In a case based on circumstantial evidence alone, motive plays an important part. If there is no evidence of motive, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, convicting the accused-appellant under S. 302, I. P. C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R. I. , and further convicting the appellant under S. 301, I. P. C. and sentencing him to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo one months R. I.

( 2 ) GANGU Singh (PW 9), uncle of the deceased Smt. Vimla lodged a report (Ex. P. 13) at P. S. Sujangarh on 22-5-84 stating that Smt. Vimla, daughter of his elder brother Jagmal Singh, was married to Bhanwar Singh accused some 8-9 years before and she used to stay with him. She had given birth to a child but the same had also expired. On 26-3-84 Keshat Singh had come to him and informed him that Vimla had gone somewhere being annoyed from her husband on 23-3-84 and a search was being made but so far she has not been traced out. On that day, he and Meghsingh went to the accused-appellant, and after giving him full assurance made inquiries. Thereupon the accused started weeping and while touching his feet told that he had committed a mistake and he had killed Mst. Vimla in anger, and because he and Megh Singh both believed his statement, he was making the report in the police.

( 3 ) THE police registered a case against the accused-appellant and after usual investigation submitted a challan before the magistrate, who committed the case to Sessions, and the learned Sessions Judge after trial convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Laxman Singh. Hence this appeal by Bhanwar Singh accused-appellant.

( 4 ) WE have heard Shri Tibrewal learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Alvi R. P. for the State. We have also gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also the record of the case.

( 5 ) THERE are no eye-witnesses and the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has mainly placed reliance on the following circumstances :-1. Recovery of dead body and clothes at the instance of the accused-appellant on 23-5-84. 2. Recovery of Kasia on the information of the accused-appellant. 3. Extra-judicial confession before Gangu Singh (PW 9) and Megh Singh.

( 6 ) AS regards the first circumstance, we shall like to refer to the evidence of Dr. Mahavir Singh (PW 8), who has stated that he had inspected the dead body on 23-5-84, and for that the police had informed him that one dead body was lying buried for the last one and a half months and he was to examine the same. He has further stated that the dead body had decomposed and the bones disjointed. Soft tissues had completely decomposed and could not be identified. The ribs had also separated. No organ was identifiable. Hair were separate from the head and they appeared to be that of a woman. It was difficult for him to give any opinion about the cause of death. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not try to reconstruct the skeleton of bones, and it was not possible to find out the cause of death or the period as to how much time before the death had taken place. The dead body as such could not be identified. Father, mother or sister of the deceased, or who were closely related from the husband side were also not examined by the prosecution to identify the dead body, or the clothes which were recovered from the dead body. The prosecution has recorded statement (Ex. P. 15) of the accused-appellant under S. 27 of the Evidence Act on the basis of which the dead body was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex. P. 5 ). It is really very strange that the doctor was called even before the dead body was recovered under the intimation that he has to examine the dead body which is lying buried for the last one and a half months. The recovery witnesses (PW 6) Mahavir Prasad and (PW 7) Jagmal