JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The present jail appeal was admitted by this Court on 10.11.2010 and Mr. Gajendra Chhangani was appointed as an Amicus Curiae. However, vide Order dated 25.01.2019, Mr. Ashok Kumar was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the accused-appellant as Mr. Gajendra Chhangani was not available to argue the case. 2. The aforesaid criminal jail appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara Camp at Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 16/2008 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence U/s 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' additional S.I. U/s 201 IPC 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 month additional S.I. U/s 354 IPC 1 year R.I. U/s 506 IPC 2 years R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 3. The prosecution case emanates from a complaint (Ex. P/1) lodged by one Madan Lal (P.W. 1) before the S.H.O. Police Station Karoi, District Bhilwara on 16.08.2007 stating therein that on 15.08.2007, his mother, namely, Sunder Bai went towards forest area to graze the cattle in the morning but did not return back home in the evening, however, the cattle came back from the forest area. On a search being made, they could not find the whereabouts of his mother. Today in the morning at around 8 O'clock, a villager Sohan informed that grit was lying scattered in the stockyard (Baada) of Ramchandra Sharma and it appeared that something was lying underneath it. On getting this information, he and his father went to the stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma and on removing the grit, they found the dead body of their mother Sunder Devi buried underneath. She was killed by some unknown person and after having murdered, the dead body was hidden underneath the grit and grass was scattered over it. The information regarding death of his mother was given by Shyam Lal to Balwant Singh on telephone, who reported the matter at the Police Station. 4. She was killed by some unknown person and after having murdered, the dead body was hidden underneath the grit and grass was scattered over it. The information regarding death of his mother was given by Shyam Lal to Balwant Singh on telephone, who reported the matter at the Police Station. 4. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No. 57/2007 was registered at Police Station Karoi, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. against unknown assailant. During the course of investigation, the police added Sections 354 & 506 of I.P.C. in the matter and arrested the accused-appellant on 22.03.2008. 5. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Secs. 302, 354, 506 & 201 of IPC. 6. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 354, 506 & 201 of I.P.C. to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/13 documents were got exhibited. 8. The accused-appellant was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, the accused-appellant did not produce any oral evidence but got exhibited Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/3 documents in his defence. 9. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 21.08.2010. Hence this appeal. 10. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellant has vehemently submitted that present was a case purely of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence so as to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. He further submits that as far as the testimony of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu is concerned, the same is liable to be discarded as being absolutely unnatural, inasmuch as, if they had actually seen the incident, then in the natural course of events, they would have disclosed the name of the assailant to the near relatives immediately. Had they divulged this information as was expected in the natural course of events, the name of the assailant would have been mentioned in the first information report lodged by P.W. 1 - Madan Lal. 12. He further submits that delay in disclosing the name of the accused-appellant totally discredits the version of these prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu who were absolutely unreliable and their testimony is required to be discarded in toto. 13. He further submits that the reason portrayed by these witnesses for not disclosing the name of the accused-appellant that they had been threatened by the accused with dire consequences is totally flimsy because the threat perception was virtually non-existent as the accused-appellant was not present in the vicinity and P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu were in a safe atmosphere with their respective families. 14. He further submits that non-disclosure of the name of the accused-appellant for a period of seven days by the so-called eyewitnesses P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu makes their conduct totally unnatural and their testimony unworthy of credence. 15. Learned Amicus Curiae further vehemently submits that the site plan (Ex. P/9) indicates the place of incident as the agricultural field of Moola and the date inscribed therein is 22.08.2007, whereas, the dead body of the deceased Sunder Bai was recovered from the stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma as per the site plan Ex. P/2. P.W. 15 - Brajmohan, the Investigation Officer, admitted in his testimony that it would take about 10 minutes to travel the distance between the agricultural field of Moola mentioned in Ex. P/9 to the place from where the dead body of the deceased Sunder Bai was recovered i.e. stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma (Ex. P/2). Therefore, he submits that there is no explanation on the record so as to show as to how the dead body of the deceased got shifted from the agricultural field of Moola to the stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma and that it is totally unnatural and against human conduct that having committed the murder of lady in the agricultural field, the assailant would, take trouble and bring the same in the populated area where, the chance of discovery would be imminent. 16. He further submits that Ex. 16. He further submits that Ex. P/9 was prepared on 22.08.2007 which creates doubt in the prosecution story as the same was prepared probably after the statements of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu were recorded by the police. 17. On the strength of these arguments, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecution could not prove that present appellant was guilty of the offences alleged in the present case beyond all manner of doubt and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the alleged offences as above vide Judgment dated 21.08.2010 and the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 18. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted on basis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses examined before learned trial court that the charges against the accused-appellant were proved beyond all manner of doubt and the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant by cogent, convincing and clinching evidence viz. the testimony of the witnesses of incriminating circumstances corroborated from the medical evidence and the postmortem report (Ex. P/10) wherein the cause of death of the deceased was shown as asphyxia due to throttling. He further submits that the eye-witnesses accent as deposed by P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu portrays complete picture of the incident and merely because they could not name the accused-appellant for seven days to the police cannot be a reason to discard their testimony as the ladies hailing from rural background were afraid of the threat given by the accused-appellant. On the strength of these submissions, he prays that learned trial court after analyzing the entire evidence on record justly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide Judgment dated 21.08.2010 and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in the present case. 19. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as judgment dated 21.08.2010 impugned herein. 20. The pith and substance of the prosecution case revolves around the testimony of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu. 19. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as judgment dated 21.08.2010 impugned herein. 20. The pith and substance of the prosecution case revolves around the testimony of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu. P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni, in her testimony before the learned trial court deposed that when she went to the agricultural field, her mother-in-law Sunder Bai accompanied her. The present accused-appellant - Raju who was her brother-in-law, was staying with the deceased Sunder Bai. While she was carrying out agricultural activities in their field, the accused-appellant - Raju came and caught hold of her hand. When she screamed, her sister-in-law Smt. Deu (P.W. 8) who was also working in the field nearby rushed to her aid. Immediately thereafter, their mother-in-law Sunder Bai also came there and reprimanded the accused Raju who got annoyed and strangulated Sunder Bai after throwing her down on the ground. Even while the accused-appellant was assaulting Sunder Bai, the witness left for her home. Raju threatened her that if she divulged about incident to anybody, she would also be murdered. Her mother-in-law died on the spot but she did not have the courage to disclose about incident to anybody. When her mother-in-law did not return home in the evening, a search was made and she also accompanied other family members in making search of Sunder Bai. Ultimately, her dead body was found in the stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma. Raju came to the house on the date of incident but went missing from the next day. In the cross-examination of this witness, she stated that she explained everything to the police during the course of investigation. She admitted that she did not disclose the name of the accused appellant to her husband or father-in-law. P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu narrated the incident almost on the same lines as deposed by P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni. She stated that accused Raju threatened her of dire consequences, if she spoke out about the incident to anybody. P.W. 1 - Madan Lal who was son of the deceased, lodged the complaint and affixed his signatures on the memos prepared by the police during the course of the investigation. P.W. 12 - Dr. She stated that accused Raju threatened her of dire consequences, if she spoke out about the incident to anybody. P.W. 1 - Madan Lal who was son of the deceased, lodged the complaint and affixed his signatures on the memos prepared by the police during the course of the investigation. P.W. 12 - Dr. Sandhya Nalwana who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased stated that there were marks on both sides of the neck and there was swelling on the muscles of the neck. Blood was oozing out from the ear and nose of the deceased and in her opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. P.W. 15 - Brajmohan was the investigation Officer who initiated investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared site plan, recorded statements of the witnesses, effected recoveries, collected samples and after concluding investigation as prescribed in law, he submitted his report before the court of competent jurisdiction. He further stated that after registration of the F.I.R., he regularly visited the village Makdiya where the family of the deceased was residing. He further stated that he did not record the statement of Ramchandra Sharma who was owner of the stockyard from where the dead body of the deceased Sunder Bai was recovered. He further stated that the statements of Smt. Ratni (P.W. 7) and Smt. Deu (P.W. 8) were not recorded immediately as the family was grief stricken. He further stated that the distance between the agricultural field of Moola, where the incident took place and the stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma, from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered, took about 10 minutes to cover. 21. The postmortem report is Ex. P/10 wherein the cause of death of the deceased is mentioned as asphyxia due to throttling. Ex. P/2 is the site inspection memo showing the place of recovery of the dead body of the deceased Sunder Bai i.e. stockyard of Ramchandra Sharma. Ex. P/9 is the site plan showing the place of incident i.e. agricultural field of Moola. 22. Admittedly, the statements of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu were recorded by the police after seven days of the incident wherein for the first time, the name of the accused appellant and the manner in which the incident happened was divulged. 22. Admittedly, the statements of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu were recorded by the police after seven days of the incident wherein for the first time, the name of the accused appellant and the manner in which the incident happened was divulged. P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu being the close relatives of the deceased i.e. daughter-in-laws, it is absolutely an unnatural conduct of both these witnesses that they did not narrate the incident to their husband or father-in-law immediately despite the fact that everybody in the family was looking out and searching for Sunder Bai who did not return to home after grazing the herd. Not only this, they also participated in the search of missing Sunder Bai. The fact that these two witnesses, despite allegedly having seen Smt. Sunder Bai being murdered in the agricultural field, claimed to have voluntarily participated in her search without disclosing to anyone that they had seen the missing lady being murdered, gives rise to an inference that the ladies were pushing their own family members into a wild goose chase. The explanation offered by P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu that they were threatened by the accused-appellant that if they disclosed this incident to anybody, they would also be murdered is not really convincing in the wake of the fact that the accused-appellant also went missing from the next day of the incident. Therefore, the theory of fear in such circumstances is ruled out. Moreover, P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu were staying separately, therefore, it is hard to believe that there was any kind of threat which prevented both these witnesses from disclosing the incident and the name of the accused-appellant. 23. It is also noted that as per statement of P.W. 15 - Brajmohan, the Investigation Officer, he was regularly visiting their village in connection with the investigation of the incident and since the family of the deceased was in shock and grief stricken, he did not record the statements of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu immediately and ultimately, the same were recorded after seven days. The conduct of the so-called eyewitnesses is not natural as the reason for not disclosing the name of the appellant is absolutely unconvincing and intangible as they were staying with their respective families and the accused appellant was missing from the house from the next day of the incident and therefore, there was no cause for the ladies to carry the alleged threat perception. There is no other convincing evidence which can corroborate the unconvincing and apparently cooked up version of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu. Therefore, in our view, the delay in disclosing the name of the accused-appellant by P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu is fatal to the prosecution. Thus, it will not be safe to convict the accused-appellant on the basis of testimony of both these witnesses, which is totally unworthy of credence and deserves to be discarded in toto. 24. We further note that Ex. P/9 was prepared on 22.08.2007 which shows that the same was prepared after the statements of P.W. 7 - Smt. Ratni and P.W. 8 - Smt. Deu were recorded, which further shows that the prosecution prepared the memo of site plan (Ex. P/9) just to create evidence and to somehow involve the accused-appellant in the case. 25. We are gainfully supported by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal & ors. reported in 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1131, wherein in para 17 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "17. However, Ganesh Bhavan Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371 , is an authority for the proposition that delay in recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although those witnesses were or could be available for examination when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt upon the prosecution case. [See also Balakrushna Swain vs. State of Orissa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 ; Maruti Rama Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 10 SCC 670 and Jagjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 3 SCC 68]. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the observations of the High Court on the point of delay and its corresponding impact on the prosecution case." 26. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the observations of the High Court on the point of delay and its corresponding impact on the prosecution case." 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and others reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 2032 has held in Para 4 of the judgment as under:- "4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that PW 7 and PW 4 who claimed to be eyewitnesses cannot be believed for various reasons. It was submitted that the incident happened on 13.11.1985 but these two witnesses were questioned by the Investigation Officer only on 15.11.1985. No proper explanation was given by the Investigation Officer. There is evidence to show that the Investigation Officer had visited the house of the deceased on the very next day. It seems that there was an attempt by the prosecution to show that PW 7 the widow of the deceased was unconscious during this period and therefore, she could not be questioned by the Police. But they could have questioned PW 4, the son of the deceased at least on the very next day. The delay in questioning these witnesses by the Investigation Officer is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution. We do not think that the High Court erred in disbelieving these witnesses." Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, the judgment dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 27. Resultantly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara Camp Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 16/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant - Raju is acquitted of the charges for the offences u/Secs. 302, 354, 506 & 201 of IPC. The accused-appellant is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.