JUDGMENT : VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the “Trial Court”) in Case FIR No. 28/2002 registered with Police Station, Nowshera, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, by virtue of which the respondent-Rattanjeet Singh, has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR No. 28/2002 for offences under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25A. Act was registered with Police Station, Nowshera, on 06.04.2002 on the basis of an information received through reliable sources that accused shot dead his wife Smt. Seema Devi at about 6.15 PM in his house. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. On its completion, it was found that on 06.04.2002 PW-Jagdish Singh had given his 12 bore Rifle to PW-Dharam Paul for repairing, who had kept the rifle in his house and accused Rattanjeet Singh, who happens to be his brother, took out the said rifle in his absence and went to Forest for hunting. He came back from the Forest empty handed, reached home and at that time his wife was peeling onions on the roof of their house, she asked the accused as to why he had come empty handed and told him that in future she would herself go for hunting. On this, he got enraged and fired upon the deceased, who died on spot and after the commission of offence, he concealed the gun inside the house of his brother. The police after having completed the investigation found the offences proved against the accused and accordingly presented the Challan. 3. The accused was charged on 08.08.2002 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act and formal charge was framed. He pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. To prove the charge, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 4. Oral evidence of prosecution was PWs Mohan Singh, Babu Lal, Sansar Singh, Vishwa Nath, S. Prem Singh, Dharam Paul, Santosh Kumari, Puma Devi, Jagdish Singh, Krishana Wanti, Shakuntla Devi and Tilak Raj and PWs Raj Kumar, Dr. Ashok Verma, Smt. Vivek Sharma, Tehsildar, Vinod Kumar, Nazir Hussain Inspector and S.R. Samual. 4. Oral evidence of prosecution was PWs Mohan Singh, Babu Lal, Sansar Singh, Vishwa Nath, S. Prem Singh, Dharam Paul, Santosh Kumari, Puma Devi, Jagdish Singh, Krishana Wanti, Shakuntla Devi and Tilak Raj and PWs Raj Kumar, Dr. Ashok Verma, Smt. Vivek Sharma, Tehsildar, Vinod Kumar, Nazir Hussain Inspector and S.R. Samual. Documentary evidence was in the shape of seizure memo of dead body (EXPW-1/A), receipt dead body (EXPW-1/B), seizure memo of knife and peeled onions (EXPW-1/C), seizure memo of blood stained cement (EXPW-1/D), seizure memo of cartridges (EXPW-1/E) and seizure memo of clothes of the deceased (EXPW-1/F), memo of disclosure (EXPW-3/A), post mortem report (EXPW-18-M/AV). 5. The Trial Court, on completion of the trial and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and accordingly acquitted him. The order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court has been challenged in this Appeal, inter-alia, on the following grounds: 1. that the judgment is against the law and facts. 2. the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. 3. that there is enough evidence to prove the charge for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, against the accused. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence recorded during the trial. 7. To appreciate the grounds taken up in the appeal and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to give brief resume of the evidence produced during the trial. 8. PW-1 Mohan Singh has deposed that deceased was his sister and she was married to accused. She was murdered by her husband i.e. accused. He came to know about death of his sister on the same day in the evening when he was at his home in Village Darila. He went to the house of deceased on the same day at about 8.30 PM and by then police had already reached the spot. Dead body of deceased was lying on the roof of the house and deceased was having gunshot mark on her throat. Police seized dead body of the deceased and also seized one knife, a plate, peeled onions and bloodstained cement. A 303 gun was also seized from the house of deceased. Dead body of deceased was lying on the roof of the house and deceased was having gunshot mark on her throat. Police seized dead body of the deceased and also seized one knife, a plate, peeled onions and bloodstained cement. A 303 gun was also seized from the house of deceased. However, on the next day police recovered a 12-bore gun, but it was not recovered in his presence. Dead body of the deceased was seized vide memo EXPW-1/A and it was handed over vide memo EXPW-1/B. Knife and peeled onions were seized vide memo EXPW-1/C whereas blood-stained cement was seized vide memo EXPW-1/D. A rifle bullet action along with live cartridges was seized vide EXPW-1/E. The clothes of deceased were seized vide EXPW-1/F. Accused might have committed murder of his sister in connection with demand of dowry. His house is located at a distance of 4 kms from the house of deceased. Accused was saying that deceased had shot herself dead. 9. PW-2 Babu Lal has deposed that he came to the house of deceased upon hearing about her death. Her dead body was lying on ground outside her house and police had already reached there. Police seized a steel plate along with vegetables contained therein and a knife vide memo EXPW-1/C, which bears his signatures. No other proceedings took place in his presence. 10. PW-3 Sansar Singh deposed that deceased was wife of accused who had died due to a gun shot, that was fired by the accused. Accused shot her dead because she had not satisfied her demand of dowry. Deceased had informed his brother about the demand of dowry, who in turn revealed it to him. Marriage between the accused and deceased was arranged by their parents but they solemnized the marriage inside a temple. When he reached the spot, dead body of deceased was lying on the roof of cattle shed, police came on spot and seized dead body of the deceased vide memo EXPW-1/B. The clothes of deceased were seized vide memo EXPW-1/F. During investigation of the case accused made a statement that he has kept 12 bore rifle inside the house of his brother and thereafter police recovered it from there. Statement of accused was recorded by police before recovering the said gun. Memo of disclosure EXPW-3/A was witnessed by him and it bears his signature. Statement of accused was recorded by police before recovering the said gun. Memo of disclosure EXPW-3/A was witnessed by him and it bears his signature. Besides the gun, police also recovered one live and one empty cartridge. Rifle was not recovered in his presence. He does not remember the date on which memo of disclosure was prepared but accused had made disclosure inside the police station. He does not remember as to who else was present there at that time. Police had called him to Police Station and told him that a statement of accused regarding 12 bore gun is to be recorded. After recording of statement, police went to recover the gun but he did not accompany them. Brother of deceased PW Mohan Singh had accompanied the police. At the time of recovery he was not present in the police Station. After ¾ months of the marriage the brother of deceased told him that accused is demanding dowry but he is not aware about the exact date and month. He had told so to the police but the same is not recorded in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. Deceased was not shot dead by the accused in his presence. He is uncle of the deceased. 11. PW-4 Vishwa Nath deposed that deceased was his niece. About one year ago he came to know that some firing had taken place inside the house of accused. He along with a number of other people, went to the spot and found that dead body of deceased was lying in a pool of blood on the roof of cattle shed. SHO and other police officials had reached the spot. Relations between the deceased and accused were not good because accused used to make demand of dowry from the deceased and would sometimes beat her up. Police seized dead body of deceased vide seizure memo EXPW-1/A and handed over dead body to brother of deceased PW Mohan Singh after its post mortem vide EXPW-1/B. Both these documents bear his signatures. His house is located at a distance of 3.5 kilometers from the house of accused. Deceased and some other people of the village told him that accused was harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. He heard this about 2/4 months before the occurrence. He cannot tell the names of the persons who told him so. His house is located at a distance of 3.5 kilometers from the house of accused. Deceased and some other people of the village told him that accused was harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. He heard this about 2/4 months before the occurrence. He cannot tell the names of the persons who told him so. They had not lodged any complaint with regard to the conduct of the accused. 12. PW-5 S. Prem Singh on 6.4.02 he heard cries coming out from the house of accused, he along with his wife, went to the house of accused where he saw that deceased wife of accused was lying in a pool of blood on the roof of house. Police came there in his presence and they enquired from the accused, who brought out a 303 rifle from his house and produced it before the police. On 8.4.2002 police seized a licence in respect of 12 bore rifle from the house of brother of accused namely, PW-Dharam Paul vide memo EXPW-5/A. In his cross-examination he stated that police have never recorded his statement. 13. PW-6 Dharam Paul has deposed that accused is his brother. On 4.4.2002 village Sarpanch Sh. Jagdish Singh handed over to him a 12 bore rifle along with its licence for its repair. He got it repaired from a gun factory at Marjola village. On the same day he brought the rifle back to his house after getting it repaired. On 5th he along with village Sarpanch got busy in connection with settlement of some dispute and on next day he went to Jammu in connection with some personal work. On 7th he came back to his home and found that police had taken away the said rifle in his absence. When he had gone to Jammu file was in his house and he had not handed it over to the Sarpanch. On 8th police seized a licence in respect of the said rifle vide memo EXPW-A. Rifle shown to him in court mark-G is the same rifle. Police had given him a 303 rifle in his capacity as a member of village defence committee. He was also allotted 100 cartridges. He did not use any of these cartridges. In his absence, on 6th police had seized this 303 rifle as well; when he came back from Jammu he handed over 50 cartridges along with the rifle. Police had given him a 303 rifle in his capacity as a member of village defence committee. He was also allotted 100 cartridges. He did not use any of these cartridges. In his absence, on 6th police had seized this 303 rifle as well; when he came back from Jammu he handed over 50 cartridges along with the rifle. In his cross-examination he stated that 12 bore and 303 rifles were seized by the police in his absence. 14. PW-7 Santosh Kumari has deposed that accused is her brother-in-law, while she was cutting grass in the fields, she heard some sound of gun fire coming out of her house and a number of people ran towards her house. She also went there. She found deceased dead over there and she started crying. The witness was asked repeatedly as to how the deceased died but she kept mum. Deceased was her sister-in-law and she was residing separately from her. Her house is located at a distance of half a kilometer from the house of deceased. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by ld. PP. In her cross-examination she had stated that on the day of occurrence her husband had gone to Jammu and she along with her children was working in the fields. She denied the suggestion that accused had taken a 12 bore rifle from their house. She also denied the suggestion that she had gone to the house of deceased in order to enquire about her mother-in-law. She also denied the suggestion that when she was massaging her mother-in-law, the accused came there armed with 12 bore rifle and due to gun shot the deceased died. She further stated that she was not present on spot at that time. She denied the suggestion that due to relations she is making a false statement. She also denied the suggestion that instead of 12 bore rifle the accused produced another rifle before the police. 15. PW-8 Pumi Devi has deposed that accused is her brother-in-law and he was married to deceased. On the day of occurrence, she had gone to graze the cattle and there she heard sound of gun fire; when she came back to her house, deceased was lying over there; she along with deceased were living in a joint family. That she could not come to know as to how the deceased had died. On the day of occurrence, she had gone to graze the cattle and there she heard sound of gun fire; when she came back to her house, deceased was lying over there; she along with deceased were living in a joint family. That she could not come to know as to how the deceased had died. The witness was declared hostile. In her cross-examination she stated that PW-Santosh Kumari is residing at some distance from her house and that she had not come on spot. She denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law was unwell and PW-Santosh Kumari had come to enquire about her. She denied the suggestion that accused had fired upon the deceased in her presence. She further stated that accused had gone to the market at that time. When she came to her home accused was not present over there. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely because of relationship with the accused. She also stated that police did not seize any rifle in her presence. In her cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel she stated that accused had married deceased out of his own will and it was a love marriage. There was no dispute between the couple. 16. PW-9 Jagdish Singh in his statement deposed that he is Sarpanch of village Panchyat Batnu. On 6.4.02 a number of people from the village had gathered in the house of accused and he also went there. He saw that dead body of deceased Seema Devi W/o accused was lying on the compound of his house. About 4/5 days before the occurrence he had given his rifle to PW-Dharam Paul who was going to village Manjola for getting it repaired from gun factory. PW-Dharam Paul sent him a message that he had got rifle repaired but he could not collect it due to some engagement. PW-Dharam Paul had gone to Jammu on 5th and on 6th of April the occurrence took place. Accused Rattanjeet Singh had taken the rifle from the house of PW-Dharam Paul and after the occurrence police seized the same from the accused. The witness identified the rifle shown to him in the court. In his cross-examination by defence counsel, he stated that he was told by some children and by the police that accused had taken his rifle. Rifle was not recovered and seized in his presence. The witness identified the rifle shown to him in the court. In his cross-examination by defence counsel, he stated that he was told by some children and by the police that accused had taken his rifle. Rifle was not recovered and seized in his presence. He cannot tell whether the rifle was seized by police from his house in his absence. Relationship between the deceased and accused was good and he used to visit their house. 17. PW-10 Krishana Wanti in her statement deposed that accused is his son and deceased was her daughter-in-law and she had died. On the day of occurrence she was unwell and she heard the sound of gun fire and when she came out of her room, she found that deceased had died. No other person was present there at that time. She cannot tell as to who had fired at the deceased. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by ld. PP. In her cross-examination she stated that her husband had got the marriage between the accused and deceased arranged. The marriage was solemnized in a Gurudwara as per the wishes of deceased and accused. There was no dispute about dowry between the two. On the day of occurrence, no dispute had taken place between the deceased and the accused in respect of dowry. She denied the suggestion that at the time of occurrence she was present on the roof of the house while PW-Santosh Kumari was massaging her and that deceased was also present there. She also denied the suggestion that accused came over there armed with 12 bore rifle and that he fired at deceased because he was having dispute with her due to demands of dowry. She also denied the suggestion that accused concealed the 12 bore rifle and kept 303 rifle in its place. In his cross-examination by learned defence counsel she stated that relationship between the deceased and accused was very cordial. 18. PW-11 Raj Kumar SGC in his statement deposed that in the year April 2002 he was posted at P/S Nowshera. At the instance of Nowshera Police he took the photographs of dead body of the deceased and after developing the same he handed over the same to SHO Police Station Nowshera. Photographs are marked as mark R-1 to R-10. 18. PW-11 Raj Kumar SGC in his statement deposed that in the year April 2002 he was posted at P/S Nowshera. At the instance of Nowshera Police he took the photographs of dead body of the deceased and after developing the same he handed over the same to SHO Police Station Nowshera. Photographs are marked as mark R-1 to R-10. In his cross-examination he stated that films of these photographs might be lying with police Photo Cell of Nowshera. These photographs do not bear any special mark, so as to prove that the same have been taken by him. 19. PW-12 Shakuntla Devi in her statement deposed that deceased Seema Devi was her daughter and she was married to the accused. Even before her marriage with the accused a relationship had developed between the two and thereafter they entered into wed lock in a court. Deceased gave birth to a daughter. On coming to know about the death of deceased she went to her house. Accused had shot her dead and she cannot tell as to why he shot her. In her cross-examination by ld. defence counsel she stated that relations between the accused and deceased were good. She was told by the people on spot that deceased was shot dead by the accused. 20. PW-13 Tilak Raj in his statement deposed that deceased was his daughter whereas accused is his son in law. Accused has committed the murder of deceased in a brutal manner. Occurrence did not take place in his presence. However, he came to know about it later on. In fact accused had raped her daughter even before the marriage and when a daughter was born to her, accused committed her murder. Dowry was also the reason for committing the murder of the deceased. Accused had married the deceased in a Gurudwara, as such, there was no exchange of dowry. When he heard about the death of her daughter, he went to the house of accused and found that dead body of deceased was lying on a cot and bullet had pierced through her back. Police was also present at spot. In his cross-examination he had stated that police recorded his statement and in his statement to the police he had stated that accused had raped his daughter before the marriage and that after marriage, she was harassing her in connection with dowry demands. Police was also present at spot. In his cross-examination he had stated that police recorded his statement and in his statement to the police he had stated that accused had raped his daughter before the marriage and that after marriage, she was harassing her in connection with dowry demands. However, same is not written in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also denied having told the police that his daughter had never made any complaint against her husband and that there was no demand of dowry from her or from her husband. It was a love marriage between his daughter and the accused. He never lodged any report in connection with the rape committed upon her daughter by the accused before the marriage. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing against the accused at the instance of public. 21. PW-18 Dr. Ashok Verma stated that he has conducted post mortem of deceased Seema Devi on 7.4.2002 at 10 AM. He found the following injuries on the person of deceased: 1. Inlet wound: small oval shape approximately 2 cm x 1.5 cm in size, one in number located in the centre of supra sterna notch of the neck with well defined collar, with irregular and inverted margins scorched with black margins surrounded by blackening and superficial bruise 4 in Nos. one cm in diameter on the left side of the main wound. Underlying tissue were exposed, underlying muscle are charred and wound filled with semi clotted blood. The wound was following a bright pink track causing injury to the trachea and surrounding vessels. Track was following left to right route, above to down and coming out from the 4th inter costal space. 2. Outlet wound: An irregular lacerated wound 5cm left to the middle line of the spine in the 4th inter-costal space on the posterior aspect size approximately 4 cm x 2 cm causing fracture of 4th rib. Underneath of the wound communicated with the inlet wound. After going through the FSL report, he opined that deceased had died due to gunshot wound puncturing the trachea and its surrounding blood vessels leading to shock and finally cardio respiratory failure. Duration of the death was within 04 to 48 hours at the time of post mortem examination. The fire had been shot from a close of range of six feet distance. He proved the post mortem report EXPW-18-M/AV. Duration of the death was within 04 to 48 hours at the time of post mortem examination. The fire had been shot from a close of range of six feet distance. He proved the post mortem report EXPW-18-M/AV. He further stated that these injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. In his cross-examination by defence counsel, he stated that it could not be said whether the fire was intentional or accidental. That considering the nature of the entry wound and the exit wound, the shot would have been made from a higher level but in no case it could be self inflicted. That duration of death mentioned from 04 to 48 hours was because of physical and clinical examination and colour of blood chotwads recovered/traced from the wounds. The colour of blood remains red within 1st four hours of the death till it fully clots in such an extensive wound and after that it starts changing its colour from red to black and remains so up to 48 hours and thereafter it would re-dissolved. That he is stating so on the basis of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence. 22. PW-19 Smt. Vivek Sharma Tehsildar in her statement deposed that in the year 2002, she was posted as Tehsildar Nowshera, a sealed packed was produced by SHO before her which was re-sealed by her. In the capacity of Magistrate she had addressed an authority letter to FSL which is not on record of the file. The photo copy produced by the Ld. PP bears her signature. In her cross-examination she stated that documents which were prepared in respect of re-sealing have not been shown to her in the court as such, she cannot tell as to which seal was put by her and where those seals were kept. 23. The photo copy produced by the Ld. PP bears her signature. In her cross-examination she stated that documents which were prepared in respect of re-sealing have not been shown to her in the court as such, she cannot tell as to which seal was put by her and where those seals were kept. 23. PW-20 Vinod Kumar in his statement deposed that in the year 2002 he was posted as SHO P/S Nowshera, he conducted the investigation of the case, he registered FIR EXPW-S and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence, he prepared the site map EXPW-S/1 and seized the dead body of deceased vide memo EXPW-S/2, he handed over dead body of deceased after its post mortem to heirs of deceased vide receipt EXPW-S/3, he prepared the site map of the place wherefrom 12 bore rifle was recovered, which is marked as EXPW-S/4, plate, knife along with vegetables was seized vide memo EXPW-E/C and the blood stained cement seized vide memo EXPW-1/D. During the search of the house of accused a bullet action rifle along with four cartridges and one magazine was recovered vide memo EXPW-1/E. Clothes of the deceased were seized vide memo EXPW-1/F. Accused made the disclosure that he has kept 12 bore rifle in the house of his brother PW Dharam Paul. In this regard memo of disclosure EXPW-3/A was prepared. Thereafter on the basis of this disclosure statement of accused the rifle was recovered and seized vide EXPW-5/5. PW Dharam Paul produced licence of gun which was seized vide memo EXPW-A. Photographs of the dead body were taken which are marked as mark R-1 to R-10. He prepared the death report EXPW-S/6 in respect of the deceased. He sent the seized articles for chemical analyses to FSL and obtained the post mortem report. He recorded statements of PWs Mohan Singh, Vishwa Nath, Babu Lal, Sansar Singh, Pritam Singh, Pumy Devi, Santosh Kumari, Jagdish Singh, Babu Ram and Krishana Wanti u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. The witness identified the seized rifle, seized clothes of deceased, seized cartridges, seized blood stained cement the seized 12 bore rifle. In his cross-examination stated that no body had given any report with regard to the occurrence. However, he received information from reliable sources. No reason for sending the FIR to court after two days is recorded. In his cross-examination stated that no body had given any report with regard to the occurrence. However, he received information from reliable sources. No reason for sending the FIR to court after two days is recorded. However, 7th of April was a Sunday; there are only three eye witnesses to the occurrence and their names are PWs Santosh Kumari, Pumi Devi and Krishana Wanti. That due to some pre-occupation there was some delay in recording statements of these witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. None of the brothers of the deceased had told him that accused was harassing the deceased. PW Tilak Raj in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that deceased had never made any complaint against her husband nor had she told him about any demand of dowry. This witness had never told him that accused had committed rape upon the deceased before marriage. 24. PW-21 Nazir Hussain Inspector in his statement deposed that he has conducted part investigation of the case, he recorded statements of the parents and brothers of the deceased as also the statement of the photographer who had taken photographs of the place of occurrence. He also obtained the report of FSL and thereafter he handed it over to SHO. In his cross-examination he stated that statements of the witnesses recorded by him had not been recorded earlier by anybody. He cannot tell as to why this had happened. These witnesses did not express any reason for this before him. 25. PW-22 S.R. Samual stated that he has produced the challan in respect of the subject case after having satisfied himself about the investigation. Offences u/s 302, 201 RPC and 4/25A Act were found proved against the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that his satisfaction is based upon the investigation conducted by the investigating officer. He has not conducted any separate investigation. 26. The charge against the accused is that on 06.04.2002, he fired upon his wife, killed her and after committing the crime, he destroyed the evidence by replacing the gun and told his family that deceased fired upon herself with the substituted gun. 27. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution relied upon eye witness account on three witnesses, i.e. PWs. 7, 8 and 10 and also relied upon the circumstantial evidence. So far as the eye witnesses account are concerned, they did not support the prosecution version. PWs. 27. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution relied upon eye witness account on three witnesses, i.e. PWs. 7, 8 and 10 and also relied upon the circumstantial evidence. So far as the eye witnesses account are concerned, they did not support the prosecution version. PWs. No. 7, 8 and 10, as per the prosecution case, were present on the spot when the occurrence in question took place but when they were produced before the Trial court, they did not support this version of the prosecution. Though, they were cross-examined, but nothing could be extracted from them to support the prosecution version. The Trial Court had considered the statement of these witnesses and rightly observed that the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. 28. The circumstantial evidence in this case produced by the prosecution is the disclosure statement stated to have been made by the accused and recovery of weapon of offence, i.e. 12 bore rifle pursuant to the said disclosure statement. PWs. Mohan Singh and Sansar Singh are the witnesses to the disclosure memo and as per the prosecution case, the said disclosure was made by the accused while in custody of the police in presence of the said witnesses. PW-Mohan Singh, brother of deceased, has not stated anything in his statement about the said disclosure alleged to have been made by the accused. He said that 12 bore rifle was recovered by the police but he, however, has stated that the same was not recovered in his presence. He (Mohan Singh) is the witness to the disclosure as well as to the seizure memo and the case of the police is that accused made disclosure in his presence and pursuant to the said disclosure 12 bore rifle, weapon of offence, was recovered by the police at the instance and identification of the accused in presence of the said PW-Mohan Singh but the said PW-Mohan Singh, who is also brother of deceased has neither supported the prosecution version about the disclosure having been made by the accused or the recovery made in presence of the said PW-Mohan Singh. PW-Mohan Singh, therefore, neither supported the disclosure statement made by the accused nor the recovery effected thereupon. PW-Mohan Singh, therefore, neither supported the disclosure statement made by the accused nor the recovery effected thereupon. PW-Sansar Singh, who is the witness to the disclosure memo states that during the investigation, accused made a statement that he kept 12 bore rifle in the house of his bother and thereafter the same was recovered by the police. He admitted the correctness of the disclosure statement EXPW-3/A but in cross-examination he stated that the rifle was not recovered in his presence. He states that disclosure statement was made by the accused in the police station and he was called by the police, who told him that the accused was to make a statement in respect of 12 bore rifle. He did not accompany the police at the time of recovery of the said rifle. PW-Babu Lal is another witness to the seizure of rifle but he has not stated anything about the recovery of the rifle. From the statements of PWs. Mohan Singh, Babu Lal and Sansar Singh, it can be safely said that the police have failed to establish that the accused made a disclosure statement and pursuant to the said disclosure statement, recovery was effected. Disclosure made by an accused while in police custody is admissible in evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the extent of discovery of a fact on the basis of said disclosure statement. The conditions necessary for application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are:- 1. The fact of which the evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. 2. The fact must have been discovered in consequence of some information received from the accused. 3. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence. 4. He must be in the custody of police officer. 5. The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from accused in custody must be deposed to. 6. Thereupon that portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved. 29. What is stated above, in this case none of the witnesses to the recovery, i.e. PWs. Mohan Singh and Babu Lal have supported the prosecution version, while PW-Mohan Singh has denied the factum of recovery of rifle in his presence and PW-Babu Lal does not say anything about the recovery. 29. What is stated above, in this case none of the witnesses to the recovery, i.e. PWs. Mohan Singh and Babu Lal have supported the prosecution version, while PW-Mohan Singh has denied the factum of recovery of rifle in his presence and PW-Babu Lal does not say anything about the recovery. In view of the statements made by these witnesses, the recovery of rifle pursuant to the alleged disclosure becomes highly doubtful and the same has not been proved. It is evident from the evidence recorded that the fact that the gun being in the house of PW-Dharam Paul was within the knowledge of not only the witnesses but also within the knowledge of PW-Jagdish Singh, owner of the weapon. The conditions, therefore, necessary for applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not fulfilled, thereby making the disclosure statement of the accused EX-PW-3/A inadmissible in evidence. 30. Another circumstantial evidence, which has been collected by the prosecution in this case, is the report of postmortem and also the report of ballistic expert. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it is proved that deceased had died and her death was homicidal and not natural. Medical witness, PW-Dr. Ashok Verma, has given an opinion that the fire had been shot in this case from the distance of six feet and the same could not have been self inflicted. The ballistic expert, however, has written in his report that range of firing was point blank. As per medical evidence, the death of deceased had taken place due to bullet injury, whereas ballistic expert has also written in his report that hole present on the shirt of deceased at the time of occurrence could have been caused due to passage of gun shot fired from 12 bore rifle. It is thus, therefore, proved that death of deceased had been caused due to gunshot injury fired from seized 12 bore rifle. There is, however, no evidence on record to connect the accused with firing of gun shot. Neither eye witnesses have supported the prosecution version nor the circumstantial evidence has proved it. The prosecution failed to prove that recovery of weapon of offence was effected pursuant to disclosure made by the accused. The death of deceased due to gunshot injury was to be proved by showing the link between accused and death of the deceased. Neither eye witnesses have supported the prosecution version nor the circumstantial evidence has proved it. The prosecution failed to prove that recovery of weapon of offence was effected pursuant to disclosure made by the accused. The death of deceased due to gunshot injury was to be proved by showing the link between accused and death of the deceased. This link is missing and the prosecution has failed to prove the same. 31. As has been stated above, the prosecution story is that when the deceased came back empty handed from the forest after hunting, his wife told him that she would go herself for hunting and on this the accused enraged and fired upon her and committed her murder. The prosecution has failed to prove this story. During the trial, however, prosecution tried to develop a new story that the relation between accused and his wife was not good as she could not fulfill his demands of dowry and it was because of the failure of the deceased to fulfill the demand of dowry of the accused that he killed her. PWs. Sansar Singh, Vishwanath and Tilak Raj in their statements tried to show that there was a dispute between accused and his wife over the demands of dowry. PW-Sansar Singh stated that accused had committed murder of his wife as she could not meet his demands of dowry, but he has no personal knowledge about the demands of dowry as he says that deceased had complained to his brother in this regard who in turn narrated the same to him. His knowledge is based upon hearsay, as such, inadmissible in evidence. Similarly, PW-Vishwanath stated that the relation between accused and the deceased was not good because accused used to beat her for not bringing the sufficient dowry. However, the witness in his cross-examination stated that he heard about it from some people about 2/4 months before the death of the deceased. This witness has therefore, also no personal knowledge about the demands of dowry and his knowledge is only hearsay, thus, not admissible in evidence. PW-Tilak Raj, the father of deceased, stated that accused committed the murder of his daughter on account of demand of dowry. He gave another twist to the tale by stating that accused had committed rape on deceased before solemnizing marriage with her. PW-Tilak Raj, the father of deceased, stated that accused committed the murder of his daughter on account of demand of dowry. He gave another twist to the tale by stating that accused had committed rape on deceased before solemnizing marriage with her. The witness himself stated that he had not given any dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter. There is evidence on record that the marriage between accused and deceased was not arranged one but was a love marriage and, therefore, there was no exchange of dowry. There is no evidence on record to prove any motive whatsoever for the accused to have committed the murder of deceased. Although motive is not necessary to be proved in a case of murder, yet in the absence of any reliable evidence against the accused, the absence of any motive for the accused to commit the alleged crime assumes great importance. 32. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 33. Registry to send back the Trial Court record forthwith.