Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Madan Lal on 24 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999CRILJ4833
Bench: D. Raju, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh, J.
1. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 16-6-1994 of Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Sessions Case No. 4/94 (93) (Sessions Trial No. 1/94). By the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-respondent of the offence under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated hereinunder :
Madan Lal adcused-respondent was married to Kiran Bala daughter of Ramesh Chand (PW 1) and Smt. Prem Rani (PW 2) on 2-12-1991. The husband and wife started living after marriage in village Bangana, District Una but since July 1992, the accused-respondent took a rented house at Mohalla Galua, Una though he was working at Nangal. The prosecution case was that after some interval of the marriage, accused-respondent started taunting Smt. Kiran Bala for bringing duplicate articles in dowry and he had been pressuring her to demand VCR, gas cylinder and scooter etc. from her parents. The accused-respondent alleged to have concealed Smt. Kiran Bala somewhere on 3-8-1992 and after three days brought her to his house. On the fateful day i.e. 6-10-1992 at about 11.45 a.m. Smt. Kiran Bala was noticed in flames in her kitchen by her neighbour Gurbaksh Singh (PW 4) who alleged to have raised noise, upon which accused-respondent came out of the kitchen and on asking of PW Gurbaksh Singh, he brought quilt but took five minutes to fetch the same. The accused respondent wrapped the quilt on the burning body of Smt. Kiran Bala, who had fallen near the door of the kitchen. Hearing noise, many persons including Santosh Singh (PW 3) reached at the spot. PW Santosh Singh declared Smt. Kiran Baladead.The accused-respondent was removed to District Hospital, Una as he had burn injuries on his palm and arms. PW Santosh Singh informed the police and on such information Head Constable Tilak Raj (PW 19) visited the spot, prepared inquest report (Ex. PD) and recorded statement (Ex. PA) of PW Ramesh Chand who along with his family members had come to Una from Nangal after receiving telephone about burning of his daughter Smt. Kiran Bala. On the basis of statementEx. PA, formal FIR(Ex. PA/1) came to be registered at Una by ASI Gian Chand (PW 11). Thereafter HC Tilak Raj took the dead body of Smt. Kiran Bala to dead house Una. Thereafter Additional S.H.O. Kishori Lal (PW 8) took investigation in his hand. The investigating officer took into possession kerosene oil can (Ex. PI), match box (Ex. P2), stove (Ex. P3), pair of chappals (Ex. P4) and wooden Khurji (Ex. P.5) from the kitchen. He noticed some kerosene oil litered on the floor of the kitchen. Post mortem report of the dead body of Smt. Kiran Bala was conducted by Dr. Vijay Sharma (PW 14). S.I. Krishan Chand recorded the statements of some of the witnesses, he also got prepared site plan (Ex. PH) from Draftsman Surjit Singh (PW 12) who was doing private job of preparing building plans etc. A piece of brassier and viscera were sent to Chemical Examiner and the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PK) was received. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared by Inspector/SHO Sita Ram against the accused-respondent and submitted to the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una, who in turn committed the accused-respondent to. the learned Sessions Judge, Una and ultimately, the case was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge, Una for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses to substantiate its case. The accused-respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations appearing against him. He pleaded that at the time of the incident, he was serving at Nangal and his native place is at a distance of 65 Kms. from Nangal. His sister had been studying at DAV School, Una and he was also operating a taxi at Una, so he rented a house at Galua Mohalla, Una. His mother and sister were alone in the house, so he started living at Una. He stated that after the marriage Smt. Kiran Bala passed B A and with his co-operation, she passed MA and had applied for B. Ed. Smt. Kiran Bala without telling anybody went to Delhi and he also visited Delhi in search of her and after getting the work done in the University, he brought her back to Una. He pleaded that his in-laws were not happy with him as they had been insisting upon him to live at Nangal for which he did not agree and that due to this reason they made false case against him. He also stated that he was not on speaking terms with PW Gurbaksh Singh. He claimed that he is innocent and may be acquitted. The accused-respondent appeared as his own witness in his defence.
3. The learned trial Judge after recording evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel on both sides came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges framed against him. The State being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment of acquittal of the learned trial Judge.
4. Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently contended that the prosecution has proved on record the following circumstances against the accused-respondent:-
1. Motive.
The learned Deputy Advocate-General contended that the motive of death of Smt. Kiran Bala was that she had brought duplicate dowry articles at the time of her marriage and the accused-respondent was insisting upon her to bring more articles like VCR, gas cylinder and scooter etc. and that demand could not be fulfilled by the ¦ parents of the deceased and also that Kiran Bala when went to Delhi on 31-8-1992, she stayed/ slept in one room with his friend and that as he was in entertaining suspicion about her chastity, therefore, accused-respondent had committed her murder:
2. That Smt, Kiran Bala was hail and hearty at the time of her death and she died within one year from her marriage and it was for the accused-respondent to prove on record as to how and in what circumstances Smt. Kiran Bala had died since it was not a case of suicide or accidental death;.
3. That the accused-respondent and deceased were only inmates in the house and onus was on the accused-respondent to prove that Smt. Kiran Bala had died unnatural death which he has miserably failed to discharge;
4. That from the post-mortem report and evidence of Dr. Vijay Sharma, it is clearly established that the entire body of Smt. Kiran Bala was smelling kerosene oil and her body had 100% burn injuries and in the fact of the expert evidence, in all probability kerosene oil was sprinkled on the body of the deceased Smt. Kiran Bala before she was set on fire by the accused-respondent. The learned Deputy Advocate-General also contended that there was no possibility of committing suicide as she was running 7th month pregnancy at the time of her death;
5. That the conduct of the accused-respondent was unnatural when he was seen coming out of the kitchen and thereafter PW-Gurbaksh Singh raised noise and asked accused-respondent to bring quilt for which the accused-respondent took about five minutes which would go to show that he was not serious in saving the life of his wife;
6. That deceased Smt. Kiran Bala was concealed by accused-respondent some where and lateron without informing his in-laws, she was brought back by him from Delhi from the house of his friend thereby concealing the where abouts of Smt. Kiran Bala from her parents, therefore, this conduct of the accused-respondent was also sufficient to connect him with the commission of the offence.
7. That the accused-respondent had not explained the burn injuries which he received on his dorsal parts of his right shoulder and right forearms as noticed by Dr. (Mrs.) S. Sharma (PW-15), which injuries could not have been received by him while putting quilt on the burning body of Smt. Kiran Bala and the explanation so rendered by him could not be plausible and acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Pt. Om Prakash learned counsel for the accused-respondent has sought to support the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge to contend that once the benefit of doubt has been given by the trial Judge to the accused-respondent, this Court would be very slow in interfering with the findings of the trial Judge in appeal against the acquittal. He also contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and not accepted by the learned trial Judge, are inconsistent and incomplete connecting the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused-respondent. According to the learned counsel it is the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution shall prove the case against the accused-respondent by leading cogent and convincing evidence and in the present case, the prosecution seeks to implicate the accused-respondent in the crime based upon surmises and hyphotheses and, therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the judgment of acquittal be maintained.
6. We have given our best consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties on both sides and re-examined and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, we propose to deal with some oral evidence of the material prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence adduced on record.
7. The first witness examined by the prosecution is PW-Ramesh Chand, father of the deceased, who in his deposition stated that he is a Fitter in B. B. M. S. Work Shop at Nangal and resides in Nangal Town. He stated that after the marriage, his daughter and son-in-law were residing in village Baroha in- Tehsil Bangana and since July 1992, they started living at Una. The accused-respondent had been working in the same work-shop where the father of Smt. Kiran Bala was working. It has come in his evidence that he had been requesting the accused-respondent to live at Nagal where he was living but he did not pay any heed to his request. This witness has said that relations between the accused-respondent and his daughter were not satisfactory as the accused-respondent had been taunting her for bringing duplicate things in dowry. PW-Ramesh Chand nowhere stated in his statement (Ex. PA) made by him to PW-Tilak Raj Head Constable on the basis of which FIR came to be lodged that the accused-respondent had ever subjected to his daughter to cruelty or demanded VCR, gas cylinder or anything else from her parents. He simply alleged that his son-in-law had been telling Smt. Kiran Bala for giving duplicate articles in dowry and which were those duplicate articles given in dowry, had not been named by him. It appears that PW-Ramesh Chand, father of the deceased has improved his version when he appeared in the witness box which is not in conformity with his earlier statement made under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The evidence of this witness is also contradicted by his wife Smt. Prem Rani while appearing as PW-2, who deposed that besides demand of VCR, gas cylinder and scooter etc., the accused-respondent also demanded Rs. 20,000/- cash. PW-Prem Rani has categorically admitted that the accused-respondent never demanded VCR, scooter or cash from her or from her husband PW-Ramesh Chand but she only came to know about the demand of dowry from her daughter Smt. Khan Bala. She stated that the unnatural and unkind behaviour and conduct of the accused-respondent towards Kiran Bala after her marriage and prior to her death, were never brought to the notice of the mother of the accused-respondent or any other family members or the relations of the deceased Smt. Kiran Bala by her parents. The statement of PW-Prem Rani under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex. DA) was recorded by the investigating officer on 18-10-1992 i.e. after 12 days of the occurrence which took place on 6-10-1992 and admittedly she was present at Una when the police commenced the investigation of the case and that the delay in recording statement of such an important and material witness without explanation by the prosecution is fateful to the prosecution story and it casts doubt about the contradicting version of PW-Prem Rani about the demand of dowry by accused-respondent before the death of Smt. Kiran Bala. PW-Ramesh Chand also never talked to anyone about the dowry demand of accused-respondent or maltreatment given by him to his wife before her death. The allegations of demand of dowry articles or bringing duplicate dowry articles at the time of marriage alleged by the parents of the deceased for the first time after Smt. Kiran Bala died, appeared to be highly doubtful, arranged and afterthought. All the allegations of giving duplicate things in dowry also cannot be believed as the allegations are ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite in nature as it has come in the evidence of parents of the deceased that the accused-respondent never complained to them about receiving of duplicate dowry articles nor his parents-in-law ever talked about it with anybody including the accused-respondent. The most important circumstance about the motive has not been established by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The explanation given by accused-respondent in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and as DW-1 is more plausible and acceptable than the allegations projected by the prosecution against the accused-respondent. The accused-respondent had explained that his parents-in-law were unhappy With him due to his shifting of residence from Nangal (Punjab) to Una (Himachal Pradesh) after taking house on rent which the parents of the deceased did not like and they became annoyed with the accused-respondent. It has been admitted by PW-Ramesh Chand and his wife PW-Prem Rani that the accused-respondent is the only son of his parents and his father had died and that he had to lookafter two sisters and mother and also that at his native place which is nearer from Una than Nangal, the accused-respondent owns immovable property. It is also not in dispute that his two sisters are studying and staying with him at Una and he has started operating a taxi at Una to earn more money. All these circum-stances would go to show that the accused-respondent was compelled to shift to a rented house at Una after leaving factory accommodation at Nangal along with his wife Smt. Kiran Bala and shifting of the residence of the accused-respondent from Nangal to Una in all probability has not been liked by PW-Ramesh Chand and PW-Prem Rani parents of the deceased. This fact has been admitted by PW-Ramesh Chand in his cross-examination that the witness wanted the accused-respondent to live in his official accommodation at Nangal and not to shift to Una in a rented accommodation. It has also come in the cross-examination of PW-Ramesh Chand that Smt. Kiran Bala was satisfied when she was living with the accused-respondent at Nangal but she was not wholly satisfied when they shifted to Una. Further, PW-Prem Rani has also stated that at Nangal the accused-respondent and Kiran Bala lived happily for 3-4 months. In the teeth of this slender and weak evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the accused had motive to kill his wife on account of the demand of dowry or bringing duplicate articles of dowry. Undisputedly, it is not essential that in the absence of motive, the accused cannot be held guilty if the other circumstances brought on record by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and such circumstances are found to be consistent with the guilt of the accused.
8. The learned Deputy Advocate-General has attempted to press in service second circumstance of motive that the accused-respondent has entertained suspicion about the chastity of Smt. Kiran Bala when she remained at Delhi for two nights and slept in one room with his friend. This submission raised is simply to be rejected for the reason that no such incriminating circumstance has been brought on record by the prosecution nor it was put to the accused-respondent in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused-respondent in his cross-examination though admitted that Smt. Kiran Bala remained in one room for two nights with his friend at Delhi, yet he has not made any such allegation against his wife. On the contrary, he has admitted in his statement as DW-1 that Kiran Bala was carrying pregnancy of about 8 months before her death. He stated that Kiran Bala had gone to Delhi on 31-8-1992 in connection with B.Ed. admission without informing him and he went to Nangal and inquired from the parents of his wife regarding her whereabouts. He also stated that on 2-9-1992, he telephoned the parents of Smt. Kiran Bala and told them that Kiran Bala was at Delhi and she would return after 2/3 days and thereafter he went to Delhi and brought her back to Una. When he was in Delhi with his wife, he purchased tape-recorder etc. and spent about Rs. 1500/-there. In these circumstances, the prosecution, has not established that the accused-respondent had the motive to murder his wife as she was suspected to be an unchaste wife.
9. The prosecution has primarily relied upon the evidence of PW-Gurbaksh Singh brother of the landlord of accused-respondent. The house of PW-Gurbaksh Singh was separated by a common partition wall from his brother and both the brothers were having separate courtyard on both sides of the partition wall. According to PW-Gurbaksh Singh his daughter Manjit Kaur delivered a male child at Phillaur (Punjab). On the day of occurrence, he along with his relations and Smt. Kiran Bala went to Gurudwara Baba Sahib at Una. He stated that he asked the accused-respondent to accompany him to Gurudwara but the accused-respondent expressed his inability as he was expecting his guests but his wife went with them to Gurudwara and came back at 10.30 a.m. He was sitting on a cot placed on the verandah of his house along with his brother Tarsem Singh alias Virender Singh and his wife in whose house accused-respondent along with his wife were residing. He deposed that at about 11.45 a.m., he saw flames of fire in the kitchen of accused-respondent from his verandah and the flames were of the height of about 9" which in due course raised up to 2-Vi to 3ft. Upon seeing the flames he raised noise of 'fire'-'fire'. Thereafter he went about 25 ft. up to the wall and saw accused-respondent coming from kitchen who was raising noise. On hearing his noise and cries, people collected from nearby places. He shouted to the accused-respondent either to put quilt or blanket on the body of his wife but he took four/ five minutes to pick up the quilt. The accused-respondent earlier came out of his kitchen, he pushed the spring door which opened towards court-yard and then came out and after bringing the quilt, he pushed spring door of his kitchen but could not succeed. The accused-respondent then placed quilt on the floor and kicked wire net which created hole in the wire net and through that hole the accused inserted his hand and pushed out the door. He stated that the accused-respondent picked the quilt, entered the kitchen where his wife was lying in flames and after entering into the kitchen placed quilt on the body of KiranBala who was tying on the floor with her head towards the door. In the process of extinguishing the fire, the accused-respondent sustained burn injuries on his head and hands and was crying of pain. PW-Santokh Singh saw Kiran Bala and declared her dead. The learned Deputy Advocate-General contended that (this witness has given an eye account of the occurrence and he being a truthful witness, he should be relied upon and entirely believed. He contended that on the basis of evidence of PW-Gurbaksh Singh, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-respondent had set his wife on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body and thereby killed her. We have re-appraised the evidence of PW-Gurbaksh Singh and on analysing his entire evidence, we are not inclined to accept that he had seen the accused-respondent pouring kerosene oil on the body of his wife Kiran Bala and thereafter setting her on fire. His version that he raised noise when he saw flames on the body of Kiran Bala from a distant place and despite his noise the accused-respondent kept silent does not find corroboration from his earlier statement (Ex. DB) recorded by the police during investigation nor the statement that he advised the accused-respondent either to bring quilt or blanket and the accused-respondent took five minutes for arranging the quilt are found mentioned in his statement ex. DB. His statement was recorded by the police on third day of the incident whereas he was present at the scene of occurrence when the police arrived and started interrogation. It is not understood as to why his statement was not recorded by the police on the same day as he was according to the prosecution itself a star witness. The testimony of this witness cannot be accepted for the reason that he has himself admitted in his cross-examination that he felt bad about the refusal of the accused-respondent not going with them to Gurudwara and the accused-respondent has not been mixing with him in spite of his request to take care of this witness and his family members. If his brother and brother's wife were sitting with him on the cot at the relevant time as admitted by this witness, both or either of them should have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of this witness to narrate the true facts in respect of catching of fire by Kiran Bala. The version of this witness that he could see flames on the body of Kiran Bala in her kitchen from the place where he was sitting on the cot is not supported by PW-Surjit Singh, Draftsman, who prepared the site plan Ex. PH at the instance of investigating officer. It has come in the evidence of PW-Surjit Singh that at point 'A' in the site plan where PW-Gurbaksh Singh was stated to be sitting on a cot and mark 'X' where the dead body of Kiran Bala was lying, the distance between these two places was 18 metres. Adjacent to dividing wall of the house of PW-Gurbaksh Singh and his brother Virender Singh there is a staircase between points 'A' and 'X' adjoining the partition wall, the stair case is between these two points. It has come in his evidence that from points 'A' and 'B' where PW-Gurbaksh Singh is said to have approached after seeing the flames, the kitchen of the accused-respondent and kitchen of his brother Virender Singh were not be visible. From the perusal of the site plan (Ex. PH), it is clear that between point 'B' and where PW-Gurbaksh Singh was said to be standing and point 'X' where the dead body of Kiran Bala was lying at the door of the kitchen of the accused-respondent, there is one ramp about 1.10 of height and also the courtyard of Virender Singh and that the houses of Virender Singh and Gurbaksh Singh were divided by a retaining wall which is about 1.7 high. From the visual inspection of site plan Ex. PH, it is clear too that from point 'B' where PW-Gurbaksh Singh was stated to have witnessed Kiran Bala in flames at the door of the kitchen marked point 'X', there was a retaining wall in between these two points besides iron ramp of the height of about l.lO and it appears that it was not possible for PW-Gurbaksh Singh to have seen the accused-respondent coming out of the kitchen after setting his wife on fire. This witness has not categorically stated that he saw the accused-respondent setting his wife on fire and in the absence of positive evidence appearing against the accused-respondent it cannot be held that it was the accused-respondent only who set his wife on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body. The testimony of this witness is highly suspicious and doubtful. As noticed above, he said that his statement was recorded by the police on the third day of the occurrence whereas ASI Kishori Lal, investigating officer has specifically stated that the statement Ex. DB of this witness was recorded on 6-10-1992 itself. The learned trial Judge has rightly discarded his testimony on the ground that he has tried to improve his version in the Court raising suspicion about the involvement of the accused-respondent in the commission of the crime from his earlier statement Ex. DB made to the police during investigation. It appears that this witness animus against the accused-respondent as his ego and feeling were hurt when the accused-respondent had refused to participate in an important religious function in ' the family of the witness and remained in his house and further that the witness was not happy with the conduct of the accused-respondent due to his non-mixing up with the witness and his family members despite the request made by the witness to the accused-respondent to take care of them. Site plan Ex. PG prepared by the investigating officer Kishori Lal on 6-10-1992 would go to show that the house of PW-Gurbaksh Singh was shown in the site plan but the particular place where. PW-Gurbaksh Singh was sitting on a cot has not been reflected which would mean that the exact place where PW-Gurbaksh Singh was sitting on cot has not been intentionally shown in the site plan and the only inference which can be drawn as we have already noticed above, from the perusal of site plan Ex. PH can be that the kitchen of the accused-respondent was not visible from that place where PW-Gurbaksh Singh was sitting on the cot or the place where he was standing after seeing the flames emanating from the kitchen. The prosecution could have examined Virender Singh and/or his wife who according to the version of PW-Gurbaksh Singh were sitting with him on the cot when the flames were being seen by him from the kitchen and there is nothing on record to show that Virender Singh or his wife were in any way hostile to the prosecution or friendly with the accused-respondent. The reasoning of the trial Judge notrelying upon the testimony of this witness without corrobora-tion and also for the reasons noticed by us, we are of the view that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of this witness connecting the accused with the commission of the crime.
10. There is no dispute about the settled position of law that the absence of motive will not discredit the other circumstances which will prove the guilt of the accused and those circumstances are, however, not weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not been established and further that it often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. (See: Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 1322 : (1966 Cri LJ 960)).
11. The second and third circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were that Kiran Bala died within one year of her marriage and she could not have committed suicide because she was and carrying pregnancy of about 8 months and no prudent woman could have committed suicide in such circumstances and it was for the accused-respondent to have explained under what circumstances she caught fire and died which according to the prosecution the accused-respondent has miserably failed. Undisputedly, Kiran Bala had died within one year of the marriage and the cause of death was burn injuries on her body. The question for our determination is whether it was accused-respondent alone who set Kiran Bala on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body or she died due to accidental fire. The circumstances under which she caught fire have been explained by us under the heading of first circumstance i.e. Motive. The investigating officer PW-Kishori Lal when visited the house of accused-respondent, had found kerosene oil littered on the floor of the kitchen and match box was also smelling of kerosene oil. Match box was not sent for chemical examination nor the earth of the floor of the kitchen was also seized to prove the prerence of kerosene oil thereon. It has come in the post mortem report (Ex. PL) of Dr. Vijay Sharma that the entire body of Kiran Bala was smelling kerosene oil but pieces of brassiers of the deceased were sent to Chemical Examiner who reported that no inflammable thing was noticed on the exhibit. The kerosene oil stove which was allegedly used by Kiran Bala for preparing tea to the accused-respondent as has been stated by him in his evidence has been taken into possession by the police which was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for ascertaining whether kerosene stove had burst or not. The story of the prosecution that kerosene oil was being sprinkled on the body of Kiran Bala by the accused-respondent before setting her on fire, is highly improbable and unnatural, having regard to the cumulative effect of the circumstances.
12. Kiran Bala was an educated lady carrying foetus of 7 months when the unfortunate incident took place and in all probability she would have resisted any attempt of setting her on fire by the accused-respondent. The accused-respondent has given an explanation that on the day of occurrence when he was waiting in his house for the arrival of his relatives who had not arrived, he asked his wife to prepare tea for him as he wanted to go out. She went in the kitchen and within two minutes he heard cries of his wife and he rushed to the kitchen where he saw his wife in flames and the kitchen was full of smoke; He at once rushed out of the room to take quilt and after taking quilt he went towards the kitchen and saw that his wife had fallen before the inner door of the kitchen. He also stated that the door was not easily opened and he pushed it with force and after opening it, he put the quilt on his wife who was in flames at that time and that he brought her out and placed her just in front of the kitchen in the courtyard. Thereafter he put up the quilt on her head and extinguished the fire. In the process of extinguishing the fire and saving the life of his wife he received burn injuries on his arms, face, chest, neck and hands. He cried with pain and many people collected there including PW-Santokh Singh, Lambardar. He said that fire brigade party also arrived there. The explanation of the accused-respondent has not been impeached by the prosecution in any manner and we have no material to ignore or disbelieve his explanation about the manner in which occurrence took place in the absence of any positive evidence contrary to his defence. The learned Deputy Advocate-General is right in saying that it is not a case of suicide committed by Kiran Bala but equally it cannot be said that it is a case of murder committed by the accused-respondent. The learned Deputy Advocate-General relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Prabhudayal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 2164 : (1993 Cri LJ 2239) to contend that a woman who is having a pregnancy will never commit suicide. In that case deceased Sangeeta at the time of incident, as per the postmortem report was having a pregnancy of 3-4 months and Court held that this was also not in tune with the act of suicide as contended by the defence. As already noticed by us that it was not a case of suicide nor it was a case of the accused-respondent that deceased Kiran Bala committed suicide. We have noticed the explanation given by the accused-respondent that when he heard cries of his wife from the kitchen, he immediately went inside the kitchen and saw his wife in flames and he immediately came out of the kitchen and brought a quilt and wrapped his wife with the same to extinguish the fire but her head was still under fire. He then wrapped her head with the same quilt and embraced her to extinguish the fire but could not save her and in this process he also received serious burn injuries. The explanation given by the accused-respondent finds cor-roboration from the evidence of PW-Gurbaksh Singh who in clear words admitted that the accused-respondent had raised noise when he saw his wife in flames and brought a quilt and wrapped it on the body and thus had extinguished the fire. Both these circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution to connect the accused-respondent with the commission. of the alleged offence.
13. The fourth circumstance that according to the post-mortem report, Kiran Bala sustained 100% burn injuries and those" injuries according to the learned Deputy Advocate General could not have been received by her in case it was accidental catching of fire. From the post-mortem report, it cannot be held that the burn injuries found on the body of deceased Kiran Bala could not have been caused by accidental fire. The accused-respondent had taken all possible efforts to extinguish the fire and in case he set the body of Kiran Bala on fire, he would have not dared to extinguish the same on her body and saved her. The 100% burn injuries on the body of the deceased by themselves will not prove that accused-respondent had set fire on the body of his wife Kiran Bala and this circumstance has not proved the case of the prosecution to hold the accused-respondent guilty of murder of his wife. Moreover, it is not opined by Dr. Vijay Sharma that Kiran Bala could not receive 100% burn injuries by accidental fire. Therefore, this circumstance also does not prove that Kiran Bala was set on fire by the accused-respondent.
14. The circumstances Nos. 5,6 & 7 are interconnected and are dealt with together. The conduct of the accused-respondent that he was seen coming out of the kitchen after Kiran Bala was set on flames and took about five minutes to bring the quilt, will not be a sufficient proof that it was the accused-respondent who set Kiran Bala on fire. On the contrary, it has come in the evidence that the accused-respondent had taken all possible care, caution and sincere efforts to save his wife and in that process he received serious burn injuries on his hands, arms and dorsal aspect of right shoulder and forearms. He was taken to hospital and was medically examined by Dr. (Mrs.). S. Sharma, who found four injuries on his arms, shoulder, hands, blackening of forehead and cheeks. Dr. (Mrs). Sharma, issued MLC (Ex.PN) in respect of the injuries sustained by the accused-respondent. The learned Deputy Advocate-General contended that according to the version of Dr. (Mrs). Sharma injuries as found on the person of accused-respondent were opined to be possible in process of setting the victim on fire and if this opinion is to be accepted then it is proved that the accused respondent received those injuries when he set his wife on fire.
15. We have examined the evidence of Dr. (Mrs). Sharma and MLC (Ex. PN). No doubt Dr. (Mrs). Sharma has said in her statement that the injuries as found on the person of accused-respondent were not possible in case of an attempt to extinguish the fire from a burning body because in that event, burn injuries should always appear on palmer aspects of the hands as well as ventral aspect of the forearm. In her cross-examination, Dr. (Mrs). Sharma has categorically admitted that in case of a person having quilt in his hands and trying to extinguish fire of a person by wrapping that person with the quilt, injuries mentioned in Ex. PN were possible. She has also stated that if precautions were taken by the culprit and he put another person on fire, from some distance, he might not sustain burn injuries as depicted in Ex. PN. From the evidence of Dr. (Mrs). S. Sharma, it cannot be concluded that the injuries found on the person of accused-respondent were not caused to him when he was trying to extinguish fire on the body of his wife by wrapping the deceased with quilt and the explanation of the accused-respondent that he received injuries while he was saving his wife by wrapping her with quilt has been corroborated by PW-Santokh Singh and PW-Gurbaksh Singh. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that the accused-respondent received burn injuries on his hands, face and other parts of the body when he was trying to extinguish fire on the body of his wife Kiran Bala by wrapping her with a quilt. It has come in the evidence of both these witnesses that when the accused-respondent was removed to hospital for treatment of burn injuries, he insisted PW-Santokh Singh to take Kiran Bala also to hospital but PW-Santokh Singh told him that Kiran Bala was already dead and there was no fun to take her to hospital. It has come in the evidence of PW-Gurbaksh Singh that there was a quarrel between PW-Santokh Singh Lambardar and accused-respondent when PW-Santokh Singh refused to take Kiran Bala to hospital as she was already dead. This conduct of the accused-respondent after he extinguished fire on the body of his wife would prove that by all possible means and methods, the accused-respondent wanted to save his wife and on the basis of positive evidence on record, it cannot be held that the conduct of the accused-respondent was. such that in all probability he wanted to see that his wife would die because of burn injuries. The accused-respondent has stated that Kiran Bala had gone to Delhi about one month prior to her death without informing him and he went to Nangal and enquired from her parents about her whereabouts. He also telephoned to her parents on 2-9-1992 telling them that Kiran Bala was in Delhi and he would bring her back after 2/3 days. Thereafter, he went to Delhi and brought her back to Una. This statement of the accused-respondent has not been impeached by the prosecution and as such it cannot be said that Kiran Bala was concealed by the accused-respondent on 31-8-1992 as projected by the learned Deputy Advocate-General in circumstance No. 6 supra.
16. The learned Deputy Advocate-General has tried to take the help of provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and urged that the fact of catching fire on the body of Kiran Bala was within the knowledge of the accused-respondent and the burden of proving that fact would lie on him as to under what circumstances his wife had received burn injuries and as the accused-respondent had failed to discharge the burden, therefore, he could be held guilty for the murder of his wife if other charge of dowry death was not proved against him on the basis of the evidence on record. In support of his contention, the learned Deputy Advocate-General has placed reliance upon State of A. P. Gangula Satya Murthy, (1997) 1 SCC 272 : (1997 Cri LJ 774) and Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab (1998) 9 SCC 303.
17. We have considered the ratio of these two. judgments of the apex Court and find that these decisions are of no help to the prosecution in the circumstances of the present case. In State of A. P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy's case (1997 Cri LJ 774) (supra), the Hon'ble Judges of the apex Court held that when the body of the deceased was found on a cot inside the house of the accused and the accused had failed to explain as to why dead body which was resultant of homicide happened to be in his house, in such circumstances, adverse inference was to be drawn against the accused under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. In that case, the accused was found guilty of committing sexual intercourse followed by act of throttling of a girl on the basis of the evidence supported by extra-judicial confession of the accused. In Ravi Chander's case (supra), the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court held that merely because charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code had failed, it could not be said that the accused had no motive for committing the murder of the person in that case. As we have noticed in the earlier part of the judgment that in the absence of the motive, if other circumstances are proved by the prosecution consistent to the guilt of the accused-respondent, merely because the motive was not proved, the accused-respondent cannot be held guilty of the charge of murder. But, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused based upon circumstantial evidence discussed hereinabove and on the basis of evidence on record, the accused-respondent has rightly been held by the trial Judge not connected with the commission of crime alleged against him.
18. It is well settled position of law that in dealing with the circumstantial evidence, the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hyphothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
19. We may with advantage refer to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court on the question of apprehension of circumstantial evidence and the duty of the Court without further detailed discussion on the settled position of law. (See: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : (1953 Cri LJ 129), Kutuhal Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1954 SC 720 : (1954 Cri LJ 1802). Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1544;(1978 Cri LJ 1614), Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 190: (1978 Cri LJ 1869), State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu Kavtage AIR 1979 SC 1410: (1979 Cri LJ 1089), Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157 : (1982 Cri LJ 1243), Jagan Nath v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1982 Cri LJ 2289, State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh AIR 1975 SC 258 :(1975 Cri LJ 282)and Laxman v State of Orissa 1995 Cri LJ 2692 : (AIR 1995 SC 1387).
20. In all the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the Hon'ble Judges have held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the instant case, as we have noticed and discussed above the entire evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-respondent that he alone committed the offence of murder of his wife by setting Kiran Bala on fire. Therefore, the accused-respondent has rightly been acquitted by the trial Judge,
21. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the parties.
22. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.