JUDGMENT : Per Oswal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.11.2008, recorded by the court of learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (for short "the Trial Court?), whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC read with Section 30 Arms Act . 2. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence, more particularly the statements made by the Lieutenant Colonel K. K. Punn, who had categorically stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the weapon of offence was in the hands of the respondent. Learned AAG has further argued that the statement of Dr. Karamveer Singh clearly proves that the injuries were not self-inflicted and further, that FSL expert S. H. Bukhari has clearly stated in the crime scene that range of fire was four to five feet from the muzzle of the carbine. He has further laid stress that the prosecution had proved the motive also on part of the respondent to commit heinous offence of murder of his wife, but the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has acquitted the respondent erroneously. 3. Per contra, Mr. Mohd. Aslam Goni, learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that the opinion formed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent cannot be termed as perverse and interference with the judgment of acquittal is not warranted, even if, on the same set of evidence the other view is also possible. He laid much stress on the statement made by the defence witness Dr. Rohit Koul, Scientific officer of FSL Jammu who accompanied the PW S. H. Bukhari but was not cited by the Investigating Officer as witness to demonstrate that there was blackening and tattooing of skin around the bullet marks on the body of the deceased, which is possible only when the victim is in close contact with the weapon at the time of suffering the gun-shot. He has further relied upon the statement of DW Dr. Bhupesh Khajuria, HOD, Forensic Medicine to dispute the statement of Dr. K. V. Singh, who had stated that the distance of the fire could have been about four to five feet from muzzle of the firearm. 4. He has further relied upon the statement of DW Dr. Bhupesh Khajuria, HOD, Forensic Medicine to dispute the statement of Dr. K. V. Singh, who had stated that the distance of the fire could have been about four to five feet from muzzle of the firearm. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record Prosecution Case: 5. Briefly stated, the case projected by the prosecution is that Commanding Officer, Aman Singh submitted an application (EXPW-AS) dated 06.11.2003 with the SHO, Police Station, Samba with request to register an FIR and in the application it was stated that Ms. Sarita Rai, wife of the respondent expired at 14.45 hours on 06.11.2003 due to gunshot wound at the quarter of the respondent situated at Samba. It was further stated in the application that body of the deceased was shifted to 171 Military Hospital at 15.10 hours by the respondent in his own vehicle and body was lying in the hospital. On receipt of this application, the inquest proceedings in terms of Section 174 Cr. P.C. were initiated. One carbine, two magazines with 37 rounds of 9 mm, 3 empty shells and the bolt were seized. FSL team was deputed, and fingerprints were lifted from the carbine by the team. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. The inquest proceedings resulted in the registration of FIR No. 186/2003 under Section 302 RPC on 19.11.2003. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid before the court of learned JMIC (Sub-Judge), Samba on 30.12.2003 against the respondent for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC and Section 30 Arms Act . The charge-sheet was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, as the Army Authorities decided not to hold trial of the respondent. Vide order dated 19.02.2004, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu transferred the charge-sheet to the learned trial court. The respondent was charged for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC and 30 Arms Act vide order dated 01.09.2004 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. All the 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined. The respondent also examined three witnesses, namely, Dr. Rohit Koul, Dr. Bhupesh Khajuria and DW Col. V. N. Rai (Father of the respondent). After hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent. 6. All the 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution were examined. The respondent also examined three witnesses, namely, Dr. Rohit Koul, Dr. Bhupesh Khajuria and DW Col. V. N. Rai (Father of the respondent). After hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has ignored the vital evidence in the form of crime scene prepared by PW S. H. Bukhari and the statements made by PW Col. Punn and PW Dr. Karamveer Singh while acquitting the respondent and, as such, the judgment of the learned trial court is perverse. Scope of interference with the judgment of Acquittal: 7. Before this Court proceeds ahead to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of the guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. 8. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “ 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3 ) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly , the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly , the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. ( 5 ) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. (emphasis added) 9. In Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State of Gujarat , 2024 INSC 295 Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India has held as under: “It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the evidence. After re- appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that this question has not been adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused. After having perused the judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself on the main question.” (emphasis added) 10. The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused. After having perused the judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself on the main question.” (emphasis added) 10. Thus, from the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments (supra), it is evident that interference with the judgment of acquittal is warranted only when the judgment is perverse or the vital evidence has been ignored by the trial court while acquitting the accused or the opinion formed by the trial court is not possible or implausible. Only because other view, better than that of the learned trial court is also possible, on the same set of evidence led by the parties, the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with. 11. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is apt to have a brief resume of the evidence led by the parties. Prosecution Evidence: 12. PW Mohinder Lal has stated that on 05.11.2003 he was posted at 129 Bn. After three days of leave he was deputed as Sahayakat the residence of the respondent. He assumed the charge from Punjabo Ram. He remained in the house of the respondent in the night as his family was not there. He was informed by Punjabo Ram that the respondent would come. He did some work and went to the unit for having lunch at 12.30. He found one Jonga on the way and thought that the respondent had come, as such, he came back. He enquired from the driver of Jonga, who told that the respondent had not come. He took the articles from the Jonga and locked in the room and thereafter again went to have meals. He saw the respondent in a civilian vehicle at bus-stand. He immediately came back and saw the deceased and her sister preparing the meals. Wife of the respondent instructed him to lay the meals on the table and he did that. He found one carbine and two magazines on the table, which he kept in the almirah of other room. He was thereafter instructed by the deceased to polish the shoes of the respondent. He took the shoes to his room. The sister of the deceased was drying clothes in the garden. He found one carbine and two magazines on the table, which he kept in the almirah of other room. He was thereafter instructed by the deceased to polish the shoes of the respondent. He took the shoes to his room. The sister of the deceased was drying clothes in the garden. Thereafter, the respondent came and asked him as to what he was doing. He replied that he was polishing the shoes. The respondent left the place. He heard the noise of cracker, but he did not pay any heed to the same. In the meantime, the sister-in-law of the respondent screamed from inside and he immediately went there. Sister-in-law of the respondent was there, and the deceased was lying on the bed. The respondent stated that his wife had committed suicide. The carbine was lying near the door. He kept the carbine in the locker and went outside. When he went outside, he found Lieutenant Colonel O. P. Mangotra coming from his house. He told him about the incident. In the meantime, Lieutenant Colonel Punn also came there and he told them the wife of the respondent had died. The victim was shifted to the hospital in the vehicle of the respondent and the respondent also accompanied them. The Police prepared the seizure memos in respect of the clay, three empty shells of bullets, magazines, 20 live rounds, one bolt and one bed sheet. He proved the seizure memos EXPW ML, EXPW- ML 1, EXPW-ML 2, EXPW-ML 3, EXPW-ML 4 and EXPW-ML5 bearing his signatures. Carbine was marked as EXPW-ML6. The uniform of the respondent was also seized vide memo EXPW-ML7. Bed sheet was seized vide memo EXPW ML-8. He expressed ignorance about the seizure of the pieces of the body of the deceased, but he identified his signatures on the seizure memo of the same and his signatures were marked as Mark- A. He admitted his signatures on the seizure memo in respect of clothes of the deceased marked as Mark-B. During cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded 2-3 days after the day of occurrence. His second statement was recorded after 17-18 days of the occurrence. Prior to him, Punjabo Ram was the Batman of the respondent. His second statement was recorded after 17-18 days of the occurrence. Prior to him, Punjabo Ram was the Batman of the respondent. He had not received any written order in respect of his assignment as batman, but this is true that Batman of any officer is appointed only by a written order. The place of occurrence was shown to him by the Police and he had not seen the carbine lying on the table. He had kept the carbine in the locker of the room adjacent to the room where the occurrence took place. He had not seen the respondent taking the gun out from that locker. He had also not seen the deceased bringing the gun out from the locker. He could not say as to who brought the gun out from the locker. He could not say as to in which room the accused was, when the firing took place. The sister of the deceased had entered the room after fire and thereafter he entered the room. The body of the deceased was lying in the Drawing Room. Gun was lying on the floor. When he took the gun, he, accused and Nivedita were there. He kept the gun in the almirah and came out. When he was in the room, Col. Mangotra came and thereafter Col. Punn came. He had not told the Police that the accused had killed his wife. When he was polishing the shoes, he heard sound of crackers, but did not hear the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The couple had very good relations. When he lifted the gun, he did not notice as to whether the gun was in auto mode or locked. When the carbine is in automatic or semi-automatic position, it can fire with a little jerk and 3-4 bursts can come out of it. He did not know as to how the deceased died. He went to the hospital on the other day. 13. PW Narinder Kumar Mishra (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased was married with the respondent on 30.06.1999. The relations between the husband and wife remained good for about one year. The respondent was posted at Jorhat, and had taken the deceased along with him, where he maltreated her. He used to talk to the deceased on phone. 13. PW Narinder Kumar Mishra (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased was married with the respondent on 30.06.1999. The relations between the husband and wife remained good for about one year. The respondent was posted at Jorhat, and had taken the deceased along with him, where he maltreated her. He used to talk to the deceased on phone. He used to ask the deceased to come to her parental home, but she would say that everything would be fine. He had sent his second daughter there in the year 2000. He came to know about the whole matter from his daughter-Aradhana. Thereafter, he contacted the Commanding Officer of the accused/respondent, who assured him that he was just like father of the deceased and there was nothing to worry. After some days, he also sent his wife to Jorhat, Assam. The respondent abused his wife also one day and the CEO of the respondent slapped him. One day the respondent called him on phone and told him that he would cut the deceased into pieces and would throw them in the jungle. That incident had taken place prior to arrival of his wife at Jorhat. He asked his daughter to accompany him due to the maltreatment of the respondent, but she did not agree. The accused had kicked her when she was carrying pregnancy of four months, but she survived. The accused also told that he would kill the child. The accused also tried to strangulate the daughter who shouted, and the accused was caught and confined in a room. He also intimated the father of the accused, who was residing at Pune. The father of the accused scolded him and accused also abused his father. He told the father of the accused that he would not permit his daughter to accompany the accused, and he brought his daughter back with him. In November 2001, she delivered a baby in his house and at that time the accused was posted at Samba. Behaviour of the accused was cordial during those days. During 2002, he visited the accused and found behaviour of the accused towards his wife and child as cordial. On 06.11.2003, he came to know that the deceased had died and on 8 th he reached Samba, where body of the deceased was lying and was cremated. Behaviour of the accused was cordial during those days. During 2002, he visited the accused and found behaviour of the accused towards his wife and child as cordial. On 06.11.2003, he came to know that the deceased had died and on 8 th he reached Samba, where body of the deceased was lying and was cremated. The accused was behaving in a manner, as if nothing had happened. The accused was happy and normal. His statement and statement of his wife were recorded on 09.11.2003. During cross- examination, he stated that his statement and that of his daughter were recorded on 9 th and no statement was recorded thereafter. They were questioned in the matter for about one month. There can be a difference between the statement made by him before the Police and in the Court today. What was written by the Police, was in Urdu and was not known to him, as he was not conversant with Urdu. The Police had not pressurised him. He was disturbed at that time. The incident that he has narrated in the court, happened when his daughter was in Jorhat, Assam, and the accused was also posted in Shillong. He had deposed about the incident of Jorhat in his statement recorded by the Police. He does not remember as to whether his statement was read over to him or not. He denied the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. “that the accused started beating the victim at Shillong after a year where accused was posted from 1999-2000. Accused one day informed at Shillong that he would kill the child and wife and throw them in the jungle. During that time, his second daughter was at Shillong and the accused used to abuse and assault the deceased in her presence. Both of his daughters due to fear of the respondent spent the night in the jungle and he was informed by his daughter on phone.” He had not told that to Police. The deceased was undergoing the course of M. Sc at Vansthali Vidyapeeth University, Jaipur and 17/18 days after the marriage, she went to university to complete her course. The deceased remained in university till April 2000 and thereafter went to her husband in the month of July 2000. It has been wrongly recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr. The deceased was undergoing the course of M. Sc at Vansthali Vidyapeeth University, Jaipur and 17/18 days after the marriage, she went to university to complete her course. The deceased remained in university till April 2000 and thereafter went to her husband in the month of July 2000. It has been wrongly recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the accused used to assault the deceased from 1999 till 2000 at Shillong. It is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that Aradhana had gone to Jorhat. It is not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the accused had told him on phone to cut the deceased into pieces. It is also not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the accused abused his wife, and the CEO had slapped him. It is also not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the accused had kicked the victim in her stomach. The son of the respondent was with him, and he had taken him after the incident, as there was no female in the house of the respondent. He had taken a cheque of Rs. 1 Lac from the father of the accused in the year 2004 as he had paid Rs. 2 Lacs to the father of the respondent for purchase of car. He knew that the deceased had not committed suicide, but the accused had killed her. This fact was not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He has no connection with the accused after the occurrence. This is correct that he got jewellery from the joint locker of the deceased and the respondent with the permission of the respondent. 14. PW Aman Singh (Major, 129 Bn.) has stated that on 06.11.2003 he was posted in 129 Infantry Battalion, as Commanding Officer. The incident took place around 2/2.30 P.M. He was in Air Force Office and was going towards Samba. When he reached there around 2.30 P.M., his Sahayak told him that there was some firing incident in the house of the accused- Viveki Rai and the dead body had been shifted to hospital. He rushed to Military Hospital, Samba. He saw the dead body of Sarita Rai and lodged the report bearing No. 1503/A/CI. A copy of the report is exhibited as EXPW-AS. He rushed to Military Hospital, Samba. He saw the dead body of Sarita Rai and lodged the report bearing No. 1503/A/CI. A copy of the report is exhibited as EXPW-AS. During cross-examination, he stated that he was posted there since 02.06.2003. He had cordial relations with the accused. They attended many functions together along with other officers and their families. The deceased also used to attend such functions. They had not observed any strain between the accused and his wife. He was sure that the FIR was registered on the same day i.e. on 06.11.2003. After lodging the FIR, he went to the Police Station 2/3 times. He used to go there to enquire about the matter. Police did not record his statement. On the day of incident, he did not go to the house of the accused. His sahayaks had not seen the accused taking deceased to Military Hospital. He did not conduct any inquiry about the incident. Around 3.10 PM, the dead body was shifted to the hospital. He further expressed ignorance about as to what actually happened and was not even intimated by anybody as to how the incident took place. 15. PW Tarsem Lal has deposed about the resealing of ten packets on 10.11.2003 and has proved the certificate EXPW TL. During cross- examination, he stated that he did not know about the contents of the packets 1-10. 16. PW Om Parkash: He identified the photographs marked as A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14 in the court, which were clicked by him. During cross-examination, he stated that in the photograph marked as A-7, the impression/impact of the bullet below the window was at the height of 8 feet above the floor. 17. PW Sukhdev Singh: He proved the seizure memo of the documents EXPW-JS. 18. PW Joginder Singh: He also proved the seizure memo (EXPW-JS) of the documents regarding proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. During cross-examination, he stated that when the proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were conducted, he was posted as Munshi at Police Station, Samba. On 06.11.2003, an information was received at the Police Station for registration of FIR. He had entered that report in the record. From 06.11.2003 till 19.11.2003, he had not made any entry which could reflect that the accused had killed his wife. P.C. were conducted, he was posted as Munshi at Police Station, Samba. On 06.11.2003, an information was received at the Police Station for registration of FIR. He had entered that report in the record. From 06.11.2003 till 19.11.2003, he had not made any entry which could reflect that the accused had killed his wife. SHO had conducted the proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. from 06.11.2003 till 19.11.2003. Documents mentioned in EXPW-JS were seized by SHO. SHO had conducted the investigation of the case after 19.11.2003. His statement was recorded on 19.11.2003 after registration of FIR. Neither he nor SHO had made any entry in the docket or in the daily diary which could demonstrate as to how Sarita Rai died. 19. PW Swarn Lal: He proved the seizure memo of the dead body EXPW-SL and also the receipt in respect of handing over of the dead body to the accused bearing EXPW-VK. 20. PW Waryam Lal has stated that on 07.11.2003 his duty was at Samba and he knows the accused. Seizure memos were prepared in his presence. In his presence, one carbine, two magazines, three empty shells of bullets, one uniform, one bed sheet and one bolt were seized. He proved the seizure memos EXPW ML, EXPW ML-1, EXPW ML-2, EXPW ML-3, EXPW ML-4, EXPW ML-5, EXPW ML-6 and EXPW ML-7. He also proved the seizure memo of one bullet EXPW-WL. During cross- examination, he stated that he was summoned by the Police from the mess of Army. The house was already unlocked. He had gone on the spot on the oral instructions of Lt. Col. Sriniwasan. Besides him, there were four Police personnel present in the house of the accused. Army personnel were not present on spot at that time. Mohinder Lal was not present at that time. This is correct that all the articles seized by the Police were already collected by them, but he could not say from where they had gathered those articles. Articles were wrapped in packets by the Police. Those packets were sealed on spot at that time. At that time, also PW Mohinder Lal was not present. His statement was not recorded by Police. The Police had told him that these articles were to be seized. His signatures were taken. EXPW ML was not read over to him. PW Mohinder Nath was not present when his signatures were obtained. At that time, also PW Mohinder Lal was not present. His statement was not recorded by Police. The Police had told him that these articles were to be seized. His signatures were taken. EXPW ML was not read over to him. PW Mohinder Nath was not present when his signatures were obtained. Similarly, the contents of EXPW ML, EXPW ML-1, EXPW ML-2, EXPW ML-3, EXPW ML-4, EXPW ML-5, EXPW ML-6, EXPW ML-7, EXPW ML-8 and EXPW WL were not read over to him and Mohinder Lal was not present at that time when his signatures were taken. Fingerprints of the accused were not taken in his presence. Uniform was not searched in his presence by the Police, to find out whether gun powder was there or not. This is true that Sarita Rai and the accused used to come daily to the mess and their relations were good. This is true that relatives of Sarita Rai i.e. her maternal uncle and brother stayed in the mess. Her parents also used to come and stay in the mess. They were having good relations with the accused and their daughter. The accused used to look after them very well. 21. PW Vimal Kumar has stated that he knows the accused present in the court and deceased was also known to him. The deceased was daughter of his brother-in-law. When she died, she was residing with the accused in Samba, and they were having one child. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 07.11.2003 in the hospital and she had suffered two bullet injuries in her chest. The pieces of skin were extracted from those two bullet wounds. He proved the receipt of dead body EXPW BK. He also proved the seizure memo of the blood sample EXPW ML-VIII. He also proved the seizure memo of skin pieces EXPW BK-1. One underwear and trouser were also seized. He proved the seizure memo EXPW BK-2. During cross-examination, he stated that on 07.11.2003 only he came to know that the deceased was killed, and he was not an eyewitness to the killing. He formed the opinion after noticing the dead body that it was not a case of suicide. There were three bullet marks on the walls of the room where the deceased was killed. Paternal uncle of the deceased informed him on phone that the deceased had been killed. He formed the opinion after noticing the dead body that it was not a case of suicide. There were three bullet marks on the walls of the room where the deceased was killed. Paternal uncle of the deceased informed him on phone that the deceased had been killed. His statement was recorded only once but it was not read over to him. On being asked by the Police as to who killed the deceased, he replied that he could not say whether the accused or someone else had killed the deceased, but it was not suicide. He did not know as to whether brother of the victim had taken sleeping pills in the year 2002 to kill himself. 22. PW Lt. Col. K. K. Punn has stated that on 06.11.2003 he was posted in 155 Bn. as quarter master. He knows the accused. At around 3 PM on 06.11.2003 after taking meals he was in his quarter at Samba, when he heard the gun fire. He heard only one gun fire. He came out of the room to the Balcony from where the sound of gun fire had come. It had come from the quarter of the accused. Some army personnel were standing there, and Lt. Col. Mangotra also came out of his quarter. He confirmed from him as to whether the sound of gun fire had come from the quarter of the accused. He immediately came down and went towards the quarter of the accused. He then confirmed from the army personnel as to whether the sound of the gun fire came from the quarter of the accused. He went inside the quarter of the accused. The accused was standing in the gallery. He inquired from him as to what happened. The accused replied that bullet has been fired, save her. He asked the accused to lift her immediately to take her to the hospital. He lifted the wife of the accused and took her to the hospital in the Maruti of the accused. The accused and his sister-in-law also accompanied him. When she was brought in the hospital, doctor declared her dead. Thereafter, he returned. The Police recorded his statement 2-3 days after the incident. During cross- examination, he stated that he has made the statement in the court after reading his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He was having copy of the same. When she was brought in the hospital, doctor declared her dead. Thereafter, he returned. The Police recorded his statement 2-3 days after the incident. During cross- examination, he stated that he has made the statement in the court after reading his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. He was having copy of the same. He did not know the name of the sister-in-law of the accused. He also did not know the names of the army personnel standing outside the quarter of the accused. He also did not know the name of batman of the accused. He was not told about the firing either by the sister-in-law of the accused or by the batman. He also did not ask them. He did not ask anyone, and none told him that the accused had fired the bullet. The accused did not appear to be drunk. He did not feel that the accused was having strained relationship with his wife. He had not told the Police that the accused had killed his wife. When he went into the room, the carbine was in the hands of the accused, and it remained with him. He did not notice as to when they went in the car where the carbine was kept. 23. PW Aradhana (Sister of the deceased) stated that she knows the accused and the deceased was her sister. The deceased was killed by her husband on 06.11.2003. The deceased, accused and her younger sister were returning from Samba and quarrel took place between the husband and wife in respect of the bill of mobile. After reaching home, again quarrel took place between them. The accused after consuming liquor quarrelled. Her younger sister had come out for drying the clothes. The deceased went to another room and the accused went into that room. They quarrelled and bullet was fired. Her younger sister heard the gun fire and went inside. The deceased was lying on bed, and she had suffered bullet injuries in her heart. The accused was standing near bed. Her younger sister took the deceased in her lap. The deceased was taken to hospital. The accused, her younger sister and one major were in the vehicle. Her younger sister-Nikki told them on phone that the accused had informed all the relatives that the deceased had died but they were not informed. They were informed by younger sister. Her younger sister took the deceased in her lap. The deceased was taken to hospital. The accused, her younger sister and one major were in the vehicle. Her younger sister-Nikki told them on phone that the accused had informed all the relatives that the deceased had died but they were not informed. They were informed by younger sister. The quarrels used to take place between the accused and the deceased, and the accused had threatened to divorce her. During cross- examination, she stated that she had made the statement before the Police. It was not read over to her. The statement made by her in the court today was not made by her before the Police and she was making the statement for the first time in the court. She had never gone to Vaishno Devi. She had not participated in the cremation of the deceased. She had come to Jammu only once. When she came for the first time to Jammu, she came to the residence of her paternal uncle. On being questioned by the court, she stated that the statement which she made today was heard from her younger sister as she was not on spot. She had stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. in respect of the incident between the accused and the deceased which took place at Jorhat, Assam. During cross-examination, she stated that they had not lodged any report in respect of the incidents of Jorhat, Assam. 24. PW Nivedita (Sister of the deceased) has stated that she knows the accused. The marriage of the accused was solemnized with her elder sister in the year 1999. She was undergoing BA course in the year 2003. When there were vacations, she got a call from her sister to spend vacations with her. On 16.10.2003 she came to her sister at Jammu. She reached on 17.10.2003. The accused had come to receive her, and they went to Samba in the vehicle of the accused. The accused consumed liquor and quarrelled with the deceased. The accused slapped the deceased and abused her. He also threw one wooden showpiece and threatened that he would eliminate her and her family members. The other day they went to Mansar and the accused also accompanied them. They returned in the evening. The accused had to go to his company the next day at Majalta and he went there. The accused slapped the deceased and abused her. He also threw one wooden showpiece and threatened that he would eliminate her and her family members. The other day they went to Mansar and the accused also accompanied them. They returned in the evening. The accused had to go to his company the next day at Majalta and he went there. They got a call that the accused would come back at 03.00 PM, and they stayed with his company at Majalta. They went there and after spending night came back. The accused got a call from someone, and he demanded one pen and paper from the deceased, which she was not carrying. The accused got angry and started admonishing and abusing her. The accused had habit of abusing in case his work was not done. The accused also received a phone call from his father and thereafter father?s phone call was disconnected. He abused his father also. The accused told the deceased that he had searched one boy for Aradhana, but the deceased objected by stating that they were Brahmins, and the boy was Rajput, therefore that relation was not possible. The accused again quarrelled with the deceased and started scolding her. The accused asked the deceased to close doors and windows of the house and she (witness) was surprised. She along with her sister was cooking in the kitchen and the accused was continuously speaking. The accused asked one person to lay the meals on the table and asked her to bring the wet clothes from the vehicle. The accused and the deceased were arguing with each other. The deceased went to room and started weeping. She was going outside to dry the clothes and suddenly, she saw towards the room where the accused and the deceased were quarrelling. The accused pushed the deceased and started uttering something. She went outside. One person was polishing the shoes. The accused went inside the room and talked to that person and came back. When she was drying the clothes, she heard sound of 2/3 gun shots. She immediately rushed to the room. One carbine was lying in the corridor, and the deceased was lying on the bed, and her feet were touching the ground. The accused was also standing there. In the meanwhile, Col Punn came and followed her to the room. When she was drying the clothes, she heard sound of 2/3 gun shots. She immediately rushed to the room. One carbine was lying in the corridor, and the deceased was lying on the bed, and her feet were touching the ground. The accused was also standing there. In the meanwhile, Col Punn came and followed her to the room. They lifted the deceased and took her to hospital in the vehicle. Col. Punn was driving the vehicle. The deceased was in her lap and the accused was sitting in the front. The accused provided artificial breathing to the deceased on the way. On being questioned by the court, she stated that the victim had suffered two bullet injuries, one in the chest and other below the chest. When the deceased was brought to hospital, she was declared dead by the doctor. After seeing the behaviour of the accused, she had thought of making a complaint to her father, but the deceased had forbidden her as she did not want to burden her father. During cross-examination, she stated that her statement was recorded by the Police, but she does not remember the date, perhaps it was recorded on 16.11.2003. Her statement was read over to her partially. She could not say as to who fired the shot. On asking of the accused and the deceased, she had come to spend vacations with them. The accused never allowed the deceased to have a feeling of deprivation of any amenity of life. She does not know whether the deceased had made any complaint to her father or not. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased only and not with anyone else. The accused always used to quarrel after consuming liquor. He would not be in his senses after consuming the liquor. The Police was not informed that the deceased was being harassed without any cause. The Police had not visited the place of occurrence in her presence. She had not made any statement other than the one recorded on 16.11.2003 before the Police. She does not know as to whether father of the accused had given cheque of Rs. 1 Lac to her father or not. She also does not know as to whether that amount was given by the father of the accused for upbringing of the child of the accused. She does not know as to whether father of the accused had given cheque of Rs. 1 Lac to her father or not. She also does not know as to whether that amount was given by the father of the accused for upbringing of the child of the accused. The Police Officials had not come to her from the date of occurrence till 16 th for recording her statement. 25. PW Dr. Karamveer Singh (Assistant Surgeon Govt. Hospital, Sarwal) stated that on 07.11.2003 he was posted as Assistant Surgeon, Sub-District Hospital, Samba. He conducted the post-mortem and was one of the members of the Board. He found the injuries on the body of the deceased, details whereof, have been mentioned in the post-mortem report. In his opinion, damage to the vital organs led to the sudden massive haemorrhage leading to instant shock with cardio-respiratory arrest causing death of the deceased. He proved the post-mortem report (EXPW KS). During cross-examination, he stated that SHO Police Station, Samba had brought the dead body. They disclosed the alleged history of the case that firing had taken place. After examination of the dead body, he assessed that the occurrence could have been more than 24 hours. He had not mentioned in the report whether the injuries were post-mortem or ante- mortem. Tattooing means blackening of skin. He stated that such marks are often present in all gunshot injuries but in some of the cases it may not be there. He further stated that such types of marks are caused because of the gun powder and distance of place of firing. He stated that in case of gunshot from 3/4 feet and beyond such type of marks are caused but not in all cases. In case of first bullet wound, bullet exit was backside downwards. In case of second bullet wound, the bullet entered the body of the deceased and its exit was from the backside, that too downwards. He further stated that in all cases of suicide, it is not possible that exit of the bullet is downwards, but it can go upwards also. The gun was shown to him, but he had not mentioned the examination of gun. This was shown to him during the investigation. He has not mentioned in the report that bullet was fired from the same gun shown to him or not. 26. PW Sh. The gun was shown to him, but he had not mentioned the examination of gun. This was shown to him during the investigation. He has not mentioned in the report that bullet was fired from the same gun shown to him or not. 26. PW Sh. S. H. Bhukhari (Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu), stated that on 13.11.2003 he received seven packets in connection with the FIR No.1231/03 through Constable Ashok Kumar of Police Station, Samba. The contents of the sealed packets were subjected to examination. After examination of the contents of the packets, he furnished his opinion in the report exhibited as EXPW S.H.B. During cross-examination, he stated that he received seven packets in FSL, Jammu and he has given his opinion about all the seven packets. EXPW S.H.B is his final report. He has not reserved his finding about anything in this case. Swab means any material used to collect the desired evidence. He further stated that Swab means surface of thumb and first finger, thumb being perpendicular to the finger. He prepared the crime scene report. He collected the swab of the accused as well as of the deceased. The question referred to him by the Investigating Officer for his opinion was to examine swab of the accused and the deceased, to ascertain as to who had fired the seized carbine. He cannot say whether the Investigating Officer was satisfied that the accused had fired from seized carbine, or the deceased had used the carbine in commission of suicide. He had not given his finding as to who had fired from the seized carbine. He could not do so because the tests conducted did not suggest as to who must have used the carbine. He had not mentioned anything about this in his report. He could not say as to who must have used the gun at the time of occurrence. Carbine was not shown to him on spot despite the fact that he had been to the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence itself. On 13.11.2003, he received gun in FSL, Jammu. He has not seen the gun in the court. He had examined such guns, number of times in his career as an expert. He has been working as an expert for the last 22 years. On 13.11.2003, he received gun in FSL, Jammu. He has not seen the gun in the court. He had examined such guns, number of times in his career as an expert. He has been working as an expert for the last 22 years. He further stated that if a carbine is used extensively and if the safety pin is not properly locked, it can go off even on a fall. As an expert, he could not say as to whether the carbine was locked or not at the time it went off. He did not examine the dead body, so he cannot say whether there was tattooing or blackening marks on the entry wounds. Since skin pieces were supplied to him for testing, so he can say the range of firing could be of the order of 4-5 feet from the muzzle of the carbine. He further stated that Satpal (Lab Assistant), Rohit Koul (Sc. Assistant) and Harnam Chand Bhagat (Sc. Officer) also went to the place of occurrence. He had not seen the carbine in question at the time when he entered the room, where the occurrence took place. He was not told as to whether the deceased was killed, or she had committed suicide. He further stated that it is not true that Rohit Koul is a fingerprint expert. Rohit Koul and Satpal assisted him in the case. He is not an expert in science of fingerprints. It is true that science of fingerprints is a perfect science in law and the report on the fingerprints by an expert is a conclusive proof. Neither he nor his team took any fingerprint on spot. Rohit Koul also knew about the process of testing in the present case. He had not seen the bullet fired from the seized carbine. He further deposed that two bullets were received by him in FSL for testing. One bullet was recovered by him from the floor of the room itself, and another bullet was recovered from the upper bolt of the window. He had not seen the entry or exit wounds on the dead body therefore, he could not say what was the size of entry or exit wound. On being asked as to whether he mentioned the size of bullet in his report, he replied that yes, he had mentioned the size of bullet as 9 mm. He had not seen the entry or exit wounds on the dead body therefore, he could not say what was the size of entry or exit wound. On being asked as to whether he mentioned the size of bullet in his report, he replied that yes, he had mentioned the size of bullet as 9 mm. A 9 mm bullet means that it can be fired from a bore of 9 mm size. He further stated that it is incorrect that 9 mm bullet is fired from a Sten gun. He cannot say as to which type of bullet must have caused injuries on the deceased. It is true that a bullet fired from carbine spins inside the muzzle and out of that also, till it reaches the target. In case of any bullet, the entry wound is always a bit smaller than the size of the bullet but the exit wound is slightly bigger that the entry wound. 27. Dr. Ashok Verma (CMO Poonch) stated that he was one of the members of the board. Post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. As per opinion of the Board, the cause of death was massive haemorrhage due to shock and cardiac arrest. He proved the post-mortem report marked as EXPW-KS. During cross-examination, he stated that it was not mentioned in the certificate, as to which of the two injuries caused the death of the deceased. Tattooing is caused if gunshot is fired from a close distance i.e. within six feet. In the instant case also, it could have been six feet. Alleged cause of death was mentioned as shot and nothing more was told. This was told by the SHO and the person attending the body. 28. PW Raj Singh stated that he knows the accused present in the court. He was posted as SHO, Samba on in 2003. He had conducted the proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. They had received information that Sarita Rai had died because of gunshot. After entering the report, he went on spot and seized the rifle. He prepared the site plan and proved the same (EXPW-RS). He also proved the seizure memo of gun, bullets, empties and magazine bearing exhibits from EXPW-ML to EXPW-ML VIII. He also proved the seizure memo of clothes EXPW-VK II. He also proved the seizure memo of skin pieces (EXPW VK 1). He prepared the site plan and proved the same (EXPW-RS). He also proved the seizure memo of gun, bullets, empties and magazine bearing exhibits from EXPW-ML to EXPW-ML VIII. He also proved the seizure memo of clothes EXPW-VK II. He also proved the seizure memo of skin pieces (EXPW VK 1). He also obtained report from the Doctor regarding the distance of fired bullet. Thereafter he got transferred. During cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded the statements of PWs Waryam Lal, Swarn Lal, Nikki and others in terms of Section 175 Cr. P.C. After his transfer, he had handed over whole of the record of the proceedings to SHO Charanjeet Singh. He left the proceedings on 16.11.2003 and thereafter what happened, he does not know. He does not know as to when FIR was registered. He does not know as to who investigated the case. His statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, but it was not found to be part of the charge-sheet. All the documents which were prepared by him and the seizures which were affected by him, the Investigating Officer had not prepared any seizure memo in respect of those documents. He did not know as to how the death of the deceased took place. Witnesses who were examined by him were not having knowledge as to how the deceased had died. He also called the fingerprints expert, but fingerprints could not be extracted from the trigger. He had also seized the uniform which the accused had worn. 29. PW Chanderjeet Singh stated that on 18.11.2003, he was posted as SHO Police Station Samba. He had conducted the investigation of FIR No. 186/2003. Proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were conducted by Probationer Dy. SP Raj Singh. File was handed over to him on 19.11.2003. He obtained the opinion of the Doctor. After perusing the medical opinion, statement of witnesses and postmortem report, it was found that the accused on 06.11.2003 at around 2.45 P.M. fired from a distance of 3- 4 feet from his service carbine and killed Sarita Rai. FIR No. 186/2003 was registered. All the documents were seized by him. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by him and the custody of the accused was obtained from his CO. FIR No. 186/2003 was registered. All the documents were seized by him. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by him and the custody of the accused was obtained from his CO. On 25.11.2003, the accused admitted his guilt and stated that his relations with his wife were not good, and they used to quarrel. On 06.11.2003 the accused along with his sister-in-law went to his Company at Majalta and came back. At 2.45 P.M. sister-in-law of the accused and his orderly went outside the room. The accused was talking to his friend at that time due to which a quarrel took place between him and his wife, as the deceased was asking him to switch off the fan. The accused thought of getting rid of the deceased and fired three shots at her and killed the deceased. This story was told to him by the accused during investigation. After conclusion of the investigation, he proved offence under Section 302 RPC against the accused. During cross- examination, he stated that proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were initiated on 06.11.2003 and were concluded on 19.11.2003. Proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were conducted by Raj Singh, who was posted as Inspector from 06.11.2003 to 17.11.2003. Raj Singh had conducted proceedings but has not mentioned about his opinion except ballistic report which was obtained on 10.12.2003. Rest of the investigation and statements were recorded on 19.11.2003. The gunpowder was found from clothes (Pocket) and hands of the accused and from swab report of the accused, it was established that the accused had killed his wife. Fingerprint report was not obtained. The fact which he has mentioned in the charge-sheet that the fingerprints have been sent for expert opinion, was stated by him on the basis of proceedings conducted under Section 174 Cr. P.C. From case diary it is evident that the crime team visited the spot on 07.11.2003. He did not make any effort to get the report of fingerprint expert. As the accused had admitted that the carbine belonged to him, therefore, he accepted it. It is nowhere mentioned in the file that the accused stated that the carbine belonged to him and further that he killed the deceased as he wanted to get rid of her. It is also not mentioned in the charge-sheet also. As the accused had admitted that the carbine belonged to him, therefore, he accepted it. It is nowhere mentioned in the file that the accused stated that the carbine belonged to him and further that he killed the deceased as he wanted to get rid of her. It is also not mentioned in the charge-sheet also. He had not sent any record to FSL, but it was sent prior to him. It transpired from the ballistic report that the carbine was in working condition. No test firing was carried out. As per his investigation, besides Nikki and Mohinder Lal, Col. Punn was the first person who came on spot. Except them, no one else had come on spot. Mohinder Lal had told him that after removing the magazine from the carbine, he had kept it in the cupboard. He stated that Col. Punn told him that the accused told him that he had accidently fired, and he be saved. As per his investigation, Col. Mangotra had come after the incident. Defence Evidence: 30. DW Col.V. N. Rai (Father of the respondent) stated that the accused is his son, whose marriage was solemnized with the deceased in the year 1999 and they were blessed with a child. The relationship between the accused and the deceased were good and they never quarrelled. He used to talk to him and his wife regularly and she never made any complaint in respect of the accused. She was having phone facility of the unit and mobile as well. During service, he was posted in the Infantry Battalion. In the Infantry Battalion knowledge of weapons is also provided. He is having experience of 29 years, and he is making statement as an expert, as he has fired from the weapons. He is well aware about the Sten gun as it happens to be a personal weapon. There is a safety position in the weapon. In the first position, the Sten gun is stopped, in the second position, it fires single shot and in the third position, it fires automatically. Sten gun is also known as carbine. If the Sten gun falls on floor accidently, it can result into burst of 3-4 bullets. A Sten gun is un-predictive and after the burst due to change of position, the other bullets too get fired. The bullet of Sten gun is 9 mm. Sten gun is also known as carbine. If the Sten gun falls on floor accidently, it can result into burst of 3-4 bullets. A Sten gun is un-predictive and after the burst due to change of position, the other bullets too get fired. The bullet of Sten gun is 9 mm. As the bullet comes out from the Sten gun very fast, so there are no chances of deflection in the body when it enters at a particular angle. In the same angle, it comes out. He went to the quarter of the accused the other day. He has tried to demonstrate that the occurrence had not taken in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 31. DW Sh . Rohit Koul (Scientific Officer, FSL, Jammu) stated that in November 2003 he was posted at FSL, Jammu. On 07.11.2003, they received a message from PCR regarding some incident having taken place at Army Officers quarter, Samba. Firstly, they visited the Police Station, Samba and then they went to Army Officer?s Quarter i.e. the official quarter of Major Viveki Rai, where the incident had taken place. By incident, he meant death of wife of Major Viveki Rai. They entered the room where the death had taken place after the locks were opened by the Police. There was pool of blood on the bed, and he was told by the Police that dead body was lying there. There was no weapon in the room but the same was subsequently produced by some Police or Army Officer. There were three bullet marks in the room. First bullet mark was at the height of 5 ½ feet. Second bullet mark was at the height of 6 feet and third bullet mark was at the height of 9 feet. First bullet mark was embedded in the lock of the window. Second bullet had gone through the wire mesh of the window. The weapon which was subsequently produced before the FSL team was carbine. He was the head of the team and a ballistic expert. Sh. S. H. Bukhari was also with the team. They did not find any fingerprint on the weapon. The distance between second and third bullet mark was approximately 7 to 8 feet. He saw the dead body firstly lying in the army hospital and then in the mortuary of the SDH Samba. Sh. S. H. Bukhari was also with the team. They did not find any fingerprint on the weapon. The distance between second and third bullet mark was approximately 7 to 8 feet. He saw the dead body firstly lying in the army hospital and then in the mortuary of the SDH Samba. He observed tattooing and blackening of the skin around the bullet marks on the dead body. Blackening and tattooing marks appear in case of use of carbine takes place when the deceased is in close contact with the weapon at the time, he/she is fired upon. If the weapon is at a distance of more than 1 feet from the deceased, when it is fired upon, the blackening and tattooing will be insignificant. The bullet track if it is showing downward track while it is entering the body, then leaving the body, it will continue downward track only after it leaves the body. The height of the bed was 2½ to 3 feet and the bullet after leaving the body had gone upward. For a person like Army Officer, who frequently goes for firing etc. it is very common to have gunshot residue in their hands or pockets for use or handling of the weapon. Gunshot residue refers to gases coming off the barrel of the gun and contains traces of copper, lead and nitrate. He was not informed or told about involvement of any person in the alleged incident by the Police when they visited the spot with mobile team. He was shown the uniform of the accused, which was olive green in colour. In case somebody is trying to save the victim of gun fire by resuscitation, the gunshot residue is likely to be transferred along with other body fluids to the person who is trying to save the victim. During cross- examination, he stated that there is no certificate bearing his signatures on the court file. His statement was not recorded by the Police. 32. DW Dr . Bhupesh Khajuria (HOD, Forensic Medicine, GMC, Jammu) stated that he has about 20 years of professional experience including forensic medicine and he was head of the Department-Forensic Medicine, GMC Jammu at that time. It is true that blackening and tattooing occur in fire arm injury cases where the muzzle of the gun from the body of the injured is within 1 feet distance. It is true that blackening and tattooing occur in fire arm injury cases where the muzzle of the gun from the body of the injured is within 1 feet distance. If the injured who has blackening or tattooing marks is wearing double clothing, then the distance of muzzle of the gun could be even less than the prescribed one feet. He has seen the post-mortem report in the case and the opinion given by the Dr. K. V. Singh on 19.11.2003 and he can say that the opinion of the Doctor to the extent that possible distance of the fire could have been about 4 to 5 feet from the muzzle of the firearm is wrong in view of circular dark black tattooing found around that entry wound. The distance in the case could not be more than 1 foot in any case as the victim was wearing double layer clothing. It is wrong for the doctor to have given opinion on third point to the extent the gunshot wound in question cannot be self-inflicted at all. This opinion is not possible as this is primarily a factual matter on which medical opinion cannot be given. Keeping in view the distance of the fire, the instant case can be self-inflicted fire. These firearm injuries can be possible in case of accidental fire also because of falling of the weapon. If the bullet after entering the body is taking downward track, it will continue the same track while exiting from the body. It is not possible for the bullet in the instant case to go upward after leaving the body, as it was following the downward track. The opinion given by Dr. K. V. Singh on 09.11.2003 in reference to query by SHO Samba is not based on postmortem findings. The reply given by Dr. K. V. Singh on 19.11.2003 is not based on scientific basis and in his opinion, such opinion should not have been given by the said Doctor. During cross-examination, he stated that he had neither given the opinion in the case as an expert during investigation, nor he had been consulted by the Investigating Officer but today he is giving the opinion as an expert called by the court. Appreciation 33. During cross-examination, he stated that he had neither given the opinion in the case as an expert during investigation, nor he had been consulted by the Investigating Officer but today he is giving the opinion as an expert called by the court. Appreciation 33. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it transpires that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence only. The prosecution has alleged the acrimonious relationship between the respondent and the deceased as a cause for commission of offence of murder by the respondent. The prosecution has banked upon the statements of PWs Aradhana, Navedita, both sisters of the deceased and PW Narinder Kumar Mishra father of the deceased. PW Narinder Kumar Mishra, father of the deceased has stated the maltreatment of the deceased by the accused at Jorhat, however, during cross-examination, he stated that it was wrongly recorded in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused used to beat his daughter from the year 1999 till 2000 at Shillong and rather he had stated all the incidents at Jorhat, but the same has not been mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It was also not recorded in his statement made before the Police that the accused had abused his wife, and his CO had slapped the accused/respondent. It was not found in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused had told him on phone that he would cut his wife into pieces and had kicked the victim in her stomach. He has further stated in his chief-examination that in November, 2001, victim delivered a baby in his house and at that time the accused was posted at Samba and the behaviour of the accused was cordial towards the deceased during those days. In the year, 2002, he also visited the accused?s house and found behaviour of the accused towards his wife and child cordial.PW Navedita, sister of the deceased has stated that after seeing the behaviour of the accused with the deceased, she had thought of making a complaint to her father, but the deceased had forbidden her as she did not want to burden her. During her cross- examination, she stated that the accused provided all the amenities of life to the deceased, and she expressed ignorance as to whether the deceased had made any complaint to her father or not. She further stated that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased only after consuming liquor. She has admitted that while the deceased was being taken to the hospital, the accused provided artificial breathing to her. PW Aradhana, second sister of the deceased has stated that the quarrel used to take place between the deceased and the accused. The accused had threatened the deceased to divorce her. She has further stated that the statement made by her in the court was being made for the first time. PW Aman Singh, who lodged the FIR, has stated that he and the accused attended many functions together and the wife of the accused had also attended functions, and he never observed any strained relationship between them. PW Waryam Lal stated that the accused and the victim used to visit Mess and their relations were good. He further stated that the relatives of Sarita Rai i.e. her maternal uncle and brother stayed in the Mess. Her parents also used to come and stay in the Mess. They were having good relations with the accused and their daughter. 34. In view of the statements made by the above-mentioned witnesses, it cannot be stated that the accused and the deceased were having strained relations between them which provided the motive to the accused to kill his wife. The motive for commission of any offence may be irrelevant, when the prosecution case is based on direct evidence but when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the motive for commission of offence is also alleged by the prosecution, then the failure of the prosecution to prove the same, is a circumstance which goes in favour of the accused. In Pannayar v. State of T.N. , (2009) 9 SCC 152 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the absence of motive in a case which depended on circumstantial evidence, is more favourable to the defence. 35. It was vehemently argued by the learned A.A.G that when PW Lt. Col. In Pannayar v. State of T.N. , (2009) 9 SCC 152 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the absence of motive in a case which depended on circumstantial evidence, is more favourable to the defence. 35. It was vehemently argued by the learned A.A.G that when PW Lt. Col. Punn arrived at the place of occurrence, he found the Carbine in the hands of the accused and that the accused told him that the fire has been shot, save her. A perusal of the statement of Lt. Col. Punn reveals that after hearing the gunfire, he went to the place of occurrence and the accused was standing in the gallery, who stated that the bullet had been fired, save her. During cross-examination, he stated that the Carbine was in the hands of the accused. PW Navedita, sister of the deceased stated that she along with her deceased-sister was cooking in the kitchen and the accused was continuously speaking. The accused asked one person to lay the meals on the table and asked her to bring wet clothes from the vehicle. The accused and the deceased were arguing with each other. The deceased went to room and started weeping. When she was going outside to dry the clothes and suddenly looked, where the accused and the deceased were quarrelling, the accused pushed the deceased and started uttering something. She went outside. One person was polishing the shoes and the accused went inside the room and talked to that person and came back. When she was drying the clothes, she heard 2-3 gunshots. She immediately rushed to the room. One Carbine was lying in the corridor, and the deceased was lying on the bed. In the meanwhile, Col Punn came and followed her into the room. PW Navedita has nowhere stated that the Carbine was in the hands of the accused, rather in her cross-examination, she stated that she could not say as to who fired the shot. Not only this, even the said statement made by Col. Punn was not put to the respondent in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. PW Mohinder Lal has stated that while he was polishing the shoes, the respondent came to him and enquired as to what he was doing and thereafter he left the place. Not only this, even the said statement made by Col. Punn was not put to the respondent in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. PW Mohinder Lal has stated that while he was polishing the shoes, the respondent came to him and enquired as to what he was doing and thereafter he left the place. He heard the noise of the crackers, but he did not pay any heed and in the meantime, the sister-in-law of the accused screamed from inside and he immediately went there. He further stated that the respondent had told him that his wife had committed suicide, and the Carbine was lying near the door. He kept the Carbine in the locker and went outside. In view of the statement made by PW Navedita and PW Mohinder Lal, it cannot be held as proved that the Carbine was in the hands of the accused. 36. It is alleged by the prosecution that the death of Sarita Rai was homicidal and not suicidal. The prosecution has relied upon the statements made by Sh. S. H. Bukhari, Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu, Ballstic Expert and Dr. K. V. Singh to prove that the death of the Sarita Rai was homicidal in nature. It was contended by the appellant that as per the crime scene prepared by PW S. H. Bukhari, the range of fire could be of 4-5 feet from the muzzle of the Carbine. PW S. H. Bukhari has also stated that the Investigating Officer had sought his opinion as to who had fired the seized carbine, by conducting the swab test. He has not given his finding as to who had fired from the seized Carbine. He could not say so because test conducted did not suggest as to who must have used the Carbine. He further stated that if the Carbine is used and if the safety pin is not properly locked, it can go off even on a fall. IO Chanderjeet has stated that the gun powder i.e. Nitrite was found from the pocket of the uniform-pant of the accused as well as the hands of the accused and the swab report of the accused has confirmed this fact. PW S. H. Bukhari has nowhere deposed about the result of swab report in his deposition. Also, there is no mention of swab report in the EXPW-SHB. PW S. H. Bukhari has nowhere deposed about the result of swab report in his deposition. Also, there is no mention of swab report in the EXPW-SHB. In absence of the said report, we are at loss as to how the statement of IO can be relied, to return the finding with regard to presence of gunpowder in the hands of the accused, particularly when the swabs of hands of both accused and the deceased were taken.PW S.H Bukhari admitted that DW Rohit Koul had also accompanied him to the place of occurrence. DW Rohit Koul stated that there were three bullets? marks in the room. First bullet marked was at the height of 5 ½ feet, second bullet marked was at the height of 6 feet and third bullet marked was at a height of 9 feet. First bullet was embedded in the bolt of the window, the second bullet had passed through the wire mesh of the window and the distance between the second and third bullet mark was approximately 7 to 8 feet. He had observed tattooing and blackening of the skin around the bullet marks on the dead body. He further stated that the tattooing and blackening marks in case of use of Carbine takes place when the deceased is close contact with the weapon at the time he/she is fired upon. If the weapon is at a distance of more than 1 feet from the victim when it is fired upon, the tattooing and blackening will be insignificant. PW S. H. Bukhari has also deposed that he cannot say whether there was tattooing and blackening marks on the entry wounds as he did not examine the dead body. This statement made by S. H. Bukhari is contradictory to the report on crime scene wherein it was stated that they had gone to mortuary of SDH Samba and had examined cadaver. In the crime scene report, it is mentioned that he was accompanied with Rohit Koul, Scientific Assistant, Sat Pal Lab Assistant and Harnam Chand Bhagat, Scientific Office, Physics. PW Rohit Koul has stated that he had seen the dead body in the mortuary SDH Samba and had observed tattooing and blackening of skin. PW S H Bukhari has stated about the range of firing as 4 to 5 feet from the muzzle of the Carbine only, as the skin pieces were supplied to him. PW Rohit Koul has stated that he had seen the dead body in the mortuary SDH Samba and had observed tattooing and blackening of skin. PW S H Bukhari has stated about the range of firing as 4 to 5 feet from the muzzle of the Carbine only, as the skin pieces were supplied to him. As per evidence brought on record, it is evident that there were two entry and exit wounds and there were three marks of the bullet in the room. It is not forthcoming as to how the bullets struck the wall/window at the height of 5 feet and above. The prosecution has not proffered any evidence that the two bullets after piercing the body of the deceased in a downward manner ricocheted of some hard object and then hit the walls/window. It assumes significance as scrapings recovered from the wall have not been stated to be blood stained. 37. It needs to be noted that PW Karanvir Singh has proved the post-mortem report (ExPW KS) and he has found two entry wounds and exit wounds and as per the post-mortem report, the damage to vital organs led to the sudden massive haemorrhage leading to instant shock with cardio respiratory arrest and death. The said report was signed by Dr. A. K. Verma as well. Mr Amit Gupta, learned AAG had placed much reliance upon the opinion furnished by Dr. Karamvir Singh, Assistant Surgeon Government Hospital, Sarwal, wherein on the application submitted by SHO Police Station, Samba dated 17.11.2003, it was stated that the gunshot wounds in question cannot be self-inflicted at all and the possible distance of the fire could have been about 4 to 5 feet from the muzzle of the fire arm. It was further stated in the opinion dated 19.11.2003 that the angle of the fire could not be ascertained, and the gunshot wounds cannot be self-inflicted. Though the above opinion was relied upon heavily by Mr. Gupta but the same was never proved during trial. Rather Dr. Verma, the companion of Dr. Karamvir Singh, who also conducted the postmortem, stated that alleged cause of death was gunshot and nothing more was told. Even Dr. Karamvir Singh during cross-examination has admitted that the bullets had hit the victim on front and exits of the bullets were backside downwards. Rather Dr. Verma, the companion of Dr. Karamvir Singh, who also conducted the postmortem, stated that alleged cause of death was gunshot and nothing more was told. Even Dr. Karamvir Singh during cross-examination has admitted that the bullets had hit the victim on front and exits of the bullets were backside downwards. The opinion which has not been proved during trial and has not been signed by the companion-doctor of the Board cannot be relied upon for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. It needs to be noted that the opinion of PW Dr. Karamvir Singh has been negated by Dr. Bupesh Khajuria, who appeared as a defence witness and stated that the finding of the doctor conducting the post mortem that angle could not be ascertained is wrong as the post mortem report itself reveals that the fire had hit the victim on the front and had travelled downwards and backwards and the same can be inferred from the track of entry and exist wounds. 38. Another interesting feature of the case is that in the challan it has been stated that the fingerprints were extracted from the carbine. IO Chanderjeet Singh has stated that fingerprint report was not obtained. The fact which he has mentioned in the charge-sheet that the fingerprints have been sent for expert opinion, was stated by him on the basis of proceedings conducted under Section 174 Cr. P.C. He did not make any effort to get the report of fingerprint expert. PW S H Bukhari has stated that neither he nor any member of his team lifted any fingerprint on spot. This also makes a prosecution story doubtful, the benefit of which must go to the respondent. 39. There are no doubt incriminating circumstances against the respondent, as the weapon of offence was a service weapon, the deceased suffered two bullets injuries and the accused and the deceased only were present in the room but equally true is that the opinion formed by the learned trial court for acquitting the respondent after noting certain discrepancies, also cannot be termed as impossible or perverse. On same set of evidence, when two views are possible and the learned trial court has taken a particular view in favour of the accused, the interference with the acquittal is not warranted. 40. On same set of evidence, when two views are possible and the learned trial court has taken a particular view in favour of the accused, the interference with the acquittal is not warranted. 40. There are un-explained gaps in the prosecution case and the chain of circumstances is not complete in such a manner, that only one conclusion in respect of the guilt of the accused-respondent can be drawn. In Laxman Prasad v. State of M.P. /b> ., (2023) 6 SCC 399 , the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking note of its earlier two pronouncements in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116 , and Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat , AIR 2020 SC 180 [KARAM CHAND] , has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime. Conclusion: 41. In view of above discussion, the ineluctable conclusion is that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the opinion formed by the learned trial court cannot be held as perverse or impossible, warranting any interference by this court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. 42. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.