Ravinder Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2007 Latest Caselaw 2427 Del

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2004 and 20.11.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge thereby holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The appellant-accused was tried for having murdered his wife. On receipt of information pertaining to the commission of murder at Sangam Vihar information was recorded vide DD No. 7A on 29.7.2002 at Police Station Sangam Vihar. The investigation of this case was handed over to SI Manoj Kumar. On receipt of this information that in gali No. 27 Samgam Vihar a murder had taken place, the Investigating Officer reached the spot and found a dead body of a woman lying in the room of the house. The dead body was of the wife of Ravinder Singh, the accused (the appellant herein). Rukka for registration of the FIR was sent to the Police Station through Constable Kuldip Singh. FIR No. 401/2002 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and handed over to SI Shivraj Singh for investigation. The SI inspected spot. The photographer and the crime team was called, who inspected the spot and took photographs. The dead body was sent to the mortuary of AIIMS. The site plan was prepared. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses.

3. Prosecution has examined PW-1 (S.I. Jeet Singh), who has deposed that on 29.7.2002 he reached at 1159/24 Sangam Vihar, Delhi along with the crime team and instructed the photographer to take photographs from different angles. Prosecution has also examined PW-2, Neelam 14 year old daughter of the deceased; PW-3, Neeru, 9 year old daughter of the deceased; PW-4 Davinder Singh, who was the landlord of the deceased; PW-5, Dr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased; PW-6, Hav. Besar Ram, who has stated that he received Rukka from S.I. Manoj Kumar; PW-7, Chander Pal, brother-in-law of the deceased; PW-8 Raj Bir Singh; PW-9, Constable Kulbir Singh, who registered the FIR; PW-10, SI, Manoj Kumar; PW-11, S.I. Shiv Raj Singh, the investigating officer of this case. PW-12 S.I. Madan Pal, who visited the spot and took rough notes and prepared a rough site plan. PW-13, Krishan 12 years old son of the deceased and PW-14 photographer.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Smt.Babita was the wife of the appellant, Ravinder Singh. They were residing at Gali No. 27, Sangam Vihar, along with three minor children i.e. (PW-2, Neelam, PW-3, Neeru and PW-13, Krishan). On 29.7.2002 a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and her husband. The eldest child of the deceased had gone to her school, however, the younger children were present when the quarrel had taken place. The appellant had asked his wife to prepare tea, however, when the tea was prepared, he threw it away. The two children were asked to go out to play and after some time the father came out of the room, locked the same from outside and took both the children i.e. (Neeru and Krishan) who were playing outside, to the school of the eldest child. The Principal was informed that as the mother was unwell, his daughter Neelam should be allowed to go home. On the way back, the appellant gave the key of the room to Neelam and went away. The children returned home and opened the lock of the room and found their mother was lying on the floor unable to speak and breathing slowly as per PW-1 and dead as per PW-3. The prosecution has heavily relied on the statement of PW-2, Neelam, 14 year old daughter of the deceased as well as PW-3, Neeru, the 9 year old daughter of the deceased and also the evidence of PW-5, Dr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, Babita.

5. Based on the evidence, the Trial Court has recorded a finding and held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.

6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased had died as she committed suicide. It is submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on the basis of which the appellant was held guilty. The said judgment and order are therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law the same being based on surmises and conjectures. The appellant has been held guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence in which the chain of circumstances is also not complete. Moreover all the circumstances suggest the possibility of non involvement of the appellant in the present case. None of the witness has deposed that whether the death is homicidal or suicidal and it is settled law that where two views are possible the one which goes in favor of the accused shall be taken into consideration but in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.

7. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that as per the evidence of the eldest child, PW-2, Neelam, her father reached the school and told her to go home as her mother was weeping. She reached home and found that the room was locked. She opened the lock and found that the mother was lying on the floor. According to PW-2 "She was alive, but was not in a position to speak." PW-2, has further in cross-examination deposed that sometimes quarrel used to take place between her mother and father, "no MAR PEET" took place" also that when she returned, her mother was not in a position to speak, but she was breathing slowly. Learned Counsel contends that as per PW-2 when the children reached the home, the mother, deceased Babita was still alive, but she was breathing slowly. As per the evidence of PW-3, the father had asked the children to go out and play. PW-3 has also confirmed that there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband. PW-3 has however, deposed that when the lock of the door was opened, the mother was lying on the floor and was dead. In the cross-examination the witness has deposed that she (PW-3) and her brother PW-13 were playing just opposite the room. She has further deposed that she had heard noises of quarreling between the father and the mother and also heard noises of weeping of her mother when her father locked the room and proceeded for his shop. PW-13, minor son has also deposed that father had never given any beating to the mother, however, sometimes there was quarrel. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied on the evidence of DW-1, who is the mother-in-law of the appellant and mother of the deceased. As per DW-1, her daughter had never complained to her that her husband the appellant used to either beat or torture her. She has further deposed that children of her daughter had never complained to her that the appellant used to beat or torture their mother. According to this witness, her daughter was not of sound mind and if any person acted contrary to her wishes, she used to tear away her clothes and behave abnormally. She had also deposed that she had no complaint against her son-in-law. In cross-examination, she had stated that her son-in-law, appellant, used to behave very well and treat her daughter very well. She also denied the suggestion that due to compromise with the accused and his relatives she was deposing falsely so as to save the accused.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant also relies on the evidence of PW-5, Dr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, who conducted the postmortem on the deadbody. In his evidence, he has deposed "following ante-mortem injuries were observed during postmortem examination : Faint legature marks (brownish colour), in front of neck lower part below the thyroid cartilage 2.5 cm above suprasxternal notch encircling the whole neck. It was horizentally placed and encircling the whole neck. On dipper neck tissue dissection, there was muscle hymetoma of the neck muscles below the legature marks and no other external injury was present." "The cause of death was given as asphyxia due to lagature strangulation which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death." In the cross-examination this witness stated that there were no bruises or abrasion other than the ligature marks around the neck. Also that he was not in a position to give any opinion whether the ligature marks were suicidal or homicidal in nature. Learned Counsel contends that on the basis of evidence so recorded, the trial court could not have come to a finding against the appellant and also there is no evidence to show that either there was any motive or any reason for the appellant to have murdered his wife, nor there is any evidence on record to show that the appellant committed the crime. He submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant and his wife had extremely strained relation which would give reason for the appellant to commit murder. The children have categorically deposed that the appellant had never hit their mother, except that they used to quarrel sometimes.

9. Learned Counsel submits that the mother-in-law has given a clean chit with regard to the conduct of the appellant as she had never learnt that her son-in-law ever gave beating or tortured her daughter and in fact according to her, her son-in-law used to behave very well and also used to treat her daughter very well. Besides that mother-in-law had categorically mentioned that her daughter was not of sound mind and any person, who acted contrary to her wishes, she used to tear away her clothes and behave abnormally. There is nothing on record to show that there was marital discord between the deceased and her husband.

10. Learned Counsel contends that the surrounding circumstances would clearly show that there was no fight, scuffle or any other evidence which would show that the appellant had tried to strangulate his wife, also there were no marks or any fresh injuries either on the body of the deceased or the appellant to show struggle by the deceased. There was nothing to suggest that the furniture in the room was displaced or there were any signs of struggle.

11. Learned Counsel for the State contends that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the order of conviction cannot be disturbed.

12. The counsel for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of PW-3 and PW-13, the daughter and son of the deceased to show that on the date of occurrence the appellant had quarreled with his wife and the accused had asked the children to go out of the house. Later he locked the room from outside and left the place of occurrence. Thus the conduct of the accused before and after the offence is established by these two witnesses. It is further contended that there is no evidence that any third person had entered the room subsequently. It is strongly urged by learned Counsel for the State that the accused, appellant had handed over the key of the room to PW-3 and told her to go home as her mother was weeping. When all the three children came back to the room, they opened the lock and found that the deceased was lying on the floor. Counsel for the State places strong reliance on the evidence of PW-10, SI, Manoj Kumar, to show that broken pieces of bangles were seized and sealed as well as there were broken hairs lying near the dead body. The medical evidence in the shape of postmortem report also establishes horizontal marks of ligature, ruling out any death of hanging and thus the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it was homicidal strangulation by the appellant. Thus from the evidence of the three witnesses, it is established that the accused fought with the deceased and left the house and did not return for the entire day. Before leaving the house, he had locked the room from outside and the same was only opened by the children after about 45 minutes.

13. The trial court has placed strong reliance on the evidence of the children and the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, and also given no credit to the evidence of DW-1, the mother of the deceased. The court has considered the fact that the accused has asked the children to go out and play and the children heard the accused and his wife quarreling. Thereafter in their presence the accused had locked the door from outside and taken the children to the school of the eldest child, PW-2. The children in their evidence have stated that on opening the door they found their mother lying dead on the floor. The trial court has also taken the conduct of the accused, before and after the offence, into consideration, as after the door of the room had been locked by the accused nobody had entered the room. The trial court has also given a finding that since broken bangles and pulled out hairs were found near the dead body as per PW-10, struggle by the deceased before her death was established. The trial court has also taken into consideration the evidence of the doctor, PW-5, Sushil Kumar Sharma, who conducted the postmortem and has come to the conclusion that the death occurred by pulling the two ends of the chunni. The trial Court has also come to a finding that the strangulation was homicidal and not suicidal and the trial court has relied upon Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 200 has referred to Zettsch.f. Med. Beamte 1888, 1, 864-863, Dironmann, Forensic Med. And Toxic, Ed. VI. 175, and noticed 'It is not possible for anyone to continue a firm grasp of the throat after unconsciousness supervenes hence throattling by the fingers cannot be possible be suicidal'. The trial court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the accused prior to and after the occurrence and recorded that the broken bangles and pulled out hair, as they were found at the place of occurrence, were the signs of struggle.

14. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, who have taken us through the record of this case. As a final court of facts, the High Court is entitled to re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. This Court must thus be satisfied that the case of the prosecution is substantially true and that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that conviction cannot be disturbed in appeal. It will be useful to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh which are as follows :

Another Golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations.

Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.

The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, however is more apparent than real.

It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilised society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether.

15. The entire evidence including the evidence of the material witnesses has been analyzed by us. PW-2, Neelam is the 14 year old daughter of the deceased. In her evidence it has been stated that she had gone to her school on 29.7.2002 i.e. the date of the incident; her father accompanied by her younger sister, Neelam and younger brother, Kishan as well, reached the school and asked her to go home as her mother was weeping. On reaching home she found that home was locked from outside and the father had given the key of the room to her at school itself. On opening the lock, she found that her mother was lying on the floor. She stated that she could not say whether there was any injury on her person, but at that time she was alive but not in a position to speak, therefore she did not tell her anything. The father did not return back home on that day. In the cross examination she has stated that sometimes quarrel used to take place between her mother and father but no "MAAR PEET" took place. It has also been stated that when she returned to the house, her mother was not in a position to speak, but was breathing slowly.

16. PW-3, is the 9 year old daughter of the deceased. In her evidence she has stated that a quarrel had taken place between her mother and the father. Her father had asked her mother to prepare tea which she did, however, the father in a fit of anger threw away the tea. He had then asked her and her brother to go out to play, which they did. After some time her father came out of the room, closed the door and locked it. The father took both the children to the school of their sister and thereafter took Neelam from the school and handed over the key of the room to her. PW-3, further goes on to state that she had told her sister that her mother was weeping. On their return, she found that her mother was lying on the floor dead. In the cross-examination she has stated that she along with her brother were playing just opposite the room of the house. She had heard noises of quarrel between the mother and father and she was hearing the noises of weeping of her mother when her father locked the room and proceeded for his shop. She further stated that prior to this incident her father did not give beating to her mother, although sometimes quarrel used to take place.

17. PW-13, is the 12 year old son of the deceased, who was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, however, in his statement he has mentioned that on the date of the incident his father was quarreling with his mother, however, he was not aware that whether his father had beaten his mother.

18. The other material witness in this case is the evidence of SI Manoj Kumar, PW-10, who reached the spot and found Smt. Babita dead. In his statement he has stated that he has found broken pieces of bangles near the dead body and also found broken hairs lying near the dead body. In this case the postmortem was conducted by PW-5, Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma and according to him "following ante-mortem injuries were observed during postmortem examination : Faint legature marks (brownish colour), in front of neck lower part below the thyroid cartilage 2.5 cm above suprasxternal notch encircling the whole neck. It was horizontally placed and encircling the whole neck. On dipper neck tissue dissection, there was muscle hymetoma of the neck muscles below the legature marks and no other external injury was present." "The cause of death was given as asphyxia due to lagature strangulation which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death." In his cross examination he has stated that he cannot comment regarding the amount of force, while tying the ligature on the neck. He has also stated that there were no bruises or abrasion other than the ligature marks around the neck; and he further goes on to state that he is not in a position to give any opinion whether the ligature marks were of suicidal or homicidal in nature because lots of circumstances were to be taken into consideration before giving such an opinion.

19. The trial court has also taken into consideration the evidence of the above witnesses. In this case there was only one defense evidence i.e. DW-1, mother of the deceased, Shanti Devi, who in her evidence has stated that her daughter had never complained her that the accused used to beat her or tortured her. She had also never received any complaint from the children of her daughter that the accused used to beat her or torture her. She goes on to state that her daughter was not of sound mind and if any person acted contrary to the wishes of her daughter, she used to tear away her clothes and behave abnormally. She wanted the accused to be acquitted for the sake of children and she had no complaint against her son-in-law. She was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor for the State during which she stated that her son-in-law i.e. the accused used to behave very well and treat her daughter very well. She had denied the suggestion that she entered into a compromise with the relation of the accused and was deposing falsely to save the accused for the sake of children. The trial court has not taken the evidence of this witness, DW-1, into consideration, holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

20. The court has also relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 200 has referred to Zettsch. f. Med. Beamte 1888, 1, 864-863, Dironmann, Forensic Med. And Toxic, Ed. VI. 175. The operative portion reads as : 'It is not possible for anyone to continue a firm grasp of the throat after unconsciousness supervenes hence throattling by the fingers cannot be possible be suicidal'. The trial court has also taken into consideration the conduct of the accused prior to and after the occurrence he left the house and did not return the entire day and also recorded that as the broken bangles and pulled out hair were found, which showed signs of struggle.

21. The trial court was also convinced with regard to the guilt of the accused on the ground that there were broken pieces of bangles and pulled out hairs at the scene of the crime together with the fact, while taking the conduct of the accused into account, that he left the house and did not return the entire day as well as signs of struggle in the shape of broken bangles and pulled out hairs; and held that it was a case of homicidal strangulation. The evidence of DW-1 was discarded, terming it as emotional. While taking into consideration the evidence of the children in relation to the fact that when the children reached home they opened the lock and found that the deceased was lying on the floor, the trial court has observed "the evidence to the effect whether the mother was alive or dead at that time is not clear." 22.On careful reading of the evidence and analyzing the same, we find that it is clear that the accused and the deceased had a quarrel on the fateful day i.e. 29.7.2002. The evidence of the children, however, bring out the fact that the parents would quarrel sometimes, but the father never beat the mother "there was no MAAR PEET". The mother of the deceased has stated that her son-in-law used to treat her daughter very well and she had never received any complaint either from her daughter or from grand children against the accused that he would beat his wife. Thus based on the evidence it cannot be said that the deceased and her husband would either often quarrel or that accused ever beat his wife. The second aspect which emerges on the basis of evidence on record is that near the dead body broken bangles and pulled out hairs were found. The court must also take into consideration before recording a finding of struggle that whether there were any other surrounding circumstances besides two mentioned above to record a conclusive finding of struggle. There is nothing on record to show that the broken bangles and pulled out hairs was a result of struggle:

(A) Nothing on record to show that the furniture or any other articles of the room were moved or displaced in any manner, which would show struggle.

(B) No marks of injury on the body of the deceased to suggest that there was a fight or a struggle or any attempt on her part to resist to the act of strangulation by the appellant.

(C) No fresh marks or injury on the body of the appellant.

23. It is material to note that the broken bangles and pulled out hairs were found near the dead body itself and can also be a result of the emotional behavior as brought out in the evidence of DW-1 with respect to her daughter. The precise words used by DW-1 with respect to the same are "my daughter was not of sound mind. If any person acted contrary to the wishes of my daughter, she used to tear away her clothes and behave abnormally." We find that there is absolutely no cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor with respect to the state of mind of the daughter of DW-1. Breaking bangles and pulling hairs can well be the act of the deceased herself during the quarrel with her husband, this we say so because we find no other corroborating evidence either in the form of bodily injury on the deceased or the accused or the state of the room. Even otherwise on close reading of the evidence of PW-3, we find that both the children were playing just outside the room and they could hear their mother weeping. Both the children who were playing outside the room heard the mother weeping and never heard any cries for help. In fact in the cross-examination PW-3 has stated "I was hearing the noises of quarrel between my father and mother. I was hearing the noise of weeping of my mother when my father locked the room and proceeded for his shop." If the evidence of PW-3 is to be believed then even at the time when the father locked the door from outside, she could hear her mother weep, hence she was alive. Admittedly, the door of the room was only opened by the eldest daughter, PW-2 and none had visited the room after it was locked. PW-2, the eldest daughter of the deceased has also categorically stated in her evidence that when she returned to the house and opened the lock she found the mother lying on the floor. "I cannot say if she was having any injury on her person. At that time she was alive, but not in a position to speak, therefore, she did not tell me anything." In cross-examination she has categorically stated that quarrel used to take place sometimes, but "no MAAR PEETI" took place; and when she returned to her house the mother was not in a position to speak, but was breathing slowly. The evidence of PW-5, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem is very material as he has clearly mentioned that there were no bruises or abrasion on the body. The reliance placed on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at page 200, in our view is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the observations made therein pertain to throttling by the fingers. As per the relevant portion, which has been quoted in the judgment, what has been taken into consideration is that it is not possible for any one to continue affirm grasp of the throat after unconscious supervein, hence, throttling by fingers cannot be possible by a suicidal. In this case the deceased had not used fingers, but what was used was her chunni.

24. Keeping in mind that as per the postmortem report the cause of death was given asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. As per Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence (13th Edition), the general external features in cases of such deaths are as under: "General external features - The general external features of asphyxial deaths found in strangled bodies show that the face may be blotchy and swollen, the eyes suffused and bulging with dilated pupils, the tongue protruding, sometimes caught between the teeth. Frothy blood tinged fluid exudes from the nose and mouth. Tardieu's spots are usually seen in the skin of the eyelids, the face, the scalp and sometimes larger haemorrhages are present in the eyes. As suggested earlier these features are not in themselves pathognomic. Their local distribution in the head and neck is, however, strongly presumptive of strangling. Marks on the neck will confirm this.

The voiding of urine and faeces and the omission of seminal fluid are all commonly found in this group but also occur in deaths from many other causes."

25. As per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (22nd Edition), similar view has also been expressed:

(b) Appearances Due to Asphyxia The face is puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae. The eyes are prominent and open. In some cases, they may be closed. The conjunctivae are congested and the pupils are dilated. Petechiae are seen in the eyelids and the conjunctivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam escapes from the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes pure blood issues from the mouth, nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. There may be evidence of bruising at the back of the neck. The hands are usually clenched. The genital organs may be congested and there may be discharge of urine, faeces and seminal fluid.

26. Another factor which is to be taken into consideration in cases of homicidal strangulation that abrasions and feature only may be produced by a person gasping for air during the process of strangulation. Taking these aspects into consideration as well as the report of post mortem, this Court finds that none of these features appear on the body of the deceased. Merely by saying that since there were broken bangles and pulled out hairs, in the absence of any other surrounding circumstances which could lead to the conclusion of struggle or signs to say that there was any resistance on the part of the deceased at the time of strangulation and more particularly, taking into consideration the features described above, it is difficult for this Court to come to a categorical finding that this is a case of homicidal strangulation. It is also noticed that ordinarily a victim would show struggle which would result in damages in interior or exterior neck or throat. We are afraid that none of these find mention in the postmortem, wherein it has been noticed that there was only a faint ligature mark "brownish colour" in the neck and also mentioned that there were no other external injury. 27.It would also be useful to take into consideration the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as far back as in the year 1957 in the case of Swarn Singh Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab that in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take place of proof. No doubt, the evidence put on record shows that the appellant had a quarrel with his wife and it was he who had locked her before taking the two children who were playing outside the room, to the school of the eldest daughter. The trial court has not been able to record a categorical finding that the deceased Babita was dead when door of the room was opened by the children. PW2 gave a conflicting testimony stating that when the door of the room was opened, the mother was lying on the floor; she was not in a position to talk but she was breathing slowly and in contrast, the evidence of PW3 states that when door was opened, the mother was lying dead. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadows of doubt. The court must also take into consideration that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof.

28. Thus we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant and when two views are possible, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant. Consequently the appellant is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the offence of Section 302 IPC as charged with. He is set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.