JUDGMENT Shailendra Shukla, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence pronounced by District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, in S.T. No.273/2008 on 21.04.2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and two years R.I. respectively. 2. The prosecution story in short is that the appellant Shardabai was married to Gulab Singh (PW-4) and Omprakash (PW-6) is her son. Shardabai had left her matrimonial home alongwith her son Omprakash and had started living with deceased Rambharose, in a Tapri(hut) situated in agricultural field owned by Dinesh Kumar (PW-2). On 28.06.2008, Shardabai and her son came running, crying and weeping to the house of Amar Singh, (PW-1) and told him that Rambharose is being assaulted by some unknown persons. Amar Singh (PW-1) intimated Dinesh Kumar (PW-2) in whose field Rambharose used to work. Thereafter, Dinesh Kumar (PW-2) intimated the police and the police team arrived at the spot and it was found that Rambharose was already dead. 3. Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8) drew the spot map. The Panchnama of the dead body was prepared which is (Exhibit-P/1), the blood soil was seized which is (Exhibit-P/6) and house was searched. A box belonging to Shardabai was searched and a saree with blood stains was seized. A torch was also seized from the spot which contained blood stains and an axe was seized from near the door outside the room of Sharbabai. She was then interrogated. The dead body was sent for postmortem. During investigation, help tracker dog was also taken. The tracker dog was made to smell the items lying at the spot. The dog followed the trail and thereafter pounced upon Shardabai. She was further questioned. She gave statement (Exhibit-P/3) on the basis of which, one another axe was seized from below the heap of grass which was hidden by Shardabai. Thereafter, FIR was lodged and further investigations were carried out. The seized materials were sent to FSL. After investigation charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was filed against the appellant. 4. The trial Court examined 8 witnesses. The appellant Shardabai in the accused statement took the defence that she has been falsely implicated. Thereafter, FIR was lodged and further investigations were carried out. The seized materials were sent to FSL. After investigation charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was filed against the appellant. 4. The trial Court examined 8 witnesses. The appellant Shardabai in the accused statement took the defence that she has been falsely implicated. No defence witness was led and the trial Court went on to pronounce the judgment and convicted and sentenced the appellant Shardabai as already described above. 5. In the appeal which has been filed against the conviction, it has been mentioned that there are no eye witness and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. There are many missing links. The trial Court has relied upon the dog tracking evidence in convicting the appellant, which is not an admissible evidence and acquittal has been sought on these grounds. 6. The prosecution has examined Omprakash (PW-6), who is a child and he stated that the deceased had taken his mother alongwith him and he had also accompanied his mother and they were staying in the house which was situated in the agricultural field in the village. He states that prior to the incident while his mother was preparing food the deceased had beaten up his mother and due to which no one ate the food and the next morning his mother woke him up and told him that Rambharose is dead. The witness states that he saw from the terrace of the house that two persons were going. The witness states that he did not identify these two persons. He further states that he and his mother thereafter intimated the neighbours and thereafter police came to the spot. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. Dr. D. R. Pachisia (PW-3) has conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and has found 7 injuries on the body of the deceased, 6 of which are incised wounds, 4 injuries are on the neck and 2 injuries near the left ear. All these injuries were caused with some sharp object and death occurred due to excessive bleeding from the injuries. The report is Exhibit-P/10. He submits that such injuries can be caused by an axe. It is clear that such injuries are on the vital part i.e. neck of the deceased and it was a case of culpable homicide. 8. All these injuries were caused with some sharp object and death occurred due to excessive bleeding from the injuries. The report is Exhibit-P/10. He submits that such injuries can be caused by an axe. It is clear that such injuries are on the vital part i.e. neck of the deceased and it was a case of culpable homicide. 8. As already stated, Omprakash (PW-6), who is the son of the appellant Shardabai has stated that the night prior to the incident, deceased had beaten up the appellant (mother of the witness) and due to such incident, no one ate food. These submissions have not been controverted. Thus, there is evidence that serious incident involving physical assault by the deceased on the appellant had taken place before death of deceased. As far as relations between the deceased and the appellant are concerned, the evidence of Amar Singh (PW-1) becomes relevant. In para-7, this witness states that his hut is situated quite near to the place where the incident took place and states that if any person calls up from the spot of the incident, then such call can be heard at his hut. In the same paragraph, he states that fight used to ensue daily between Rambharose and Shardabai. Rambharose used to consume liquor and this was the reason for the fight between the two. He also states that this couple had come in the neighbourhood only about 1-1 months back. Thus, it appears that the deceased and appellant used to quarrel regularly. It is also clear that the appellant and deceased were not married to each other. The husband of appellant is Gulab Singh (PW-4), who states that Rambharose had taken his wife Shardabai saying that they are going to attend a marriage but did not come back and then a missing person's report was lodged by him. Thus, there is evidence of regular quarrel between the deceased and appellant and it is also proved that few hours before the incident, heated quarrel resulting in physical assault of appellant by the deceased had taken place. Omprakash (PW-6) states that he was woken up by the appellant who told him that Rambharose had died and saw from terrace that two persons were moving past below his house. The question is whether there is any truth in such statements that two persons had assaulted the deceased resulting in his death. 9. Omprakash (PW-6) states that he was woken up by the appellant who told him that Rambharose had died and saw from terrace that two persons were moving past below his house. The question is whether there is any truth in such statements that two persons had assaulted the deceased resulting in his death. 9. Dinesh Kumar (PW-2) in whose agricultural field Rambharose used to work states that Rambharose had come to him barely 1-1 months back. Thus, Rambharose was a new person to the area and there was no possibility of him to enter into a dispute with any person. The building in which he used to stay was a two storeyed building and it was situated in the midst of an agricultural field. It was not found that an attempt to loot was made at the time of incident. Hence, the possibility of outsiders coming and killing the deceased is very bleak. With appellant and Omprakash residing in the house, they would have come to know immediately if any outsider would have entered the building and assaulted the deceased. 10. Amar Singh (PW-1) also states that there are no inhabitants residing nearby. Thus, the possibility of two persons assaulting the deceased is ruled out. 11. The body of the deceased was found on the lower floor of the house where the couple used to stay. The employer of the decreased i.e. Dinesh Kumar (PW-2) states in para-7 of his examination that deceased and appellant used to live in the upper floor of the house and on the lower floor where the incident took place, one another labour namely, Ratanlal used to stay but Ratanlal generally did not use to sleep at that place in the night and used to go to his village which was about 1.5 kms. away and on the date of the incident, Ratanlal had left for his village after seeking permission from father of the witness. These submissions have been supported by the Investigating Officer Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8). From these submissions, it is clear that deceased and appellant used to live in the upper floor of the house along with Omprakash and the lower portion was given to Ratanlal. However, Ratanlal generally did not stay in the lower portion and used to leave for his village which is about 1.5 kms. From these submissions, it is clear that deceased and appellant used to live in the upper floor of the house along with Omprakash and the lower portion was given to Ratanlal. However, Ratanlal generally did not stay in the lower portion and used to leave for his village which is about 1.5 kms. away and on the date of the incident also, Ratanlal had left for his village. The body of the deceased was found one feet away from the cot which was placed on the lower floor. It has been found that serious incident of quarrel had taken place between the appellant and deceased few hours before the incident and it is because of this incident that deceased may have moved to the lower portion for spending the night. The place where the body was found was not an open space but was covered space called Tapri (hut). Omprakash (PW-6) states that the body was found from inside the Tapri. 12. The Investigating Officer Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8) has prepared the spot map (Exhibit-P/8) which shows that body of deceased has been shown to be lying on the ground one feet away from the cot. The place where the body was lying has been shown to be in the form of a room. Thus, the incident had taken place inside the house where the couple and Omprakash used to live and therefore, the appellant was under an obligation to explain the circumstances under which such incident occurred. Onus upon her as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act needed to be discharged by her, which has not been done. Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8) has stated that on search of the house, box in possession of the appellant was searched and from the box, a blood stained saree was taken out and seized. The seizure memo is Exhibit-P/4. These submissions have been supported by Amar Singh (PW-1) and Dinesh Kumar (PW-2). Amar Singh (PW-1) states that Shardabai gave the key of box to the police and on opening the same, it was found that there was a shirt and saree kept inside a polythene bag and there were blood traces on the saree. The seizure memo is Exhibit-P/4. These submissions have been supported by Amar Singh (PW-1) and Dinesh Kumar (PW-2). Amar Singh (PW-1) states that Shardabai gave the key of box to the police and on opening the same, it was found that there was a shirt and saree kept inside a polythene bag and there were blood traces on the saree. Dinesh Kumar (PW-2) states that the polythene bag was kept beneath other clothes and when it was recovered, a wet saree was found inside the same which had probably been washed in order to remove the blood traces. Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8) states that the seized saree was sent to FSL vide Exhibit- P/12. The FSL report is Exhibit-P/14 which shows that saree marked as 'F' contained human blood. The onus thus again fell upon the appellant to show as to why she kept a human blood stained saree in wet condition locked inside a box hidden beneath other clothes. Thus onus has not been discharged by the appellant. 13. The prosecution has also taken help of dog in the investigation. Prabhulal (PW-7) states that he had used a police tracker dog and made the dog smell wooden handle of the axe which was seized and the dog was then released to follow the smell. The dog then went upto the appellant Shardabai and started barking. Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8) also makes such submissions but he states that dog was made to smell the place where the incident had taken place and then dog tracked the smell and pounced upon the appellant. As far as dog tracking evidence is concerned, the Apex Court has considered such evidence to be unreliable. In the case of Gate Lakshmi Mangraju @ Ramesh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (6) SCC 205 , it has been held that the possibility of error on the part of the dog or its master is always there. The possibility of misunderstanding between the dog and its master, that of a misrepresentation or a wrong inference from the behaviour of the dog could not be ruled out. The last, but not the least, is the fact that from a scientific point of view, there is little knowledge and much uncertainty as to the precise faculties which enable police dogs to track and identify criminals. The last, but not the least, is the fact that from a scientific point of view, there is little knowledge and much uncertainty as to the precise faculties which enable police dogs to track and identify criminals. The investigating exercises can afford to make attempts or forays with the help of canine faculties but judicial exercise can ill afford them. 14. The Apex Court in yet another case of Dinesh Borthakur vs. State of Assam, AIR 2008 SC 2205 has held that it is settled law that while the services of a sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of investigation, its faculties cannot be taken as evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused. 15. Thus, reliance of dog tracking evidence cannot be resorted to in view of the aforesaid citations. Further, dog master Prabhulal (PW- 7) has not prepared the Panchnama of the activities of the dog leading to dog zeroing upon the appellant. There are contradictory statements also pertaining to the manner in which the help of dog was taken. Such discrepant statements can be found in the deposition of Prabhulal (PW- 7) and Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8), Hence, the evidence led by the prosecution relating to dog tracking is not only unreliable but is also inadmissible. 16. The Investigating Officer Yogendra Singh Dangi (PW-8) has stated that the appellant in her memorandum proposed to recovered the axe and on the basis of the memorandum (Exhibit-P/3), axe was recovered from inside a heap of grass. This axe was sent to FSL however, no blood stains have been found in the FSL report which is Exhibit-P/14. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that appellant had already made an attempt to wash her saree to obliterate the blood marks on it and similarly acting, axe must also have been washed by the appellant, which explains absence of blood on axe. 18. There is substance in the submissions so made. It has been found that wet saree was recovered from inside the box and there is no explanation as to how the saree got wet. This only shows that an attempt was made to wipe off blood traces with water by the appellant. The appellant is also suspected of having washed the axe before hiding it. Dr. It has been found that wet saree was recovered from inside the box and there is no explanation as to how the saree got wet. This only shows that an attempt was made to wipe off blood traces with water by the appellant. The appellant is also suspected of having washed the axe before hiding it. Dr. D. R. Pachisia (PW-3) has stated that all the injuries which are incised wounds could have been caused with an axe. 19. After duly considering the evidence, following circumstances emerge which are against the appellant :- (a) Consistent quarrel between the appellant and deceased and fierce quarrel few hours prior to the incident provided a motive for the appellant to commit the crime. (b) The appellant has not discharged the onus on her under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as per which she was required to clarify the circumstances under which the incident occurred. (c) There being no previous history of quarrel of deceased with Ratanlal or anyone else and therefore, there was no possibility that any other person(s) may have committed the murder. (d) There was no attempt to loot and thus the possibility of an outsider to have committed the crime in the process of committing loot is also negated. (f) Subsequent conduct of the appellant in waking up her son Omprakash only after the incident and giving him narration of deceased being killed by some other person is also relevant piece of evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. (g) It was found proved that the appellant had hidden her saree which contained human blood. There was no clarification as to why said saree would be hidden and locked inside the box in wet condition. (h) The wet condition of the saree showed an attempt to erase the blood traces on the saree. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 (16) SCC 353 has held in a case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain in a manner that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and the circumstances so proved are incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. 21. 21. Thus, it is found conclusively proved that it was the appellant Shardabai who is responsible for committing culpable homicide of deceased Rambharose. The question is whether such culpable homicide amounts to murder or not? The only question was whether such act was committed under circumstances which are contained in Exception clauses of Section 300 of IPC. It is quite clear that prior to the incident, there have been altercations between the deceased and the appellant and the deceased had even assaulted the appellant. However, there is no material to show that the incident occurred at that very time. On the contrary, it appears that the incident occurred sometime later on when the deceased went to the Tapri at the ground floor and when son of the deceased Omprakash also went to sleep. Number of blows on the neck of the deceased show that all such injuries were caused when deceased was lying. It is difficult to imagine that number of blows on the neck could be caused when the deceased was in standing position. Had the appellant attacked the deceased during the course of altercation, deceased must have defended himself and in the process, some injuries could have been caused to the appellant as well, which is not the case here. Thus, from the circumstances, it appears that the appellant hatched a plan to kill the deceased when he was defenseless i.e. he had gone to sleep. Hence, it clearly shows that the appellant inflicted axe blows on the deceased with the intention to commit murder and this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and no advantage under any of the exceptional clauses of Section 300 of IPC can be provided to the appellant. Her conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC is affirmed. It has also been found proved that the appellant had hidden the weapon of offence and also her blood stained saree so as to destroy the evidence of murder. Hence, her conviction in respect of Section 201 of IPC also stands affirmed. The sentence imposed also does not call for any interference. The sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and calls for no change. The appeal consequently stands dismissed. 22. Hence, her conviction in respect of Section 201 of IPC also stands affirmed. The sentence imposed also does not call for any interference. The sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and calls for no change. The appeal consequently stands dismissed. 22. A copy of this order along with the record of the Trial Court be sent back to the Trial Court for perusal and compliance.