Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 640 (JK)

Parvez Ahmed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

2022-11-18

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302, read with section 34 RPC vide judgment dated 10.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- vide order dated 10.06.2014 in case titled 'State versus Parvez Ahmed &Ors' arising out of FIR No. 204/2011 of Police Station, Surankot. 2. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 10.06.2014 on the ground that the learned trial court has wrongly placed reliance upon the statement of PW-Shaheen Akhter as there were material contradictions in her statement and she had made improvements in her statement before the trial court. Further that there were material contradictions in the FIR that was lodged by PW Showkat Hussain and the statement made by Showkat Hussain in the court. By referring to the statements of various witnesses, it has been stated that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence. Contentions: 3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel representing the appellants has vehemently argued that the statement of PW Shaheen Akhtar was full of contradictions and she has made improvements in her statement before the trial court and further that her testimony has not been corroborated by the medical evidence but the learned trial court instead of rejecting the same, has accepted the said improved statement of said witness for convicting the appellants. He further argued that the post-mortem report belies the false story projected by the complainant and other witnesses in the court. He also urged that all the witnesses are related and interested witnesses and their evidence is required to be appreciated cautiously, but the learned trial court has not done so and has fallen into grave error of law by relying upon the same for convicting the appellants. In nutshell, the arguments of senior counsel are that learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has ignored the material contradictions in prosecution evidence. 4. On the contrary, Mr. In nutshell, the arguments of senior counsel are that learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has ignored the material contradictions in prosecution evidence. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the prosecution had successfully proved that the deceased died due to the consumption of poisonous substance and the prosecution had proved all the incriminating circumstances against the appellants and thereafter, onus shifted upon the appellants to explain the circumstances resulting into the death of the deceased, who admittedly was the wife of appellant No. 1 and died in her matrimonial home, which they have failed to discharge. 5. Heard and perused the record. Prosecution case: 6. As per the prosecution case, Showkat Hussain S/o Mohd Rafiq R/o Lassana, Tehsil Surankote submitted a written application in Urdu on 22.10.2011 at 0910 hours with the Police Station, Surankote against Parvez Ahmed and Farooq Ahmed, both sons of Mohd. Shafi, Shameem Akhtar wife of Farooq Ahmed, Abdul Qayoom son of Mohd Bashir and Shamim Akhtar wife of Abdul Qayoom, residents of Lassana, wherein it was stated that his sister Shamim Akhtar was married with Parvez Ahmed-appellant No. 1 herein 15 years ago. They were having one son of 04 years of age. While his sister was performing her duties as obedient wife, Parvez Ahmed was harassing his sister for the last 2 years as he wanted to solemnize second marriage. He often used to beat her. Today, on 22.10.2011 at 8 AM, the accused persons after hatching a conspiracy, entered into the kitchen of her sister and assaulted her in order to kill her thereby causing injury to her. She was caught hold by the accused and Parvez Ahmed hit her at her belly with legs and she was thrown down from the kitchen, as a result of which, she died. Thereafter, the accused poured poisonous medicine in her mouth and they started shouting that she had consumed poison. She was brought to the hospital. On receipt of this application, FIR bearing No. 204/2011 for commission of offences under section 302, 147 and 34 RPC was registered in Police Station, Surankote. The investigation was handed over to PW Kamal Din, Sub-Inspector. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer went to the hospital and took the dead body in his possession. On receipt of this application, FIR bearing No. 204/2011 for commission of offences under section 302, 147 and 34 RPC was registered in Police Station, Surankote. The investigation was handed over to PW Kamal Din, Sub-Inspector. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer went to the hospital and took the dead body in his possession. The post-mortem was got conducted and viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL for expert opinion. He also visited the place of occurrence and recorded the disclosure statement of accused Parvez Ahmed. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164-A Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that Parvez Ahmed was married with the deceased Shamim Akhtar 12 to 15 years ago. The sister of the deceased was married with the younger brother of Parvez Ahmed namely, Javed Iqbal. The other accused used to instigate Parvez Ahmed for solemnizing second marriage and Parvez Ahmed started harassing the deceased. On 22.10.2011, pursuant to the well hatched conspiracy, the accused assaulted the deceased and thereafter, dragged her into the room where she was made to consume poisonous substance Nuvan, as a result of which she died. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the concerned Magistrate on 03.12.2011 under sections 302, 147, 328 and 34 RPC. The same was committed to the learned trial court. The charge was framed against the appellants and the other two accused namely, Abdul Qayoom and Shamim Akhtar wife of Abdul Qayoom for commission of offences under sections 302, 328, 147 and 34 RPC vide order dated 27.03.2012. The prosecution had cited 18 witnesses and all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The appellants admitted the FSL report thereby stating that they do not want to cross-examine the witness Tamina Bhat, Assistant Scientific Officer as is evident from the order dated 10.05.2013. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in their support. Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing the arguments, convicted the appellants by virtue of judgment impugned and acquitted two accused i.e. Abdul Qayoom and Shamim Akhtar wife of Abdul Qayoom. Prosecution Evidence: 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have brief resume of the prosecution evidence. 8. PW-1 Showkat Husain (brother of the deceased-complainant) stated that on 22.10.2011, the quarrel took place. Prosecution Evidence: 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to have brief resume of the prosecution evidence. 8. PW-1 Showkat Husain (brother of the deceased-complainant) stated that on 22.10.2011, the quarrel took place. His younger sister informed him on phone that the accused Parvez Ahmed has assaulted his sister and asked him to save her. He went on spot. Before he reached there, she was taken to hospital at Surankote. He too went to Surankote. He lodged a report with Police Station and on his application, FIR was registered. Contents of FIR are true and he proved the application and also the FIR. His statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate at Surankote. He admitted the contents of statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. During cross examination, he stated that he along with his parents had gone to Surankote. He had got the application prepared from Munshi of the court. He had narrated the contents of the application to the Munshi but he does not have personal knowledge of the contents of the application. This was disclosed to him by Shaheen. His statement was recorded before the Court on the day of occurrence. In his statement, he had mentioned that he was at Billa but it is not in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. He had not made the statement before the Magistrate on the asking of Shaheen. He was half kilometer away from the place of occurrence. This is wrong that he was at home and he along with his parents went to Surankote. Shaheen did not go to Surankote as she was not in her senses. The clothes worn by the deceased were torn and there were bruises on her body. The blood was coming out from her mouth as well as her nose. His statement and the statement of Hameed were recorded on the same day before the Magistrate. He has not deposed before the Magistrate as to whether Parvez Ahmed assaulted the deceased inside the house or outside. It was wrongly mentioned in his statement recorded before the Magistrate that Parvez Ahmed kicked the deceased on the road. He has only mentioned about accused-Parvez in the statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. 9. PW-2 Mohd. He has not deposed before the Magistrate as to whether Parvez Ahmed assaulted the deceased inside the house or outside. It was wrongly mentioned in his statement recorded before the Magistrate that Parvez Ahmed kicked the deceased on the road. He has only mentioned about accused-Parvez in the statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. 9. PW-2 Mohd. Rafiq (father of the deceased) stated about the solemnization of marriage between his daughter and accused Parvez Ahmed 14 years ago. Out of two children born out of wedlock, one had died. He has three daughters. Seven-eight months ago, a quarrel took place between the accused Parvez Ahmed and his daughter. Before his arrival, the deceased was taken to hospital. The reason of the quarrel was that Parvez Ahmed wanted to solemnise second marriage. As soon as, the deceased was brought to the hospital, she died. He himself had not seen the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. He was told about the quarrel by his second daughter. Information was given on phone that Parvez Ahmed had killed the deceased. Except this, she did not disclose any other thing. He has no knowledge as to whether the accused pursuant to some conspiracy killed the deceased. He was declared hostile. During cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that he was told by his daughter Shaheen Akhtar that the deceased was poisoned from a bottle and she was strangulated. He proved the supurdnama of the ring and also the receipt of the dead body. During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that the ring that given to him on supurdnama, was removed from the finger of the deceased. The accused had also gone to Surankote along with the deceased. The relationship between the deceased and the accused was good as husband and wife. The doctor was telling that she died after consuming poison. There were no visible signs of injuries on the body of the deceased. No blood was oozing from the nose and mouth of the dead body. He had not seen the clothes worn by the deceased in torn condition. Shaheen Akhter talked to him on phone only and thereafter, no conversation took place. Shaheen is the wife of Javed. Javed and Iqbal reside in the separate houses. 10. No blood was oozing from the nose and mouth of the dead body. He had not seen the clothes worn by the deceased in torn condition. Shaheen Akhter talked to him on phone only and thereafter, no conversation took place. Shaheen is the wife of Javed. Javed and Iqbal reside in the separate houses. 10. PW-3 Nazira Bi (mother of the deceased) stated that in the month of Katak, a phone call was received in her home that Shamim Akhtar had been killed. She lost her senses and she went to Surankote hospital. Deceased had gone to doke and came from there for preparing meals for her husband. Shamim Akhtar was married with accused Parvez Ahmed 15 years ago. Shaheen was married four years ago with Javed Iqbal who is the younger brother of the accused Parvez. She has no knowledge as to who killed Shamim. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined. During cross examination by Public Prosecutor, she stated that the deceased wanted to solemnise second marriage and because of that, he used to harass her. This is correct that the accused-Parvez was having illicit relations with his sister-in-law Shamim. All the accused used to harass the deceased. She has no knowledge as to whether Parvez and other accused wanted to solemnise marriage somewhere else. No one was willing to marry with Parvez Ahmed as he was already married. This is wrong that the deceased told her that the accused threatened her. This is wrong that Shaheen Akhter had called her husband on phone and told him that accused were assaulting Shamim and he should come there to save her. The post mortem was conducted and her dead body was brought to home. During cross-examination by the defence, she stated that on the day of occurrence, she, her husband and Showkat had gone together to Surankote. 11. PW-4 Safina Akhtar stated that the deceased Shamim Akhtar was the sister of her husband and her marriage was solemnized with Parvez Ahmed prior to her marriage. The occurrence took place eight months ago. The accused had killed her, as he(Parvez) wanted to solemnize second marriage. Her sister in law called her on phone and she told her to come quickly as the accused had killed the deceased Shamim Akhtar. When she reached on spot, the deceased was being shifted from verandah towards road. Farood Ahmed, Mohd. The occurrence took place eight months ago. The accused had killed her, as he(Parvez) wanted to solemnize second marriage. Her sister in law called her on phone and she told her to come quickly as the accused had killed the deceased Shamim Akhtar. When she reached on spot, the deceased was being shifted from verandah towards road. Farood Ahmed, Mohd. Sharief, Parvez and Altaf were present at that time. All the accused were present there. She was not allowed to sit in the vehicle. She went to the hospital along with her mother. The accused Parvez Ahmed had sent a proposal for second marriage at Bandi Chechian and Shine Dhara but could not succeed. The relations between the accused Parvez and deceased were not good. Accused Parvez wanted to kill deceased so as to solemnise second marriage. When she reached hospital, she saw that the accused Parvez and Javed had lifted the deceased and on seeing her, they left her down. The deceased had already died. During cross examination, she stated that her statement was recorded on the 2nd day of occurrence in the Police Station. If Shaheen had not called her, she would not have seen. When she went running, she was not accompanied by her husband. It is wrongly mentioned in her statement recorded by the Police that she told the whole occurrence to her husband on phone and Shaheen was also on spot and further that she was not allowed to get in. When she went on spot, the accused took the deceased in the vehicle. She has not seen the occurrence regarding killing of the deceased herself. 12. PW-5 Mohd. Sharief stated that he knows both the parties as they are his relatives. On the day of occurrence, he was in his house. The sister of the deceased told him to come fast as something had happened to Shamim. He went there and found Shamim lying unconscious on the bed. The accused Parvez was in his bath room. The other accused were also in the home. He called his son Altaf and thereafter accused Farooq. Shaheen was also there. Three persons, he, Altaf and Farooq lifted the deceased and put her in the vehicle. Parvez was also called from the bathroom. They went to Surankote Hospital. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. The other accused were also in the home. He called his son Altaf and thereafter accused Farooq. Shaheen was also there. Three persons, he, Altaf and Farooq lifted the deceased and put her in the vehicle. Parvez was also called from the bathroom. They went to Surankote Hospital. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. During cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, she stated that it is wrong that the relations between the accused and the deceased were not good. He has no knowledge that the accused Parvez Ahmed wanted to solemnise second marriage. This is wrong that in order to solemnize second marriage, the deceased was assaulted and was killed by poisoning. He and Farooq went to the Police Station and lodged the report. During cross examination by the defence, he stated that the prosecution witness Safina was not on spot. He had not stated before the Police that the accused first killed the deceased and then poured poison in her mouth. Witness Showkat was also not on spot. 13. PW-6 Mohd Latief (brother of the deceased) stated about the solemnization of marriage of the deceased with the accused Parvez Ahmed. On 23.10.2011, the quarrel took place between Parvez Ahmed and the deceased. Parvez wanted to solemnise second marriage. He was not on spot. Accused killed Shamim and poured poison in her mouth. Accused wanted to marry at Bandi Chachian but the marriage did not take place. The accused also sent a proposal of marriage at Shin Dhara but the marriage did not take place because the accused was already married. During cross examination he stated that in his presence, none of the accused had assaulted the deceased. He has made the statement on the basis of hearsay. 14. PW-7 Abdullah Rashid Patwari stated that he prepared the site plan and also issued the extract of khasra girdhawari. 15. PW-8 Mohd. Tahir Khan (Constable) stated that on 28.10.2011, he was posted at Police Station, Surankote. He along with Investigating Officer and the accused Parvez Ahmed went to Lassana. Accused Parvez Ahmed led the Police for recovery of an empty bottle from the bushes. The Investigating Officer seized that bottle and one ring was kept on supurdnama of Mohd. Rafiq. The contents of supurdnama are true. During cross examination, he stated that bottle had the capacity of 100-150 grams. Accused Parvez Ahmed led the Police for recovery of an empty bottle from the bushes. The Investigating Officer seized that bottle and one ring was kept on supurdnama of Mohd. Rafiq. The contents of supurdnama are true. During cross examination, he stated that bottle had the capacity of 100-150 grams. The seizure memo was prepared and he signed the same. He has not seen the bottle in the court. 16. PW-9 Shakeel Ahmed (brother of the deceased) stated that on 22.10.2011, he received a phone call from his sister Shaheen to come on spot as Shamim had been killed. When he reached on spot, all the accused were there. When he reached near the house, the accused took the deceased inside and before his entering the house, the accused took his sister in the vehicle. Accused Shamim Akhter and Abdul Qayoom had started abusing him. His sister died before he reached the hospital. After conducting the post mortem, the body of the deceased was taken back to home. During cross examination, he stated that the place of occurrence is three kilometres away from his house. It takes half an hour of running for reaching there. Before 10 minutes of his arrival, the accused had taken the deceased to the hospital. It is correct that he had not seen the accused killing the deceased. The relations between the accused Parvez and the deceased were good. 17. PW-10 Javed Iqbal was minor and after declaring him as competent to depose, his statement was recorded. He stated that one year ago, while he was going for bringing milk from the house of sister of his mother, young boys, who were there, raised noise that his paternal aunt had been killed. When he reached on spot, all the five accused were there. Accused Shamim was having one bottle in her hands. His younger paternal aunt called uncle Shakeel. When he reached on spot, the deceased was taken to Surankote. The Police had not seized anything in his presence. The deceased was killed by Shamim and others. He did not go to hospital. His statement was recorded last year and he was accompanied by his uncle. During cross examination, he stated that the accused Parvez had slapped his paternal aunt in his presence but she had not died of that but was taken inside. He does not know who took her inside. He did not go to hospital. His statement was recorded last year and he was accompanied by his uncle. During cross examination, he stated that the accused Parvez had slapped his paternal aunt in his presence but she had not died of that but was taken inside. He does not know who took her inside. He had come back to his home. Name of his uncle is Sharief and he was also on spot. It is not mentioned in his statement that on the day of occurrence, he had gone to house of his paternal aunt at Lassana and when he went there, she was killed and taken inside the room. The bottle that was in the hands of Shamim was smaller in size as compared to his hand and he has not seen the bottle in the court. 18. PW-11 Shaheen Akhtar (sister of the deceased Shamim Akhtar) stated about the solemnization of the marriage between accused Parvez Ahmed and her sister. She further stated that the occurrence took place 08 months ago. She was at home and her marriage has been solemnized with Iqbal who is the younger brother of the accused Parvez Ahmed. The deceased at around 8 in the morning was feeding the child with milk in her lap when the accused Farooq snatched the child from her forcibly. She started crying and ran after the child and went to the kitchen where Farooq had taken the child. She demanded the child from him. Shamim Akhtar, wife of Farooq started abusing her and told that child would not be given to her. The accused Parvez Ahmed who was sitting on a chair stood up and hit the deceased at her belly as a result of which, she fell on the ground. Thereafter, Parvez Ahmed slapped the deceased. Five accused were on the spot. Thereafter, Shamim wife of Farooq ran towards her in order to assault her. She ran away and came on the road and saved herself. She told her brother Showkat and Shakeel that her sister was being beaten and they should come immediately. They came on spot after 10 to 15 minutes. When she came back from the road, she saw that all the five persons had wrapped the deceased in blanket and kept her in room. She told her brother Showkat and Shakeel that her sister was being beaten and they should come immediately. They came on spot after 10 to 15 minutes. When she came back from the road, she saw that all the five persons had wrapped the deceased in blanket and kept her in room. The accused Shamim wife of Farooq was having one bottle and she was pouring some medicine in the mouth of the deceased. Thereafter, she ran towards her(witness) and threatened her that deceased has been finished and she too would be finished. She called Uncle Mohd. Sharief to come as sister Shamim Akhtar had been killed. Abdul Qayoom and Mohd. Farooq wrapped the deceased in the blanket and threw her down. Thereafter, they took her to the hospital in a vehicle but she was not permitted to sit in the vehicle. The other vehicle was brought by her brother and she went to the hospital. Doctor declared Shamim as dead and she returned back. Shamim Akhtar wife of Farooq had told her that she too would be finished like that. During cross examination, she stated that she and the deceased used to reside in the same house and they had a common kitchen. The houses of her brothers are situated at a distance of 3 kms from her house. The accused had taken the deceased to the hospital before her brothers came there. She had not gone to Surankote along with her parents. She was accompanied by her brother. Her statement was recorded on the date of occurrence at Lassana. Her statement was recorded before the court on 3rd day of occurrence. She had told the Magistrate that Shamim Akhtar wife of Abdul Qayoom was having a bottle in her hand and she was pouring medicine in the mouth of the deceased but it is not mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. She further stated that she had made this statement to the Magistrate also that Shamim having bottle in her hands ran towards her (witness) and told that she too would be finished but the same has not been mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. She was not permitted to see the face of the deceased when the accused took the deceased to Surankote. Her statement was recorded on the day when the statements of Javed and Altaf were recorded. Her statement was recorded on the day when the statements of Javed and Altaf were recorded. When the accused went outside, she saw the face of the deceased by removing the blanket. Parvez Ahmed kicked the deceased with the right leg. Neither the Magistrate asked her nor did she disclose the same to the Magistrate. She has not deposed before the Magistrate that the kicks and fists were used. She had deposed before the Magistrate that Parvez Ahmed also slapped the deceased. Uncle Mohd. Sharief had come on spot and he too took the deceased Shamim to the hospital in a vehicle. She had also deposed before the Magistrate that Mohd. Farooq had snatched the child from the deceased but it is not mentioned in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. but it is mentioned in her statement that on 22.10.2011 in the morning, accused Parvez Ahmed administered beatings to her sister, snatched the child and went to the kitchen and on that, her sister too entered into the kitchen. She does not know as to when her statement was recorded by the Magistrate but it is correct that her statement was recorded after 3rd day of occurrence. A perusal of the statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. reveals that the same was recorded on 31.10.2011. There is house of Uncle Mohd. Sharief only adjacent to her house. When the occurrence took place in the morning, no one was there. Iqbal had taken the deceased to the hospital in Bolero. The wife of Mohd. Sharief and mother of Parvez Ahmed were on spot. The house of Abdul Qayoom is at some distance from her house and it takes 10 minutes to reach there. Both of them reside in their house but they occasionally visit their house and on the day of occurrence, Abdul Qayoom and his wife did not stay in their home and their children Yasser, Saif and Aftab were in their home. The Police had seized the clothes of the deceased but she has not seen them today in the court. She cannot say about the size of the bottle, but the capacity of the bottle was less than 250 grams. That bottle was got identified by the Police from her. She cannot say what were the contents of the bottle but it smelled like medicine. She had not smelled the same. She cannot say about the size of the bottle, but the capacity of the bottle was less than 250 grams. That bottle was got identified by the Police from her. She cannot say what were the contents of the bottle but it smelled like medicine. She had not smelled the same. The Police had not read over to her the statement recorded by the Police. She had not deposed in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that there was smell coming from bottle. That bottle was having whiff of medicine. That bottle was not seized in her presence as she had gone to her parental house. The accused other than Parvez Ahmed had not assaulted the deceased with the fists, kicks and lathies, but they were present on spot. The occurrence took place within 10, 12 or 20 minutes. The occurrence was over by 8.30 A.M. Her statement was recorded on spot by SHO. 19. PW-12 Altaf Hussain stated that 7-8 months ago, he was having tea in his house. Shaheen came there and told him that something has happened to Shamim. His father went first and then he also went on spot. He had seen the deceased wrapped in the blanket. Accused Parvez did not hit the deceased with fists and blows in his presence. He was declared hostile. During cross-examination by Public Prosecutor he stated that it has been wrongly mentioned in his statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that when he was going to his bath room, he saw Parvez assaulting his wife with fists and kicks. He and Farooq lifted the deceased and kept her in the vehicle and took her to Surankote where she had died. In cross examination by the defence counsel, he stated that Shameem and Qayoom are residing at a distance of half kilometre from the place of occurrence. When Shaheen had come to his house, she had only told that something had happened to Shamim but had not told them as to who assaulted the deceased. 20. PW-13 Abdul Hamid stated that he knows the accused and the deceased. His land is adjacent to the land of the accused. On 21/22.10.2011 of Katak, he was cutting maize. He heard the noise. He went towards the place of occurrence and reached on road. Parvez Ahmed had slapped Shamim Akhter and also kicked her. School children were also there. PW-13 Abdul Hamid stated that he knows the accused and the deceased. His land is adjacent to the land of the accused. On 21/22.10.2011 of Katak, he was cutting maize. He heard the noise. He went towards the place of occurrence and reached on road. Parvez Ahmed had slapped Shamim Akhter and also kicked her. School children were also there. She was taken to the room and thereafter she was taken in the vehicle to Surankote. His statement was recorded in the court. He did not go to the hospital. He proved the receipt of the dead body and seizure memo of the dead body. He also proved the seizure memo of the clothes and identified the clothes in the court. In cross examination, he stated that he had not mentioned in his statement that whether the deceased was kicked and slapped on the road or in lobby/duv. The deceased was assaulted in the lobby. He had also not mentioned as to who else was present on spot. Mother of Shamim shouted not to assault or abuse her daughter. It has wrongly been mentioned in the statement that the mother of the Shamim shouted not to assault or abuse her daughter and as to why she was being assaulted. Mother of Shamim was not present on spot. The deceased Shamim was his sister-in-law. In response to the question by the court, he stated that in his statement, it is mentioned that Parvez Ahmed kicked and slapped his wife and she fell down and his mother cried and abused and stated why they were assaulting her daughter and this means that the mother of the accused Parvez Ahmed said so, as the mother of the deceased was not there. 21. PW-14 Barkat Hussain has been cited as a witness to the disclosure memo and recovery. He was declared hostile. In cross examination by Public Prosecutor, he stated that this is incorrect that in his presence, on the disclosure of Parvez Ahmed, Police recovered one bottle. In cross examination by the defence, he stated that accused Parvez Ahmed did not make any disclosure statement. 22. PW-15 Mohd. Sayed (Tehsildar) is a witness to the resealing and he proved the certificate. In cross examination, he stated that the certificate produced by him is a carbon copy. He had not put the packet on weighing scale. Resealing was done at his office. 22. PW-15 Mohd. Sayed (Tehsildar) is a witness to the resealing and he proved the certificate. In cross examination, he stated that the certificate produced by him is a carbon copy. He had not put the packet on weighing scale. Resealing was done at his office. There was no mention of reseal of viscera in his letter. 23. PW-16 Dr. Nusrat Bhatti stated that on 27/10.2011, she was posted as Assistant Surgeon in Sub District Hospital, Surankote and on that day, she conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. She further stated that no external and internal injury was detected on the dead body of the deceased. He proved the post mortem report (ExPW 15-NB). During cross examination, she stated that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. She was unable to say whether the deceased died due to assault or torture. She stated that as per history of the case, the deceased died due to poisonous substance. During re-examination, she stated that as per FSL report, the death has been caused by (an organo phosphorus insecticide). It was correct that many of the women consume poison and she has conducted post mortem of the deceased persons in different cases. 24. PW-17 Kamal Din stated that he was handed over the investigation after the registration of FIR. He had taken over the custody of the dead body and post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the legal representatives. He also visited the spot and prepared the site plan. Statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 24.10.2011, the accused were arrested. During enquiry, the accused Parvez Ahmed made a disclosure statement with regard to the bottle which was subsequently recovered and sealed, thereafter, it was resealed. Statements of some witnesses under section 164-A Cr.P.C. were also recorded. He proved the offences under section 302, 328 and 147/34 RPC against the accused and filed the charge sheet against the accused. He proved the site plan of occurrence, site plan of place of recovery, seizure memo of dead body, seizure memo of clothes, receipt of dead body, fard surathal, disclosure statement, recovery memo, supurdnama and memo of arrest of the accused. He proved the site plan of occurrence, site plan of place of recovery, seizure memo of dead body, seizure memo of clothes, receipt of dead body, fard surathal, disclosure statement, recovery memo, supurdnama and memo of arrest of the accused. During cross examination, he stated that this is correct that in the application, it is mentioned that accused Parvez Ahmed kicked at the belly of the deceased and she was thrown out from the kitchen, as such, she died and thereafter, poison was put in her mouth. It is also mentioned that only one accused Parvez Ahmed killed the deceased and nothing has been stated about the other accused. He had not filled the injury form as deceased had died and she was not having any injury on the body. The sentence that has been mentioned in the disclosure statement that poisonous medicine was made to drink, is confessional statement. This is wrong that the disclosure statement is a confessional statement. Finger prints were not lifted from the bottle. He had not enquired, as to from which shop, the bottle was purchased. It is not mentioned in the disclosure statement that medicine was taken through syringe and thereafter, the same was made to drink. He has not seized any syringe. Statements of Shoukat Hussain and Abdul Majid were recorded on 02.09.2011. In further cross examination, he stated that Showkat Hussain complainant is not the eye witness. As per statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C., when he reached on spot, the deceased was already taken to hospital. Statement of Altaf Hussain was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 01.11.2011, Shaheen Akhter on 31.10.2011, Barkat Hussain on 28.11.2011, Abdul Hamid on 03.11.2011, Shoukat Hussain on 03.11.2011, Shakeel Ahmed on 01.11.2011 and Javed Iqbal on 31.10.2011 and statements of the witnesses were recorded after making an application before the court. Disclosure memo was prepared in the Police Station. Mohd. Rafiq, father of the deceased and complainant is a witness to the disclosure memo. The size of the bottle was not mentioned in the disclosure memo. He did not record separate confessional statement that the accused had disclosed that a plastic bottle containing poisonous substance given to the deceased had been kept hidden in a kassi near his house. In his investigation, it had come to the fore that the deceased was killed by the accused by using kicks. He did not record separate confessional statement that the accused had disclosed that a plastic bottle containing poisonous substance given to the deceased had been kept hidden in a kassi near his house. In his investigation, it had come to the fore that the deceased was killed by the accused by using kicks. Only house of Sharief is situated near the place of occurrence. The place of recovery of bottle is situated near thoroughfare and that is open space. People move through that place. Both the witnesses in the disclosure statement as well as memo of recovery are the relatives of the deceased. Rafiq and his wife were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Delay occasioned in recording the statement of the witnesses under section 164-A Cr.P.C. was due to the fact that he was busy in some other cases. The clothes of the deceased were not sent for chemical analysis. Clothes were not blood stained. Shirt was torn. In his investigation, it was not revealed whether the clothes were torn by beating or by doctor. Disclosure statement was recorded on 28.10.2011. He had not called the witnesses of the disclosure statement as well as recovery memo but they were present every time during investigation in the Police Station. He did not summon any independent witness at the time of effecting the recovery. 25. PW-18 Javed Akhter stated that he was satisfied with the investigation of the case and produced the challan before the court. Appreciation: 26. Before we proceed further, it needs to be noted that the name of deceased was Shamim Akhter and names of two accused are also Shamim. A perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that the learned trial court has placed reliance upon the statement of the solitary eye witness i.e. PW-11 Shaheen Akhtar and the learned trial court while convicting the appellants has observed that PW-1 Showkat Hussain (brother of the deceased), PW-4 Safina Akhtar (wife of the brother of the deceased), PW-13 Abdul Hamid (husband of the sister of the deceased), PW-9 Shakeel Ahmed (brother of the deceased) and PW-10 Javed Iqbal (son of the brother of the deceased) have corroborated the statement of PW-11 i.e. Shaheen Akhtar. It needs to be noted that all these witnesses are related and interested witnesses. There is only one alleged eye witness who is the sister of the deceased. It needs to be noted that all these witnesses are related and interested witnesses. There is only one alleged eye witness who is the sister of the deceased. Normally a close relative will not shield the real culprit but equally true is that the witness having an interest in the outcome may exaggerate or may depose in a partial manner. The proper balance is required to be maintained between the two conflicting and diametrically opposite considerations, by appreciating the evidence of such witness cautiously. It would be advantageous to take note of observations made by Apex Court in Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591 : '36. From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this Court, we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which remains the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favourable colour. These are most controlling considerations in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of each case.' 27. The same principle has been reiterated by Apex Court in Md Jabbar Ali &Ors versus State of Assam reported in, wherein it has been held as under: '48. It is noted that great weight has been attached to the testimonies of the witnesses in the instant case. The same principle has been reiterated by Apex Court in Md Jabbar Ali &Ors versus State of Assam reported in, wherein it has been held as under: '48. It is noted that great weight has been attached to the testimonies of the witnesses in the instant case. Having regard to the aforesaid fact that this Court has examined the credibility of the witnesses to rule out any tainted evidence given in the court of Law. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses were related to each other. This Court in a number of cases has had the opportunity to consider the said aspect of related/interested/partisan witnesses and the credibility of such witnesses. This Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that just because the witnesses are related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the case of Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 , this Court held that the testimony of such related witnesses should be analysed with caution for its credibility.' 28. Before we re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses as mentioned, it would also be profitable to take note of the principles laid down by Apex Court while evaluating the ocular evidence in Shahaja v. State of Maharashtra, those are as under: '27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under: I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. II. II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. 28. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.' 29. Keeping abovementioned principles in mind, first of all, we would consider as to whether PW-11 Shaheen Akhtar is reliable and trustworthy as it is settled law that conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of the statement of the solitary eye witness and what matters is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence. So far as the presence of PW-11 is concerned the same is not doubtful, as she had been residing in the same house, where the occurrence took place. PW-11 is the real sister of the deceased who was married with Javed Iqbal (younger brother of the Parvez Ahmed). A perusal of the statement of PW-11 i.e. Shaheen Akhtar reveals that on the date of occurrence, the deceased was feeding milk to the child in her lap and accused Farooq Ahmed forcibly snatched the child from her as result of which, the deceased started crying and ran towards the kitchen where Farooq had taken the child. The deceased demanded child from Farooq but accused Shamim started abusing her and refused to hand over the child to her. The accused Parvez Ahmed who was sitting on the chair stood up and kicked the deceased in her belly as a result of which, she fell down and thereafter Parvez Ahmed also slapped the deceased. She further stated that the accused Shamim ran towards her to beat her but she ran away and came on the road to save herself. She called her brothers Showkat and Shakeel to come to rescue her sister, as her sister was being beaten. After 10-15 minutes, they reached on spot. She further stated that the accused Shamim ran towards her to beat her but she ran away and came on the road to save herself. She called her brothers Showkat and Shakeel to come to rescue her sister, as her sister was being beaten. After 10-15 minutes, they reached on spot. When she came back from the road, all the accused persons had covered the deceased with the blanket and kept in the room. Shamim wife of Farooq Ahmed was having the bottle in her hand and was pouring the medicine in the mouth of the deceased and that time also, Shameem wife of Farooq ran towards her and threatened her that they have finished the deceased and now it was her turn. She also called her uncle to come on spot as her sister has been killed. During her cross examination, she stated that she had deposed before the Magistrate that accused Shamim was having a bottle in her hand and was pouring some medicine in the mouth of the deceased but the said fact was not found in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. Likewise, it was also not mentioned in her statement before the learned Magistrate that Shamim was having a bottle in her hand and ran towards her and threatened her that she would meet with the same fate. She further admitted that she did not make any statement before the Magistrate that the accused Parvez Ahmed also slapped the deceased. It was also not found in her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C., that accused Farooq snatched the child from the deceased but it is mentioned in her statement that on 22.10.2011 in the morning that accused Parvez Ahmed after beating, her sister snatched the child and went into the kitchen and on that her sister also ran towards the kitchen. The statement made by PW-11 is at variance to the statement made by her recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. In her deposition before the court, she has categorically stated that accused Parvez Ahmed was sitting on the chair and Farooq had snatched the child from her sister and when Farooq Ahmed took the child to the kitchen, the deceased ran after him and went to the kitchen whereas in statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C. stated that the accused Parvez Ahmed after beating her sister, snatched the child went into the kitchen and on this, her sister ran towards the kitchen. Both the statements are contradictory, irreconcilable and cannot be true simultaneously. Further, she has made improvement in her statement before the court that accused Shamim was having a bottle in her hand and was pouring some medicine in the mouth of the deceased. This statement was never made by her in her deposition before the Magistrate when her statement was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. Further she admitted that she had not made any statement before the Magistrate that Parvez Ahmed slapped the deceased. The trial court has returned a finding that the victim became unconscious and then accused Shameem Akhter accused poured medicine in her mouth. It has come in the statement of the PW-11 that the deceased was wrapped in the blanket and kept in the room where as the accused Shamim was pouring medicine in the mouth of the deceased. She has nowhere stated that the deceased became unconscious and then she was wrapped in blanket. Was victim unconscious or not at the time of pouring medicine remains unsolved mystery. We have not come across any evidence that the victim had become unconscious prior to administration of poison. Had she been un-conscious because of assault then she must have suffered some injury as PW-1 Showkat, brother of the deceased stated that there were bruises over the body of the deceased and blood was oozing from her mouth but PW Nusrat Bhatti in her deposition has stated that the she did not find any internal or external injury upon the body of the deceased. Though conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of solitary eye witness but when there are doubts then corroboration must be insisted upon. Though conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of solitary eye witness but when there are doubts then corroboration must be insisted upon. In Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 165 , Apex Court has held as under: '16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole testimony of eyewitness PW 1. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise [see Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367].' 30. The improvements made by the solitary eye witness related to the deceased i.e. PW-11-Shaheen Akhter in her deposition before the court are material in nature and also her statement is contradictory to the statement made during the course of investigation, besides there being gaps in her testimony and as such cannot form the basis for the conviction of the appellants in absence of corroboration. It needs to be noted that the cause of death in the instant case was due to poisoning as a perusal of the post-mortem report (ExPW-15-NB) reveals that there was no injury, internal or external, on the body of the deceased. 31. Now, it is to be examined as to whether her statement has been corroborated by other evidence. PW-11 in her testimony has specifically stated that she called her brothers Shakeel Ahmed and Showkat and they reached there, after 10-15 minutes. She has also stated that she also called her uncle Mohd. Sharief to come on spot. PW-Showkat has been cited as PW-1, on whose application, the FIR was registered. PW-11 in her testimony has specifically stated that she called her brothers Shakeel Ahmed and Showkat and they reached there, after 10-15 minutes. She has also stated that she also called her uncle Mohd. Sharief to come on spot. PW-Showkat has been cited as PW-1, on whose application, the FIR was registered. He has categorically stated that on 22.10.2011 when the quarrel took place, his younger sister Shaheen Akhter (PW-11) informed on phone that Parvez Ahmed had assaulted his sister, so he should come and save her but before he could reach there, she was taken to Surankote Hospital. He has admitted in his cross examination that he has no personal knowledge of the contents of the application but the contents were narrated as told to him by PW-11 i.e. Shaheen. 32. PW-9 Shakeel Ahmed has stated that on 22.10.2011, he received a phone call from his sister to come on spot as Shamim had been killed and he further stated that before entering into their house, the accused took his sister in the vehicle. He has admitted that before 10 minutes of his arrival, the accused had taken the deceased to Surankote hospital. Thus, from his statement, we find that there is no whisper as to who killed Shamim. PW-5 Mohd. Sharief, who was allegedly called by PW-11 on phone to come on spot as Shamim has been killed, also does not corroborate the statement of PW-11 as he has simply stated that sister of the deceased had called him to come on spot as something had happened to Shamim. 33. As the learned trial court has returned finding regarding the corroboration of the statement of PW-11 by PWs 4, 10 and 13 also, we also deem it proper, to examine their statements as well. PW-4 Safina Akhter is also related as she is sister in law of PW-11 and the deceased. She claims to have been called on phone by another sister of her husband to come quickly as the accused persons have killed Shamim and thereafter, she went on spot and on her arrival, the deceased was shifted from verandah towards road. So the fact remains that she is not an eye witness at all and she has categorically stated that if Shaheen had not phoned her, she would not have seen. So the fact remains that she is not an eye witness at all and she has categorically stated that if Shaheen had not phoned her, she would not have seen. She further stated that in her statement before the Police, it has been wrongly mentioned that she told the whole story to her husband on phone and Shaheen was on spot. She further admitted that it has wrongly been mentioned by the Police that accused were assaulting Shaheen Akhter in her presence. PW-11 in her statement has stated that she called only PWs-Shoukat, Shakeel and uncle Mohd Sharief on phone. She has nowhere deposed that she called PW-4 also on her phone. 34. PW-10-Javed Iqbal was a minor and the deceased was his paternal aunt. He was a chance witness also. He stated that PW-11 called his younger Uncle Shakeel on phone. He admitted in cross-examination that it is not mentioned in his statement that on the day of occurrence, he had gone to house of his paternal aunt at Lassana and when he went there, she was killed and taken inside the room. He further has shown ignorance as to who took the deceased to Surankote. Statement of this witness also does not inspire confidence. Further PW-11 has nowhere shown his presence on spot when the alleged occurrence took place. 35. PW-13 Abdul Hamid (Husband of the sister of the deceased) stated that on 21/22, he was cutting maize crops and after hearing hue and cry, he went towards the road. Parvez Ahmed kicked the deceased in her abdomen and also slapped her and on his arrival, the deceased was taken into room and thereafter, she was taken to Surankote hospital. Further he admitted that he did not disclose in his statement the place where the accused slapped and kicked the deceased. Further stated that it has wrongly been mentioned in his statement that the mother of Shamim cried not to assault her daughter because the mother of the deceased was at her own house at that time. The deceased was his sister in law. He further stated that he was cutting the maize crops at a distance of 100 meters from the place of occurrence. In response to the question put by the learned trial court, he had stated that Parvez Ahmed kicked and slapped Shamim and she fell down and his mother cried. The deceased was his sister in law. He further stated that he was cutting the maize crops at a distance of 100 meters from the place of occurrence. In response to the question put by the learned trial court, he had stated that Parvez Ahmed kicked and slapped Shamim and she fell down and his mother cried. The mother was of accused Parvez Ahmed and not the mother of the deceased. The learned trial court was wrong to place reliance upon the said clarification in view of the fact that the mother of the accused Parvez Ahmed has never been cited as a witness and even was not produced before the court. He is also interested and related witness and we do not find that his testimony is worthy of credence, particularly in view of the fact that he has not disclosed as to who else was present on spot. PW-11 has also not deposed about his presence on spot. 36. Further the prosecution had cited PWs Barkat Hussain and Mohd Rafiq as witnesses to the disclosure statement. PW Mohd. Rafiq, who is the father of the deceased, was declared hostile and even during cross examination, the disclosure statement was not proved by him. Similarly, PW Barkat Hussain was also declared hostile and despite cross examination, no incriminating material could be extracted from him. Thus, the disclosure statement of accused Parvez Ahmed regarding the plastic bottle containing poisonous substance Nuvan has not been proved and so is the case with recovery of bottle. 37. No doubt the victim died in her matrimonial house and cause of death was poison and the appellants have not offered any explanation for the cause of death but in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that the death in this case was homicidal in nature. In Nagaraj v. State of Tamil Nadhu, 2015 AIR Supp. SC 912, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: '15 In the context of this aspect of the law it is been held by this Court in Parsuram Pandey vs. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189 that Section 313 CrPC is imperative to enable an accused to explain away any incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution. SC 912, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: '15 In the context of this aspect of the law it is been held by this Court in Parsuram Pandey vs. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189 that Section 313 CrPC is imperative to enable an accused to explain away any incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution. It is intended to benefit the accused, its corollary being to benefit the Court in reaching its final conclusion; its intention is not to nail the accused, but to comply with the most salutary and fundamental principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem, as explained in Arsaf Ali vs. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328 . In Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCR 29 this Court has recently clarified that because of the language employed in Section 304B of the IPC, which deals with dowry death, the burden of proving innocence shifts to the accused which is in stark contrast and dissonance to a person's right not to incriminate himself. It is only in the backdrop of Section 304B that an accused must furnish credible evidence which is indicative of his innocence, either under Section 313 CrPC or by examining himself in the witness box or through defence witnesses, as he may be best advised. Having made this clarification, refusal to answer any question put to the accused by the Court in relation to any evidence that may have been presented against him by the prosecution or the accused giving an evasive or unsatisfactory answer, would not justify the Court to return a finding of guilt on this score. Even if it is assumed that his statements do not inspire acceptance, it must not be lost sight of that the burden is cast on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Once this burden is met, the Statements under Section 313 assume significance to the extent that the accused may cast some incredulity on the prosecution version. It is not the other way around; in our legal system the accused is not required to establish his innocence. We say this because we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion of the High Court that the substance of his examination under Section 313 was indicative of his guilt. It is not the other way around; in our legal system the accused is not required to establish his innocence. We say this because we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion of the High Court that the substance of his examination under Section 313 was indicative of his guilt. If no explanation is forthcoming, or is unsatisfactory in quality, the effect will be that the conclusion that may reasonably be arrived at would not be dislodged, and would, therefore, subject to the quality of the defence evidence, seal his guilt. Article 20(3) of the Constitution declares that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In the case in hand, the High Court was not correct in drawing an adverse inference against the Accused because of what he has stated or what he has failed to state in his examination under Section 313 CrPC.' 38. Further in the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626 , it has been held as under: '22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused. 23......... 24. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is, that the appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. By now it is well-settled principle of law, that false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra).' 39. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra).' 39. In view of what has been said and discussed above, we are of the view that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence. The trial court should not have placed reliance upon the statement of the real sister of the deceased PW-11 Shaheen Akhter for the purpose of convicting the appellants, as there were material contradictions in her statement and also she had made number of improvements in her statement before the trial court. Not only this, her statement was vague, having gaps regarding the material particulars so as to warrant conviction of the appellants. The appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusion: 40. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment dated 10.06.2014 to extent of conviction of the appellants for commission of offence under section 302/34 RPC and order of sentence dated 10.06.2014, passed by the court of Sessions Judge Poonch, in case titled 'State versus Parvez Ahmed &Ors' arising out of FIR No. 204/2011 of P/S Surankot. The charge-sheet stands dismissed. The appellants are on bail, their bail and personal bonds stand discharged. 41. Reference is answered accordingly. 42. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith along with copy of this judgment.