JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the judgment dated 02.03.1990 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No.52/88, acquitting the respondent Shri Omprakash charged under Section 302 IPC. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- 3. Smt. Kamla (PW.1) and the deceased Smt. Radha were married to sons of Manphool i.e. Satveer and Omprakash respectively about six years before the incident. The sisters i.e. Kamla and Radha had gone to their maternal home i.e., village Sonadi about 10-12 days before the incident. On 21.11.1988, father of the girls i.e. Shri Rajiram brought his daughters back to the in-law’s house at the village Aradki in the late hours of 22.11.1988. When father of the two girls reached the village Aradki, they found that no one was present at home. Whilst Shri Satveer (husband of Kamla) had gone to the village Kumhariya, Omprakash (husband of Radha Devi) and the in-laws had gone to the agricultural fields. They returned home after the arrival of Shri Rajiram, Radha Devi and Kamla. It is alleged that the mother-in-law, taunted as to why the girls had come back to the in-law’s house. Kamla and her sister Radha Devi took dinner and then went to sleep in the Kotha, whereas her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and Balveer went to sleep in a nearby Kotha. Her father, father-in-law and Omprakash (husband of Radha) slept in the living room. On 22.11.1988 in the morning both the sisters woke up and got busy with their day to day routine. At about 6 O’ Clock, whilst it was still dark, Radha Devi went in backyard. Omprakash also followed her. Smt. Kamla collected the ashes and was also going in backyard. At which point of time, she saw her brother-in-law Omprakash coming alone. Omprakash asked Kamla as to where she was going on which she replied that she was going to dispose of the ashes in backyard. Omprakash insisted that the ashes should not be thrown there and she should not go into backyard. Kamla insisted that Radha had not returned and thus, she proceeded towards the said direction and saw her sister Radha Devi lying on the ground dead with her Chunni wrapped around her neck. Kamla unwrapped the chunni from her neck and observed that Radha had passed away. Kamla insisted that Radha had not returned and thus, she proceeded towards the said direction and saw her sister Radha Devi lying on the ground dead with her Chunni wrapped around her neck. Kamla unwrapped the chunni from her neck and observed that Radha had passed away. Smt. Kamla immediately rushed to her father and told him regarding the unfortunate incident of Radha’s death. In the intervening period, Omprakash ran away from the home. 4. Kamla (PW.1) gave the statement (Ex.P/1) to the SDM, Nohar (PW.8) who was conducting inquest enquiry at the Government Hospital, Nohar alleging that Omprakash had murdered her sister Radha Devi by strangulating her with the chunni. On the basis of this statement, FIR No.192/1988 (Ex.P./17) came to be registered at the Police Station, Nohar for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The dead body of Smt. Radha was subjected to postmortem at the Government Hospital, Nohar at the hands of Dr. J.P. Swami (PW.7) posted at the Government Hospital, Nohar. The medical jurist issued the postmortem report (Ex. P/15) taking note of numerous marks of strangulation on the neck of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia and syncope. 5. At conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar where charge was framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution allegations but did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to acquit the respondent from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 02.03.1990 which is assailed by the State of Rajasthan in this appeal against acquittal. 6. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Ojha, learned counsel representing the respondent (acquitted accused) and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence. 7. 6. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Ojha, learned counsel representing the respondent (acquitted accused) and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence. 7. At the outset, we may note here that in an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible, the appellate court should be loathe to interferer in the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Keeping this principle in mind, we proceed to deal with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 8. Kamla was examined as PW.1. She broadly reiterated the allegations as set out in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1). However, it may be mentioned here that Kamla did not utter a single word imputing motive for the murder of her sister to her husband Shri Omprakash. On the contrary, upon being cross-examined, Kamla admitted that before the incident, she and Radha Devi were on good terms with their in-laws and husbands. She specifically stated that she and her brother-in-law Om were also on good terms. She mostly stayed in the matrimonial home whereas Radha was an infrequent visitor. Radha was very stoutly built and had a strong physique as compared to her husband Omprakash. Radha did not sleep with her on the night when they returned to the matrimonial home. She also did not go to sleep with her husband. 9. The witness could not explain the reason for this behaviour of Radha. She admitted that when the police came to their house, she did not tell them anything about the death of Radha. Police took Radha’s dead body to Government Hospital, Nohar and she, her father and father-in-law accompanied the police to hospital. She did not tell the doctor anything about Radha’s death. She could not explain as to why she did not disclose these facts to her in-laws and the other witnesses who arrived at the spot and even the doctor. She made a pertinent admission that in the hospital, her father told her that she should give a statement to the police that Radha had been killed by Om and on the basis thereof, they would get Om punished and seek return of the dowry articles. She made a pertinent admission that in the hospital, her father told her that she should give a statement to the police that Radha had been killed by Om and on the basis thereof, they would get Om punished and seek return of the dowry articles. These material admissions as made by Smt. Kamla in her statement are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd vLirky es esjs firk us eq>s ;g dgk Fkk fd rw iqfyl es ;g c;ku ns fd jk/kk dks vkse us ekj fn;k vkSj ge 'kknh esa fn;k gqvk lkeku okfil ys ysaxs o vkse dh ltk dh djk nsaxsA iqfyl us jk/kk dk eqvk;uk gksus ds ckn iwNrkN dh FkhA esjs firk us eq>s tks ckr vLirky es crk;h Fkh fd vkse dks eqdnek es Qlk nks rkfd viuk lkeku okfil ys ysaxs] ;g ckr iqfyl dks ugha crk;h FkhA^^ 10. The witness admitted that right from her ‘Muklawa’ till the date of the incident, she was having very good relations with her brother-in-law Om. She denied the suggestion that Radha had seen her and Om in a compromising position and that she raised a hue and cry on which, She (Kamla) strangulated Radha. 11. PW.2, Rajiram, the father of the deceased stated that Kamla met him in the morning after the day he had brought his daughters back to their in-law’s house. She told him that Radha was lying dead in the backyard with her chunni wrapped around the neck. Rajiram too did not utter a single word imputing motive for the respondent Omprakash to have murdered his wife. He admitted that when the SHO came to the place of incident, he did not disclose the facts which Kamla had told him regarding the death of Radha. It may be stated here that before the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) of Kamla had been recorded, Harphool, father-in-law of the deceased had already submitted a report (Ex.P/12) regarding unnatural death of Radha to the SHO, PS Nohar. 12. The medical jurist, Dr. J.P. Swami (PW.7) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Radha on 22.11.1988 taking note of marks of violence on her neck. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia and syncope owing to obstruction of air-flow. The jurist prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P/15). 12. The medical jurist, Dr. J.P. Swami (PW.7) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Radha on 22.11.1988 taking note of marks of violence on her neck. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia and syncope owing to obstruction of air-flow. The jurist prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P/15). The evidence of the other witnesses including SDM Hukam Chand (PW.8) and the SHO, Tarachand (PW.9) is more or less formal in nature. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently urged that Smt. Radha was found murdered in the matrimonial home on the very next morning after she had returned from her maternal home with her father and as such, the reverse burden of proof by virtue of Section 106 of Evidence Act would shift on to the respondent Omprakash to explain the circumstances under which, his wife was found murdered by strangulation. He urged as the appellant failed to offer any explanation in this regard, there was no option for the trial court but to have convicted Shri Omprakash. He contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record and hence, the same deserves to be reversed. 14. Shri Ojha, learned counsel representing the respondent (acquitted accused) on the contrary, urged that there is no eyewitness of the incident. The entire prosecution case hinges on the evidence of Kamla (PW.1) who is not a reliable witness by any strech of imagination. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that the appellant ever maltreated his wife, the deceased Radha Devi. Furthermore, no motive to commit the crime was attributed to the respondent acquitted accused by Kamla (PW.1) or Rajiram (PW.2). He further urged that Smt. Kamla admitted that she was tutored by her father to give evidence against the respondent (acquitted accused). He, thus, urged that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondent from the charge of murder. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence. 16. There is no allegation of any of the prosecution witnesses including Smt. Kamla (PW.1) and Rajiram (PW.2), sister and father respectively of the deceased Radha that the respondent herein ever maltreated the deceased or that he had any motive to commit her murder. 16. There is no allegation of any of the prosecution witnesses including Smt. Kamla (PW.1) and Rajiram (PW.2), sister and father respectively of the deceased Radha that the respondent herein ever maltreated the deceased or that he had any motive to commit her murder. The defence tried to give a suggestion that Omprakash and Kamla were involved in some kind of illicit affair and that Radha Devi saw them in a compromising position and hence, Kamla killed Radha Devi. However, this suggestion was denied by the witnesses. There is no eyewitness of the incident wherein Smt. Radha was strangulated to death in the backyard of her matrimonial home. PW.1 Kamla alleged that she saw Radha going to the backyard. She followed her and saw the respondent Omprakash coming back from the same direction. The accused tried to persuade the witness not to go in the direction where Radha had gone and based on this suspicious conduct of the accused, an interference was sought to be drawn that Omprakash must have murdered Smt. Radha. However, if we see the admission made by Smt. Kamla in her cross-examination which has been reproduced hereinbefore, it becomes clear that the above story seems to have been created on being tutored by Shri Rajiram. She candidly admitted this suggestion of defence that her father told her in the hospital that she should give a statement that Om had killed Radha and thereby they would get the dowry articles back and Om would be punished. This admission of Kamla makes her entire testimony doubtful. Furthermore, we are examining an appeal against acquittal and in this exercise, if the statement of the star prosecution witness is found to be doubtful and when the case is based purely on the circumstantial evidence, it would be totally unjustified for this Court to reverse the finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 17. Thus, we are in conformity with the view taken by the trial court that neither the prosecution could provide any evidence of motive to prove the charge against the respondent (acquitted accused) nor is the evidence of star witness Kamla (PW.1) convincing enough so as to convert the finding of acquittal, as recorded by the trial court to one of conviction. The impugned judgment dated 02.03.1990, ex-facie does not suffer form any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. The impugned judgment dated 02.03.1990, ex-facie does not suffer form any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.