the deceased was taken into custody by the police and in this connection Fard-e-MaqboozgiNaish was also prepared by the police. He also identifies his signature on the said memo which is exhibited as EXTP 22/2. After postmortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was taken into custody by the police and in this connection Fard-e-MaqboozgiNaish was also prepared by the police. He also identifies his signature on the said memo which is exhibited as EXTP 22/2. After postmortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the heirs of the deceased. He had also signed the receipt of the dead body. He identifies the same which is exhibited as EXTP-22/3. The photographs of the dead body were also taken by the police on spot. During cross examination he stated that he has not seen the order by virtue of which he had gone on spot in order to get exhumed the dead body of the said woman. PW Shabeena Akhter stated that the accused is known to her. The deceased was her sister. She further stated that the deceased was the daughter-in-law of the accused, who was married with Mohd Guftar son of the accused. The deceased has two sons and a daughter. She had come to her parental home a day prior to the occurrence. In the morning her brother Mohd Mukhtiar received a phone call to the effect that Shaheen Akhter has died. They all had gone on spot. The deceased was wrapped in a blanket and Guftar Ahmed was not present at home. The deceased was wrapped in the blanket by the accused and she was not allowed to see her face and he (accused) was saying for immediate shifting of the deceased to the doctor. When the deceased was shifted to the hospital the doctor on duty declared her dead. The accused had murdered the deceased because he used to say that she is a Badmash. The daughter of Guftar Ahmed namely Shabeena had told her that the accused had killed the deceased by hitting her head with an iron pipe. During cross examination she stated that the accused and the deceased were residing separately. The accused was residing with his wife and children. In her presence the accused had said that the deceased was Badmash, however, in this connection no any Biradari Panchayat had taken place. She did not enquire from the accused as to why he was leveling allegations against the deceased. She had gone to the hospital with the deceased. When the deceased died many Biradari people had assembled there. In her presence the accused had said that the deceased was Badmash, however, in this connection no any Biradari Panchayat had taken place. She did not enquire from the accused as to why he was leveling allegations against the deceased. She had gone to the hospital with the deceased. When the deceased died many Biradari people had assembled there. She pleaded ignorance whether any Panchayat was held with respect to the burial of the deceased or not. The deceased was buried on the day she had died and at that time many police personnel were present on spot. The dead body of the deceased was exhumed after 32 days and postmortem was also conducted after 32 days. From the time of giving bath to the deceased till her burial she was not permitted to see the dead body of the deceased. The daughter of the deceased namely Shabeena Kouser had told her on the day of occurrence that the accused had murdered the deceased with a pipe. Besides her 5/7 persons had also heard about the same from Shabeena Kouser. Prior to the burial of the deceased none had said that the deceased had died under suspicious circumstances. PW Mohd Shafi stated that the accused is known to him. He had gone to attend the funeral of the daughter-in-law of the accused and many other people had participated in the said funeral. He also proves the identification memo which has already been exhibited as EXTP-22/1. He also proves the seizure memo of dead body which has already been exhibited as EXTP-22/2. He also proves the receipt memo of the dead body which too has already been exhibited as EXTP-22/3. During cross examination he stated that he does not know the date of death of the deceased. After the death of the deceased on 03.02.2012 a Panchayat had also held in the village. He also proves the Panchayatnama i.e. EXT-DT. He had also signed the afore mentioned memos i.e. EXTP-22/1, EXTP-22/2 and EXTP-22/3 on the same day, however, he pleaded ignorance that besides him who had signed those memos. PW Rubina Kouser stated that Aman-Ullah is known to her. The deceased was her niece. Two sons and a daughter are born out of the' wedlock of the deceased and Guftar Ahmed. The accused did not allow the deceased to come at their home. PW Rubina Kouser stated that Aman-Ullah is known to her. The deceased was her niece. Two sons and a daughter are born out of the' wedlock of the deceased and Guftar Ahmed. The accused did not allow the deceased to come at their home. During day time they had seen the deceased alright, however, she does not know as to what had happened to her and later she had seen the deceased in a dead condition. After death she had gone to their house. During cross examination she stated that she was married at Poonch, however, she had gone on spot after the death of the deceased. At that time the people were saying nothing as to how the death had occurred. All the children of the deceased were present there and they were pleading ignorance as to how the death of the deceased had taken place. PW- Dr. Vijay Gupta deposed that on 03.02.2012 a Board of doctors was constituted in Distt. Hospital Rajouri comprising of himself and two other doctors namely Sh. Abdul Salam and Mohd Yasin. On that day at 3 PM they conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Shaheen Akhter W/o GuftarAhmed aged 30 year R/O Dehri Dhara, Tehsil and Distt. Rajouri on the authority of Sh. Gulam Ahmed Khawaja DM Rajouri. The dead body was identified by Mohd Irshad S/o Gulam Hussain aged 65 years and Mohd Shafi S/o Sher Mohal Khan aged 65 years (Chowkidar of village Mangal Nar). During postmortem, finding certain injuries on the deceased, they opined as under:- Opinion: Final opinion of the postmortem of exhumed body reserved till the report from FSL comes. This report was prepared by all members of Board including him. Same bears his seal and signatures along with other two board of doctors. The other members of board have remained him as colleagues so he identifies their signatures. The contents of report are correct and it is exhibited as EXTP-M. Thereafter the final opinion reserved by them was given on 31st of August 2012 which reads as under:- “In their opinion cause of death in this case is head injury leading to sub dural haematoma on right side of skull resulting in cardio respiratory arrest causing death". PW- Dr. PW- Dr. Mohd Yasin Khan deposed that on 03.02.2012 at 3 PM the dead body of deceased Shaheen Akhter W/o Guftar Ahmed aged 30 years R/o Dehri Dhara, was exhumed. Same was identified by Mohd Irshad S/o Gulam Hussain aged 55 years and Mohd Shafi S/o Sher Mohal Khan aged 65 years (Chokidar of village Mangal Nar). The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by him and other two doctors on the authority of Ghulam Ahmed Khawaja Distt. Magistrate Rajouri. In their opinion cause of death in this case is head injury leading to subdural haematoma on right side of skull resulting in cardio respiratory arrest causing death. This final opinion was also prepared and signed by all of them. Contents are correct and it bears the seal and signatures of all the board members. It is already exhibited as Ext.P-M/1. The reports, Ext.P-M and Ext.P-M/1 were prepared and signed by Dr. Abdul Salam, Dr. Vijay Gupta and himself. On 03.02.2012 the inquest report was prepared by police, it bears his seal and signatures. Contents of the same are correct it is exhibited as Ext-P-MY. SHO P/S Manjakote moved an application for examination of weapon of offence, an iron rod. He examined the same and issued the certificate which reads as under:- "Certified that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report of Shaheen Akhter W/o Ghuftar Ahmed R/o Dehri Dhara can be caused by this type of iron rod shown to him". PW SarvashverDev Singh I.O stated that in the year 2012 he was posted as SHO P/S Manjakote. He proves the site plan of Fard Maqboozgi Naish which is exhibited as EXTP-28/1. He also proves the site plan of the place of occurrence which is exhibited as EXTP-22/2. The proceedings were initiated after one month of the occurrence. The complainant Mohd Tariq had made complaint to Dy. S.P Headquarters Rajouri alleging therein that his sister has been murdered by Aman-Ullah. Upon which the proceedings u/sec 17 4 Cr.P.C were commenced. As per the order of the District Magistrate Rajouri the grave of the deceased Shaheen Akhter was identified by the witnesses in presence of the Naib Tehsildar. He also proves the identification memo which has already been exhibited as EXTP-22/1. Upon which the proceedings u/sec 17 4 Cr.P.C were commenced. As per the order of the District Magistrate Rajouri the grave of the deceased Shaheen Akhter was identified by the witnesses in presence of the Naib Tehsildar. He also proves the identification memo which has already been exhibited as EXTP-22/1. Having exhumed the dead body of the deceased was taken into custody by the police and in this connection Fard Maqboozgi Naish was also prepared which has already been exhibited as EXTP-22/2. The postmortem of the dead body was also got conducted in presence of the Magistrate and after postmortem the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her heirs against proper receipt i.e. EXTP-22/3. He also proves the same. On 14.02.2012 the statement of Mohd Tariq S/o Mohd Irshad was recorded u/sec 175 Cr.P.C. In the light of his statement he came to the conclusion that the accused was involved in the murder. Thereafter he had written a docket for registration of the case to the police station Manjakote. He also proves the said docket which is exhibited as EXTP-28/3. In the light of said docket on 14.02.2012 Incharge P/S had registered a case FIR No.10/2012 u/sec 302 RPC. He also proves the copy of the said FIR which is exhibited as EXTP-22/4. The accused was arrested. On 24.02.2012 the accused made a disclosure statement that a piece of iron pipe whose length is one foot six inch i.e. weapon of offence has been kept hidden by him in his residential room. He also proves the disclosure memo which has already been exhibited as EXTP-7/1. Thereafter in pursuance of the Nishandhei of the accused the aforesaid weapon of offence measuring 1 feet 6 ½ inches was recovered from the house of the accused. In this connection a seizure and recovery memo was also prepared. He also proves the same which is exhibited as EXTP-28/5. He also proves the site plan of the place of recovery of weapon of offence which is exhibited as EXTP-28/6. He had also prepared a sketch of the pipe. He proves the same which is exhibited as EXTP-28/7. He also got conducted photography of the grave, dead body etc. He also identifies those photographs. He further states that he also got conducted Nishan dhei and in this connection he had also received Aks Latha and copy of the Khasra Girdawari. He had also prepared a sketch of the pipe. He proves the same which is exhibited as EXTP-28/7. He also got conducted photography of the grave, dead body etc. He also identifies those photographs. He further states that he also got conducted Nishan dhei and in this connection he had also received Aks Latha and copy of the Khasra Girdawari. He also proves the Fard Surathal i.e. EXTP-MY. He had also written a docket to the doctor for inspection of the weapon of offence. He also proves the same which is exhibited as EXTP-28/8. The viscera of the deceased had also deposited with the Director FSL Jammu for examination against a receipt. He also proves the seizure memo with respect to the memos relating to the deceased, which is exhibited as EXTP-1/1. He also got recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Shabeena Kouser and Mohd Tariq in the court u/sec 164-A Cr.P.C. He had also recorded the statements of some prosecution witnesses u/sec 161 Cr.P.C. After his investigation the offence u/sec 302 RPC was proved against the accused. He had also prepared the charge sheet over which he identifies his signature which is exhibited as EXTP-28/9. During cross examination he stated that the proceedings u/sec 174 Cr.P.C were initiated on 02.02.2012, whereas the case was registered on 14.02.2012. On 02.02.2012 Tariq Hussain had made a complaint which was sent to him, however, the said application is not in existence. The death of the deceased as per Rappat No. 17 dated 03.01.2012 of police station Manjakote presented by the defence counsel was recorded by ASI Mohd Sharief, who was posted at police station Manjakote. On presentation of the copy of the Rappat No.17 dated 03.01.2012 the original Roznamcha of the police station Manjakote at the request of the defence counsel called for from the said police station. The copy of the Rappat No. 17 Roznamcha dated 03.01.2012 is correct as per the original Roznamcha which is exhibited as EXPD-1/28. He further stated that during the course of investigation it came to fore that the persons who were present had written a wrong Panchayatnama, however, none of the witnesses had stated in their statements recorded u/sec 161 Cr.P.C or 164-A Cr.P.C. that the Panchayatnama was wrong or the same was prepared on account of threat or fear. He further stated that during the course of investigation it came to fore that the persons who were present had written a wrong Panchayatnama, however, none of the witnesses had stated in their statements recorded u/sec 161 Cr.P.C or 164-A Cr.P.C. that the Panchayatnama was wrong or the same was prepared on account of threat or fear. He further stated that Shabeena Kouser the daughter of the deceased is an eye witness of the occurrence and her statement u/sec 164-A Cr.P.C was got recorded on 02.03.2012. The FIR in the instant case was registered on 14.02.2012 and prior to that the proceedings u/sec 174 Cr.P.C were initiated and during the proceedings u/sec 174 Cr.P.C the statement of Shabeena Kouser was not recorded. He further stated that he had not given any reason for the delay caused in recording the statement of Shabeena Kouser, however, he was busy in the investigation of the case so he could not record the statement of this witness. He further stated that in a murder case it is necessary to record the statement of the eye witness without any delay. The statement of the prosecution witness Mohd Tariq u/sec 164-A Cr.P.C was also recorded on 06.03.2012 and the reason for the delay in recording his statement is the same, however, the mourn of the deceased was also going on in those days. PW Mohd Tariq has deposed in his statement u/sec 164-A Cr.P.C that her sister had not suffered any external injury, so he had thought it better to remain silent. On a suggestive question he stated that it is wrong that the deceased had died due to natural death and later on the instigation of some people the accused had been involved in the instant case. 8. This is the entire prosecution evidence on record. After closure of the prosecution evidence the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence put to the accused and his statement u/sec 342 Cr.P.C. recorded. During the course of his statement while pleading innocence the accused has stated that the allegation is false and the prosecution witnesses on account of enmity have given false statements against him. However, he preferred not to lead any defence evidence. 9. During the course of his statement while pleading innocence the accused has stated that the allegation is false and the prosecution witnesses on account of enmity have given false statements against him. However, he preferred not to lead any defence evidence. 9. Learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record has observed that PW Shabeena Kouser has deposed that the accused had hit on the neck of the deceased with a pipe as a result of which her neck was broken. But as per medical evidence the deceased had sustained head injuries only. Thus, this material contradiction between the direct evidence and the medical evidence in the given circumstances casts a serious doubt about the presence of PW Shabeena Kouser on spot at the relevant time. Court below came to conclusion that PW Shabeena Kouser has been introduced as an eye witness of the occurrence by the I.O. 10. This finding after going the evidence, we do not find any perversity. Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW Shabeena Kouser her two younger brothers were also present on spot at the relevant time but they have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons unknown. The failure to examine them is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, as they were also the most material witnesses of the occurrence. Prosecution is required to produce all material witnesses, who were on spot at the time of occurrence. 11. Trial Court has observed that motive of accused to commit murder of deceased was that on the day of occurrence the accused had seen PW Walak Hussain while coming out of the house of the deceased in absence of her husband as a result of which he suspected the infidelity of the deceased; but the prosecution has failed to prove the same as PW Walak Hussain has clearly deposed that on the relevant day he had not gone to the house of the deceased. Even eye witness PW Shabeena Kouser has not deposed anywhere in her deposition that on the relevant day the afore named Walak Hussain had come to the house of the deceased. This finding is also not perverse in nature. 12. With regard to disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence ‘Iron-pipe’ trial Court has observed that the disclosure and recovery memos have not been supported by any civilian. This finding is also not perverse in nature. 12. With regard to disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence ‘Iron-pipe’ trial Court has observed that the disclosure and recovery memos have not been supported by any civilian. Further Court below has held that even the medical witnesses PWs Dr. Vijay Gupta and Dr. Mohd Yasin Khan were not sure as to whether the deceased had died due to head injuries or otherwise, as they had given their opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased only after getting FSL report. 13. Pointing out above contradictions, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution story is an invented story and the so called eye witness PW Shabeena Kouser is a planted witness as after the death of her mother-Shaheen Akhter she is putting up with her maternal grandfather i.e. PW Mohd Irshad, who had enmity with the accused over "Fatwa being given by the accused. A moral conviction, however, strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. The well established rule of criminal justice is that fouler the crime higher the proof. Accused was acquitted was the charge levelled against him. 14. Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned Govt. Advocate, has not been able to pin-point any infirmity, which would call for the indulgence of this Court. We are also of the view that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity apparent on record, which would warrant indulgence of this Court. 15. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is settled law that the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is limited. 16. The Trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the Trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See: Ram Swaroop and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134; Vijay Kumar Vs. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 ; and Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 ) 17. (See: Ram Swaroop and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134; Vijay Kumar Vs. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 ; and Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 ) 17. Law is clear that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Burden to prove prosecution version is wholly upon the prosecution. The evidence produced by prosecution should be legally admissible. If there comes the slightest doubts regarding the involvement of accused then Court should not go on convicting the accused. In arriving at conclusion about guilt of accused charged with heinous crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by yardsticks of probabilities. Every case has its own facts. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. The burden of proof never shifts, it is always on prosecution. 18. After rescanning the entire case of the prosecution, we do not find any reason, much less compelling and substantial reason, which would warrant indulgence of this Court for the purpose of disturbing the well reasoned judgment already recorded by the learned trial Court, which is based on appreciation of entire evidence on record. 19. Since we do not find merits in the appeal, the same is dismissed.