JUDGMENT : Rajendra Kumar-IV, J. 1. Present Jail Appeal has arisen from the judgment and order dated 8.9.2008 passed by Virendra Vikram Singh, Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 97 of 2007, State v. Dhruv Singh, (Case Crime No. 214 of 2007), under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Girar, District Lalitpur, whereby trial court has convicted accused Dhruv Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Factual matrix of the case as emerging from first information report (hereinafter referred to as "F.I.R.") as well as material placed on record is as follows. 3. A written report Ex. Ka-1 dated 18.8.2007 was presented in Police Station Girar, District Lalitpur by Informant P.W. 1 Kamal Singh, alleging that his sister Rajeshwari @ Sallo aged about 31 years was married to accused Dhruv Singh twelve years prior to occurrence who has two daughters and one son. 4. It is further recited in Ex. Ka-1 that on 17.8.2007, in the evening, informant, P.W. 1, had gone to Mazra Hari Nagar (her sister-in-laws) to take her back to parental house. At about 10:00 p.m. in the night, he himself, his sister (deceased), his brother-in-law Dhruv Singh (accused), her father-in-law Halkai, mother-in-law Vimla and children had slept in the house after taking dinner. At about 4:30 a.m., in the morning, on hearing scream of children, informant, P.W. 1, himself, Halkai P.W. 2 and Smt. Vimla Devi (not examined), went to the room of Rajeshwari and saw Golu, Kavita shouting and his brother-in-law standing there with blood-stained axe in his hand, Rajeshwari was lying dead in the room with a deep wound of axe on left side of her neck and blood was spreading in the room. He asked Dhruv as to why he killed Rajeshwari then he told that Rajeshwari has become malignant therefore, he has committed her murder. P.W. 1 and Halkai Singh P.W. 2 tried to apprehend Dhruv Singh who fled from the spot with axe. 5. On receipt of written report Ex. Ka-1, Chik Report Ex. Ka-8 was prepared by Constable Jagiram Mishra P.W. 8, who registered the case under Section 302, I.P.C. as Case Crime No. 214 of 2007. P.W. 1 and Halkai Singh P.W. 2 tried to apprehend Dhruv Singh who fled from the spot with axe. 5. On receipt of written report Ex. Ka-1, Chik Report Ex. Ka-8 was prepared by Constable Jagiram Mishra P.W. 8, who registered the case under Section 302, I.P.C. as Case Crime No. 214 of 2007. An entry of case was made in General Diary on 18.8.2007 at 7:30 a.m., a copy thereof is Ex. Ka-9 on record. 6. Immediately after registration of case, investigation was undertaken by P.W. 9 Sri Anil Kumar Agarwal, the then Station Officer at Police Station Girar, who took copies of written report and Chik F.I.R., recorded statements of informant, Kamal Singh, P.W. 1, Halkai Singh P.W. 2, Jagiram Mishra P.W. 8, visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-12. He collected blood-stained and simple earth from the spot, kept in sealed box, prepared fard memo Ex. Ka-4, held inquest over the dead body of Rajeshwari, prepared panchayatnama (inquest report) Ex. Ka-3 and other relevant papers relating thereto. Body was duly sealed and sent to District Hospital for post-mortem examination. 7. Thereafter on 19.8.2007 P.W. 9 apprehended accused on Gidwaha Maraura Road, recorded his statement and on the disclosure statement of accused, he recovered blood-stained axe material Ex. Ka-14, from the bushes near Shiv Temple situated in Majra Hari Nagar, District Lalitpur. Investigating Officer duly sealed the axe recovered from accused, prepared ford of recovery Ex. Ka-6 and site plan Ex. Ka-19. 8. P.W. 5, Dr. Amit Chaturvedi, conducted autopsy of deceased Rajeshwari and prepared post-mortem report (Ex. Ka-2) under his signature noting ante-mortem injury found on her body. 9. P.W. 9 further recorded the statement of inquest witnesses and that of Doctor P.W. 5 conducting postmortem and after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka-20 against the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. before C.J.M. concerned. 10. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Judge, Lalitpur for trial. 11. 9. P.W. 9 further recorded the statement of inquest witnesses and that of Doctor P.W. 5 conducting postmortem and after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka-20 against the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. before C.J.M. concerned. 10. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Judge, Lalitpur for trial. 11. Trial court framed charges against accused-appellant on 18.12.2007 under Section 302, I.P.C. which reads thus: ^^eSa] ohjsUnz foØe flag] l= U;k;k/kh'k] yfyriqj vki vfHk;qDr /kzqo flag iq= gYdkbZ flag fuoklh etjk gjh uxj] xzke cEgkSjh [kqnZ] Fkkuk fxjkj] ftyk yfyriqj] ij fuEu vkjksi yxkrk gwWa %& 1- ;g fd fnukad 18-8-07 dks le; djhc 4-30 cts lqcg vkius vius edku fLFkr etjk gjh uxj] xzke cEgkSjh Fkkuk fxjkj ftyk yfyriqj es viuh iRuh jkts'ojh mQZ lYyks dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls dqYgkM+h ls ekjihV dj mldh e`R;q dkfjr dhA bl izdkj vkius ,d vijk/k fd;k gS tks Hkk0 n0 la0 dh /kkjk 302 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izklaKku esa gSA vr,o ,rn~ }kjk vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkjksi ds fy, vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk,xkA^^ I, Virendra Vikram Singh, Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, do hereby charge you, the accused Dhruv, S/o. Halkai Singh r/o Mazra Hari Nagar, Village Bramhori Khurd, P.S. Girar, District Lalitpur with the following charges: That on 18.8.07 at around 4.30 a.m. you, with the intention to kill your wife Rajeshwari alias Sallo, gave axe blow to her at your house located at Mazara Hari Nagar, Village Bamhori, P.S. Girar, Distt Lalitpur, thereby causing her death. Thus, you committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., which is in the cognizance of this Court. Hence, it is hereby directed that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid charge. The aforesaid charge was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. (English Translation by Court) 12. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1-Kamal Singh, P.W. 2-Halkai Singh are witnesses of fact and P.W. 3-Hari Prasad, P.W. 4-Lakshman Singh, witnesses of inquest, P.W. 5-Dr. Amit Chaturvedi, P.W. 6-Bahadur Singh, witness of recovery, P.W. 7-Constable Mewa Lal, P.W. 8-Constable Jagiram and P.W. 9-Anil Kumar Agarwal are formal witnesses and other documentary evidence. 14. Amit Chaturvedi, P.W. 6-Bahadur Singh, witness of recovery, P.W. 7-Constable Mewa Lal, P.W. 8-Constable Jagiram and P.W. 9-Anil Kumar Agarwal are formal witnesses and other documentary evidence. 14. On closure of prosecution evidence statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded by court explaining all incriminating and other evidence and circumstances. Accused denied prosecution story in toto and all formalities of investigation were said to be wrong. He claimed false implication. He did not choose to adduce any defence evidence and offered no proper explanation as to how his wife was murdered. 15. After hearing the counsel for the parties and analysing entire evidence led by prosecution on record, learned trial court has found appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved with impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been filed by accused-appellant from Jail. 16. We have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate [Amicus Curiae) for appellant and Sri Syed Ali Murtuza, learned A.G.A. for State-respondents at length and have gone through the record available on file carefully. 17. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for appellant has challenged conviction of accused-appellant, advancing his submissions, in the following manners: (i) This is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no motive to accused to commit murder of his wife Rajeshwari. (ii) There is no complete chain of evidence so as to indicate that accused is the only person who has committed crime. (iii) There are several contradictions rendering prosecution case doubtful. (iv) F.I.R. has been lodged by P.W. 1 (brother of victim) close relative of victim after three hours in the police station situated at 5 Km. from the spot, without explaining sufficient reason for delay in lodging F.I.R. (v) The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed submissions and urged that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are witnesses of fact, P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution and established that deceased and accused were present in the room on the fateful night. Therefore, he is the only person who can be preparator of crime as per his choice and explain the circumstances under which death of Rajeshwari might had occurred. It has also come in evidence that he was seen by P.W. 1 in the house where dead body was found. Therefore, he is the only person who can be preparator of crime as per his choice and explain the circumstances under which death of Rajeshwari might had occurred. It has also come in evidence that he was seen by P.W. 1 in the house where dead body was found. Prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to connect accused with present crime. 19. We now proceed to consider rival submissions on merits. 20. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the actual killing. Prosecution totally rests on circumstantial evidences. P.W. 1 is brother of deceased. P.W. 2 is father-in-law of deceased and father of accused who turned hostile in evidence but deposed in his cross-examination that on the fateful night, Rajeshwari and accused Dhruv alongwith his son Golu were sleeping in one room while he (himself) alongwith his wife Smt. Vimla and grand-daughter Kiran was sleeping in other room. In this way P.W. 2 has established presence of accused in the room where Rajeshwari was assassinated on fateful night. P.W. 2 being father of accused did not deny presence of P.W. 1 in the house on fateful night. P.W. 1 has deposed that in the morning at 4 O'clock before sun rise, he heard scream of children whereupon he alongwith Halkai and Vimla went to the room of Rajeshwari and saw dead body of Rajeshwari lying and accused was standing there with blood-stained axe in his hand. When inquired, Dhruv Singh answered that she (deceased) had been characterless and ran away with axe. P.W. 1 has been cross-examined by defence at length but nothing material could be brought on record which could dent prosecution story. 21. P.W. 3 Hari Prasad, P.W. 4 Laxman Singh turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. However, it is admitted by P.W. 3 that he came to know at about 6:30, in the morning about assassination of Rajeshwari. P.W. 2 Halkai is father of accused and only to save his son he turned hostile but admitted his presence in the house and in the room where Rajeshwari was killed. 22. P.W. 5, Dr. Amit Chaturvedi conducting post-mortem over dead body of Rajeshwari deposed that on 19.8.2007 he was posted in District Hospital, Lalitpur and conducted autopsy over the dead body which was brought by Constable Mewa Lal and H.G. Partipal Singh in a sealed cover. 22. P.W. 5, Dr. Amit Chaturvedi conducting post-mortem over dead body of Rajeshwari deposed that on 19.8.2007 he was posted in District Hospital, Lalitpur and conducted autopsy over the dead body which was brought by Constable Mewa Lal and H.G. Partipal Singh in a sealed cover. He found ante-mortem injury on her body and noted it in post-mortem report Ex. Ka-2. Ante-mortem injuries reads as under: "Incised wound 9 cm. x 4 cm. cavity deep present over left side of neck, vertebra, trachea, cut open, 4 cm. below from left ear and 6 cm. above from clavicle, major vessels cutted." Doctor further opined that injury was caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon and death might have occurred at about 4 a.m. in intervening night 17/18.8.2007 due to coma and hamarrage as a result of ante-mortem cut injury. 23. P.W. 6 is the witness of inquest, stated that Rajeshwari was assassinated. Inquest of dead body was held before him who signed inquest report Ex. Ka-3. Blood-stained and simple earth were taken by police before him. 24. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 adduced by prosecution following circumstances are clearly established: A. Rajeshwari and accused-appellant Dhruv Singh were present in the room where dead body of Rajeshwari was found lying in the fateful night as established by P.W. 2 father of accused and P.W. 1-Informant. B. P.W. 1 was present in the fateful night in the house of accused as also established by P.W. 2. C. Rajeshwari was assassinated in the fateful night in the room where accused was present. D. P.W. 1 heard scream of children at about 4:00 a.m. before sun rise, when reached there, saw accused standing with bloodstained axe, when questioned accused Dhruv replied that she became characterless and ran away with blood-stained axe. E. Post-mortem report reveals that death of Rajeshwari might have occurred at 4:00 a.m. i.e., at about 36 hours prior to postmortem on account of ante-mortem injury caused by sharp cutting weapon like axe. F. Accused had suspicion that Rajeshwari became characterless therefore, he had a strong motive to commit her murder. 25. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of occurrence and case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. F. Accused had suspicion that Rajeshwari became characterless therefore, he had a strong motive to commit her murder. 25. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of occurrence and case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and he should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 26. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 , a basic judgment of the Supreme Court on appreciation of evidence, when the case depends only on circumstantial evidence, which has been consistently relied in later judgments as long back as in 1952 Hon'ble Court said: "... circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved...... it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 27. In Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063 , court said, where a case rests clearly on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person. 28. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , court while dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence, held, that onus is on prosecution to prove that chain is complete. Infirmity or lacuna, in prosecution, cannot be cured by false defence or plea. Conditions precedent before conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. Court described following condition precedent: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. Infirmity or lacuna, in prosecution, cannot be cured by false defence or plea. Conditions precedent before conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. Court described following condition precedent: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Emphasis added) 29. In Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890 , court said: "...when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must he cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively; should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and, (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." (Emphasis added) 30. In C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 (10) SCC 193 , court said: "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." (Emphasis added) 31. In Bodh Raj @ Bodha and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2002 (8) SCC 45 , court quoted from Sir Alfred Wills, "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) and in para 15 of judgment said: "(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted." (Emphasis added) 32. The above principle in respect of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated in subsequent authorities also in Shivu and another v. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka and another, 2007 (4) SCC 713 : 2007 (2) ACR 1387 (SC) and Tomaso Bruno v. State of U. P., 2015 (7) SCC 178 : 2015 (2) ACR 1747 (SC). 33. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 27 : 2003 (3) ACR 2961 (SC), court observed that law does not enjoins the duty on prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading. 34. Considering the entire evidence in the light of above facts and exposition of law, we find that here is a case where murder of Rajeshwari took place in the night inside the house of accused where he is present in the circumstances where he has all opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of his choice. In these circumstances principle laid down in Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him, would evidently be attracted. 35. Accused was present in the house with victim in the fateful night as proved by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 his father himself. He was seen standing there by P.W. 1. Later on when questioned he ran away from spot with blood-stained axe. Dead body of Rajeshwari was found by Investigating Officer in the house, who prepared inquest report. Hence it was only accused who could explain circumstances in which Rajeshwari was killed. Burden of proof under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lies upon accused who has failed to discharge. 36. It is also noteable that accused, when questioned by P.W. 1, stated that Rajeshwari became characterless so he had murdered her. This fact like extra-judicial confession before P.W. 1 is also proved by him. The accused by virtue of his special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the court to draw a different inference. 37. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 11.10.2006. Apex Court has held that where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. 38. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 , it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. 39. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. 39. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 40. Another argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that witnesses of fact, P.W. 1 is real brother of the deceased, so his testimony cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy. 41. Admittedly, P.W. 1, happens to be witness and present on spot, is real brother of the deceased. P.W. 1, who had gone to take his sister, established the presence of accused in the fateful night in the house where Rajeshwari was killed and her body was found in the house of accused, therefore, his presence on the scream of children is quite natural and he is natural witness as he is real brother of Rajeshwari. Mere relationship with deceased is of no consequence and otherwise reliable evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. 42. In Ganga Bhaivani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, 2013 (15) SCC 298 : 2014 (1) ACR 147 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as under: "11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. [Vide : Bhagalool Lodh and another v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari and others v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308 )." 43. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. [Vide : Bhagalool Lodh and another v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari and others v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308 )." 43. It is settled law that merely because witnesses are closely relative to deceased, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of witness, moreso, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out that whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 44. Insofar as discrepancies, variation and contradiction in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case. 45. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 : 2012 (2) ACR 1197 (SCI court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 46. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Apex Court (3 Judges) in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (N.C.T. of Delhi), decided on 19.9.2018. 47. In the present case, it is fully established that Rajeshwari was murdered and found dead in the house. Evidence show that accused and Rajeshwari were noticed together in the house in the fateful night. The medical evidence showed that death of Rajeshwari might have occurred by ante-mortem injuries i.e., incised wound on the neck. Accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. did not offer any-cogent explanation as to how Rajeshwari was murdered. Evidence show that accused and Rajeshwari were noticed together in the house in the fateful night. The medical evidence showed that death of Rajeshwari might have occurred by ante-mortem injuries i.e., incised wound on the neck. Accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. did not offer any-cogent explanation as to how Rajeshwari was murdered. Recovery of blood-stained axe was made at the pointing of accused, therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to come to conclusion that it was only the accused who was preparator of crime. 48. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and legal preposition discussed herein before, we are of considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant and trial court has rightly convicted him for having committed murder of his wife Rajeshwari, an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. No interference is warranted. Appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 49. So far as sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 50. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation upon court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide : Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 : 2014 (2) ACR 2013 (SC); Sham Sunder v. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 ; State of M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 ; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 51. Hence, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant-Dhruv Singh by trial court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive and it appears fit and proper and no question arises to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon him. 52. In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Session Trial No. 97 of 2007 (State v. Dhruv Singh) under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Girar, District Lalitpur, is maintained and confirmed. 53. Lower court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent immediately to court and Jail Superintendent concerned for necessary compliance and to apprise the accused forthwith. Compliance report be also submitted to this Court. 54. Before parting we provide that Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant, who assisted the court very diligently, shall be paid Rs. 10,000 as counsel's fee. State" Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to him without any delay and, in any case, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.