Judgment : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment/order of conviction, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, on 27.11.2019, whereby the present appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months, in Sessions Trial No.39-ST/7 of 2016, in case FIR No.07/16, dated 20.01.2016, registered at Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur H.P. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.01.2016, Shri Virender Parmar, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur, telephonically informed at Police Station, Kala Amb that one dead body of a girl is lying in the forest near ‘Lalita Devi Temple, Trilokpur’. On this information, Head Constable Shamim Akhtar No.212 along with Head Constable Ram Lal No. 451, HHC Ravinder Kumar No.97 and Lady Constable Asha No. 646 in a government vehicle bearing No.HP-17A-6891, which was being driven by driver Ashok Kumar, reached at the spot. Head Constable Shamim Akhtar also telephonically informed Incharge, Police Station, ASI Jai Dev, who had gone to attend a meeting in the Office of the Superintendent of Police at Nahan, also reached on the spot. In the jungle, a pedestrian path which led towards ‘Lalita Mata Temple’, dead body of a girl covered with ‘shawl’ was found in the hillock. On inspection of the spot and dead body, one rope was found tied around the neck of the girl and marks of strangulation were found on her neck. In the meantime, an eye witness regarding the incident, Shri Rinku Ram (PW1), son of Shri Sumer Singh, resident of VPO Trilokpur, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., stating therein that he is having a shop of ‘Prasad’ at Trilokpur near ‘Lalita Temple’. According to complainant (PW1), on 20.01.2016, when he was present in his shop along with Shri Karam Chand, Chowkidar of the temple, then at about 12.30 p.m., one boy, who was wearing a black ‘jean’ and sweater and a girl, who was wearing a red colour ‘sari’ and sweater purple in colour, came to his shop, purchased ‘Prasad’ and then went to the temple. According to PW1, the boy was of the age of about 26-27 years and the girl was in between the age of 23-24 years. After paying obeisance in the temple, they returned back. After some time, PW1 went to cut grass near ‘Shiv Temple’ and when he reached near the temple, he found the same boy and girl sitting by the side of the path and when he was cutting grass, they were found sitting on the wall. In the meantime, the boy pushed the girl downwards the ‘hillock’ and the body of the girl stopped in the hillock after rolling for some time. The boy descended from the wall and the girl to save herself from the boy went here and there in the hillock. PW1 tried to call the Chowkidar, who could not hear his call due to sound of loud speaker. The girl was crying loudly and in the meantime, the boy lifted a big stone to hit the girl but on hearing his noise, the boy threw the stone and ran towards the girl. Then, PW1 came to his shop and narrated the incident to Karam Chand. Thereafter, at about 1.30 p.m., they both went to the spot and the boy was found bending upon the girl near the bushes. Karam Chand called the boy loudly what he was doing. On this, the boy descended the hillock. When, PW1 and Karam Chand reached on the spot, they found the body of the girl covered with a ‘shawl’ and she was dead. Thereafter, PW1 telephonically informed Pradhan Virender Parmar. 3. On the basis of the statement of PW1, FIR Ext. PW10/A under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the accused. The investigation in the case was conducted by PW18 ASI Jai Dev. During investigation, on 20.01.2016, he visited the spot, got the spot and the dead body photographed and also prepared the spot map. He took into possession the lady purse, chappals of deceased, one rupee coin, bus ticket of Rs.10/- of private bus-Rahul Coach and ladies make up/sparkle in a ‘pudia’ and after putting the same in a parcel, the same was sealed with seven seal of ‘M’ vide memo Ext. PW3/A. Efforts were made by the I.O. to get identified the dead body, but the dead body remained unidentified. PW3/A. Efforts were made by the I.O. to get identified the dead body, but the dead body remained unidentified. Forms 25-35(A,B,C) and 35.39A were filled and the dead body was taken for postmortem to R.H., Nahan. During investigation, one sweater was found lying in the bushes which was identified by PW1 and from left pocket of sweater, one ladies ear-ring was recovered, which was sealed in a parcel with seal ‘H’ at seven places. As per the opinion of the doctors, the deceased had died due to cardiorespiratory arrest and dislocation of C2 and C3 vertebra. The viscera of deceased and samples were preserved and on 27.01.2016, sweater of accused was sent to SFSL, Junga and sample of section of uterus was sent to IGMC, Shimla, for chemical test. On 27.01.2016, the body of the deceased girl was cremated. 4. During the investigation, on 04.02.2016, one Ram Rattan, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jheeri, identified the deceased from her photograph and stated that she was his tenant and was living with her husband Ritesh (accused). Ram Rattan had also produced one marriage invitation card dated 08.05.2015 which was taken into possession by the police. On inquiry, it was found that deceased Hasina Banu, who had disclosed her name as Renu in village Jheeri was living along with her husband in the house of said Ram Rattan at village Hameedpur, Tehsil Naraingarh. 5. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 19.01.2016, the accused had settled the account of Ram Rattan on the pretext that he along with his wife is going to his home. It was also found that accused was working in ‘Jai Bharat Factory, Johron but he had worked there till 19.01.2016. On 04.02.2016, the police party went to the village of the accused in U.P. and he was arrested on 06.02.2016 with the help of local police. During personal search of accused, one black coloured wallet, passport size photographs of accused and deceased, one attendance card from 1 to 19 January, 2016, one railway ticket of Rs.190/- from Ambala Cantt. to Lucknow, two tickets of Haryana Roadways of Rs.30/- and Rs.5/-, currency coins of Rs.27/- and Nepali Currency of 10/- were recovered from the accused which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW18/A. All the articles were sealed in a parcel and the same was sealed with seal ‘W’ at six places. to Lucknow, two tickets of Haryana Roadways of Rs.30/- and Rs.5/-, currency coins of Rs.27/- and Nepali Currency of 10/- were recovered from the accused which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW18/A. All the articles were sealed in a parcel and the same was sealed with seal ‘W’ at six places. The accused identified the spot and maps of the spot were prepared. During the investigation, it was revealed that the marriage between accused and deceased was solemnized on 08.05.2015 but the whereabouts of the deceased could not be traced. It was found that accused was working in Steel Plant at Raebareli and deceased was running a ‘khokha’ there. After solemnizing marriage, the accused had brought the deceased to Kala Amb and started residing at Jheeri in the house of Sarpanch Ram Rattan. 6. After receipt of SFSL reports and on completion of investigation, the challan was prepared by the I.O. against the accused under section 302 of IPC and the same was presented in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, who assigned the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, who in turn, vide order dated 19.05.2016 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 7. On finding a prima facie case, charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 20 witnesses in all. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety. The plea taken by the accused in his defence is that he is innocent. Neither the deceased was related to him nor did he kill her. The accused has also examined one witness in his defence. 10. In order to corroborate and substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the witnesses whose statements shall be discussed here-in-below. 11. Coming to the statement of PW-18 ASI Jai Dev, who partly investigated the case. He deposed that on 20.01.2016, Head Constable Shamim Akhtar informed at the Police Station that one dead body is lying near ‘Sheetala Mata Temple’ at Trilokpur. On this information, he went to the spot from Nahan as he had gone there to attend a crime meeting on that day. He deposed that on 20.01.2016, Head Constable Shamim Akhtar informed at the Police Station that one dead body is lying near ‘Sheetala Mata Temple’ at Trilokpur. On this information, he went to the spot from Nahan as he had gone there to attend a crime meeting on that day. He recorded the statement of eye witness Rinku Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A and sent the rukka through HHC Ravinder Singh. After inspecting the spot, the photographs were taken through PW7 Dharam Singh Rana. PW18 further deposed that he had filled the inquest forms Ext. PW5/A and Ext. PW5/B of dead body and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to R.H., Nahan. He also deposed that he had taken into possession pair of ladies chappals Ext. P5, one lady purse Ext. P6 and one coin Ext. P7 which was in the purse, one ticket of Rs.10/- Ext. P8, sparkle Ext. P9, which were sealed in a parcel Ext.P4 with seal ‘M’ at seven places and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW3/A. Sample of seal Ext. PW3/B was drawn on a separate piece of cloth. According to him, the police party went to Uttar Pradesh to the village of the accused for his search and he was arrested with the help of local police there on 06.02.2016. The personal search of accused was conducted by the SHO and during the search, one black coloured wallet, one passport size photograph of accused and deceased, one attendance card from 1 to 19 January, 2016, one railway ticket of Rs.190/- from Ambala Cantt. to Lucknow, two tickets of Haryana Roadways of Rs.30/- and Rs.5/- and currency coins of Rs.27/- and Nepali currency of 10/- were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW18/A. He along with H.C. Shamim signed the memo, as witnesses. All the articles were sealed in a cloth parcel and it was sealed with seal ‘W’ at six places. Sample seal Ext. PW18/B was prepared by the SHO on a separate piece of cloth. He also deposed that he had prepared the spot map Ext. PW18/C of the spot from where the dead body was recovered and on 21.01.2016, the SHO, Police Station, Kala Amb, had taken the file for further investigation. 12. Sample seal Ext. PW18/B was prepared by the SHO on a separate piece of cloth. He also deposed that he had prepared the spot map Ext. PW18/C of the spot from where the dead body was recovered and on 21.01.2016, the SHO, Police Station, Kala Amb, had taken the file for further investigation. 12. In his cross-examination, PW18 stated that he had received the telephonic information from Head Constable Shamim Akhtar at 3.30 p.m. PW18 further stated that he had reached on the spot at 5.00 p.m. The Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police also reached on the spot at 5.15 p.m. He denied that the spot was not visible on account of darkness in the jungle. He further denied the suggestion that he had shown the fake recovery of articles lying and lifted from the spot. He denied that nothing was recovered from personal search of accused. He denied the suggestion that purse, railway tickets, currency notes and photographs have been falsely planted in this recovery. PW18 stated that firstly the accused was brought from Village Ismailpura, District Unao, Uttar Pradesh and his arrest was shown on 06.02.2016 and his personal search was conducted after his arrest at P.S. Kala Amb. He further stated that when the accused was brought from his village, this fact was reported to the concerned Police Station of his village Bangar Mau. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not having any purse and articles with him and when his custody was taken by the police party, no such recovery had been shown. He also denied the suggestion that the dead body of unknown lady was recovered and when real culprit could not be traced, a false case has been foisted against the accused. 13. SI Yoginder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P. was examined as PW20. He deposed that on 21.01.2016, the case file was taken by him for investigation from ASI Jai Dev. He had inspected the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary, R.H., Nahan. As per PW20, he went to the spot and searched the spot and surroundings along with complainant Rinku and witness Karam Chand. He further deposed that when he went to Teran Nullah, one Zipper sweater Ext. He had inspected the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary, R.H., Nahan. As per PW20, he went to the spot and searched the spot and surroundings along with complainant Rinku and witness Karam Chand. He further deposed that when he went to Teran Nullah, one Zipper sweater Ext. P2 was recovered from the bushes, which was identified by Rinku and Karam Chand, as having been worn by the accused at the time of incident. One checking the pocket of sweater, one ‘Jhumka’ Ext. P3 was recovered and the recovered Ext. P2 and Ext.P3 were sealed in a parcel Ext. P1 and the same was sealed with seal ‘H’ at seven places. The sample seal Ext. PW1/B was drawn on a separate piece of cloth. He further deposed that the photographs of the spot from where the sweater was recovered were taken through HC Shamim Akthar and he had prepared rough sketch of the place Ext. PW20/A from where sweater and Jhumka were recovered. He also stated that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. He further deposed that after a long exercise to get identified the dead body of deceased, on 04.02.2016, when the deceased was enquired in village Jheeriwala, he came to know that one lady, who was a tenant of Ram Rattan, Sarpanch, was not seen from many days. On this, PW20 had shown the photograph of the deceased to Ram Rattan, who identified the deceased as his tenant being the wife of accused. Accused had taken a room on rent from Ram Rattan, who got recorded his statement that on 19.01.2016, the accused had settled his dues and left the room for his home. Ram Rattan had produced one marriage deed mark ‘A’ which he had taken from the accused and deceased at the time of renting out his room to them as identity. Ram Rattan told that both of them had introduced themselves as husband and wife to him when the room was rented out to them. PW20 stated that he prepared the memo Ext. PW15/A and went to search the accused on the address written on the marriage deed mark ‘A’ on 04.02.2016. He stated that they had contacted in the local Police Station, Bangar Mau and with their help, the accused was brought to Kala Amb for further investigation. PW20 stated that he prepared the memo Ext. PW15/A and went to search the accused on the address written on the marriage deed mark ‘A’ on 04.02.2016. He stated that they had contacted in the local Police Station, Bangar Mau and with their help, the accused was brought to Kala Amb for further investigation. He deposed that accused was interrogated and from his personal search, purse Ext. P11, joint passport size photograph Ext. P12, railway ticket P13, bus tickets Ext. P14 and Ext. P15, attendance card Ext. P16, Nepali Currency Ext. P17 and coins P18 were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW18/A and sealed in parcel Ext.P10. The parcel was sealed with seal ‘W’ at six places. He stated that he had prepared the sample seal Ext. PW18/B on separate piece of cloth and the accused was remanded to judicial custody on 07.02.2016. He also stated that test identification parade of accused was conducted vide report Ext. PW20/B in the jail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, on 10.02.2016. He stated that accused was produced in the Court and kept in the police station with muffled face and the accused was identified by witness Rinku. He stated that on 14.02.2016, on the demarcation of accused, he prepared memo Ext. PW5/C and the photographs were also taken by HC Shamim Akhtar. As per this witness, during investigation, Ashok Rai with whom accused was working as Machine Operator had produced his attendance card Ext. PW6/A which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW6/B. According to him, he had obtained the copy of jamabandi of spot Ext. PW4/A and Aksh Shajra Kishtwar Ext. PW4/B from Halqua Patwari Prem Pal (PW4) and thereafter deputed ASI Jagdish to Raebareli for investigation of this case regarding the marriage deed between the accused and the deceased. As per this witness, he had recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version and as per FSL report Ext. PX, he had prepared the challan and present the same in the Court. 14. In his cross-examination, PW20 deposed that distance between the spot where the deceased was lying and from where the sweater was recovered is about 300-400 metres. He admitted that he had got identified the sweater from Rinku and Karam Chand and had got identified the deceased from the photograph of the dead body. 14. In his cross-examination, PW20 deposed that distance between the spot where the deceased was lying and from where the sweater was recovered is about 300-400 metres. He admitted that he had got identified the sweater from Rinku and Karam Chand and had got identified the deceased from the photograph of the dead body. He denied the suggestion that dead body was not discernible to identify the deceased and also denied the suggestion that neither Ram Rattan had handed over the marriage deed Mark ‘A’ nor the accused and deceased were his tenants. He denied the suggestion that the police were not sure that accused is the real culprit of the crime and only then he was not arrested at his village. He further denied the suggestion that he had not informed the local police station of accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not muffled when he was produced before the Court and further denied the suggestion that the accused was shown to witness Rinku in the Police Station before producing him in the Court. He also denied that he had instructed the witness to identify the accused during identification parade. He denied that nothing was recovered from personal search of accused. 15. ASI Jagdish Chand Sharma, I.O., P.L. Nahan, stepped into the witness box as PW19, who stated that he remained posted as I.O. in Police Station, Nahan from the year 2015 to 2016. He deposed that on 26.03.2016, the case file was handed over to him for partial investigation. As per him, he went to Raebareli for the verification of marriage deed between accused and deceased which was recovered from the room of the accused at Jheeriwala. He further stated that he had recorded the statements of witnesses to the marriage deed Sanjay and Raju Yadav Mark ‘S’ and ‘R’ and now Exts. PW19/A and PW19/B, respectively, as per their version. He stated that he had investigated from where the stamp papers were purchased. He also stated that thereafter he enquired from the Treasury of Raebareli and the stamp papers were sold to Stamp Vendor Rajnish Vajpaye by the Treasury and then he recorded the statement of stamp vendor. 16. During cross-examination, PW19 denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statements of Sanjay and Raju Yadav as per his own wishes. He also stated that thereafter he enquired from the Treasury of Raebareli and the stamp papers were sold to Stamp Vendor Rajnish Vajpaye by the Treasury and then he recorded the statement of stamp vendor. 16. During cross-examination, PW19 denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statements of Sanjay and Raju Yadav as per his own wishes. Lastly, he denied the suggestion that the marriage deed has been falsely planted in this case. 17. Complainant Rinku entered into the witness box as PW1. He stated that he is running a shop at place Trilokpur near the temple of ‘Mata Lalita’. He deposed that on 20.01.2016, at about 12.30 noon, Karam Chand was sitting in his shop. In the meantime, one boy and girl came to his shop and purchased ‘Prasad’ of Rs.20/- and they went to the temple to pay their obeisance and returned from the temple. He further deposed that thereafter he went to cut the grass in the forest near Shiv Temple. The same boy and girl were sitting on the parapet on the side of the path. Then, they went towards the down side. He stated that the boy had pushed the girl from the mountain and the girl fell into the gorge and then the boy lifted a stone and threw over her which could not strike against her. Then, he raised alarm. The accused present in the Court is the same boy. As per this witness, then he called Karam Chand but he could not hear his voice on account of noise of loud speaker. PW1 stated that then he went to the temple to bring Karam Chand and narrated the incident to him and then they both went to the spot. As per this witness, then Karam Chand asked the accused what he was doing and the boy was strangulating her neck with his hands and when we raised alarm, the boy left the girl and on seeing them, ran away towards the gorge. When they checked the girl, she was dead. At about 1.45 p.m., Karam Chand had telephonically informed Pradhan, Shri Virender Kumar, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur, who informed the police and the police came on the spot. The police had recorded his statement Ext. PW1/A. PW1 stated that the police had recovered one hand purse from the spot and one chappal. When they checked the girl, she was dead. At about 1.45 p.m., Karam Chand had telephonically informed Pradhan, Shri Virender Kumar, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur, who informed the police and the police came on the spot. The police had recorded his statement Ext. PW1/A. PW1 stated that the police had recovered one hand purse from the spot and one chappal. The hand purse was containing one rupee coin and ten rupees bus ticket. Some sparkle was also in the purse which was taken into possession and sealed in a parcel which was sealed with seal impression ‘M’. He also stated that on 21.01.2016, police again associated him in the investigation and went to the spot and from there, one zipper sweater over which ‘touch me’ was written and one ladies ‘Jhumka’ was recovered from the pocket of sweater, which belonged to the accused and was worn by the accused on that day. He stated that he identified the sweater before I.O. The recovered sweater was sealed in a parcel which was sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and sample seal ‘H’ Ext. PW1/B was drawn on separate piece of cloth. The recovered sweater was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/C and the I.O. had also taken the photographs. 18. In his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that ‘Mata Lalita Temple’ is historical temple. He stated that only 10-20 people used to visit the temple daily and on holiday/Sunday, about 500 people used to visit the temple. As per him, there is only his shop near the temple. He also stated that he had narrated the features of the person and lady, who had visited his shop on that day and he had told the police that the person was aged about 26-27 years and the girl was about 23-24 years old. The boy was of fair complexion. As per this witness, both of them stayed in his shop for about 10 minutes and they were not previously known to him nor he had any talk with them except for purchasing of ‘Prasad’. He stated that the girl had paid the cost of ‘Prasad’ by taking money from the boy. Firstly, she had given Rs.10/- and he had demanded Rs.20/- from her and again she had taken Rs.10/- from the boy and paid the cost of ‘Prasad’. According to PW1, his shop is at a distance of 10 metres from the temple. He stated that the girl had paid the cost of ‘Prasad’ by taking money from the boy. Firstly, she had given Rs.10/- and he had demanded Rs.20/- from her and again she had taken Rs.10/- from the boy and paid the cost of ‘Prasad’. According to PW1, his shop is at a distance of 10 metres from the temple. Both of them went towards lower side at distance of 150-200 metres. He stated that he went to cut the grass towards Shiv Temple which was at South side and he was at a distance of 100 metres away from ‘Mata Lalita Temple’. According to him, he went to cut grass at 1.00 p.m. He stated that the boy and girl were at a distance of 150 metres away from him where he was cutting grass. He had called Karam Chand from the place where he was cutting the grass. He stated that it took ten minutes to bring Karam Chand to the spot and when Karam Chand asked the accused, then he ran away from the spot. When, they found that the girl was lying dead, then, they came to the main path and informed the Pradhan, who came with the police at 2.30 p.m. He stated that the house of Pradhan is near Mata Bala Sundri Temple. As per this witness, they had searched the accused upto Naraingarh. According to PW1, firstly, he had shown the spot to the police where the dead body of girl was lying. He denied the suggestion that no investigation was conducted in his presence. On 21.01.2016, SHO, Police Station, Kala Amb visited the spot for investigation. Police called him to the spot and recorded his statement. As per this witness, the zipper sweater was recovered from ‘Terna-wala-Nullah’ which was lying at a distance of 100-200 metres from the dead body. He denied the suggestion that neither sweater was recovered nor ‘Jhumka’ was in the pocket of sweater. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not pushed the deceased from the parapet and further denied that the accused was neither present near the dead body nor strangulated her neck with his hands. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police. He denied the suggestion that the accused had not pushed the deceased from the parapet and further denied that the accused was neither present near the dead body nor strangulated her neck with his hands. He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police. As per this witness, on 10.02.2016, he was called by the SHO to the Police Station, Kala Amb, telephonically and then he accompanied them to the Central Jail, Nahan and remained in the jail upto 3.30 p.m. He did not remember which clothes were worn by the accused on that day. All inmates were in jail dress and caps were in their hands. He had identified the accused as he was standing at Sr. No.3 in the line and had identified the accused thrice in the jail. He denied the suggestions that the SHO had shown him the photograph of the accused in the police station and on the basis of the photograph, he identified the accused in the jail. 19. Shri Karam Chand, who stepped into the witness box as PW2, stated that on 20.01.2016, he was present as a watchman in ‘Lalita Mata Temple, Trilokpur’. He deposed that at about 12.30 p.m., the accused present in the court, came to the temple along with one lady. He was sitting in the shop of Rinku Ram (PW1). Accused had purchased ‘Prasad’ of Rs.20/- from the shop of PW1. He stated that he had taken the accused and that lady to the temple to pay their obeisance and both of them returned from the temple and went towards lower side. Rinku went to cut the grass. As per this witness, at about 12.45 p.m., PW1 came to temple and took him to the spot and told that the boy had thrown the lady from the parapet on the side of the path. He also stated that he had given an alarm to the accused what he was doing. On this, the accused ran away towards lower side and the lady was lying dead facing towards the ground. He further stated that then they had telephonically informed Pradhan Virender Singh, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur. Police came to the spot and recorded the statement of Rinku Ram and his statement was also recorded. As per him, the police had lifted the dead body and from the spot, the pair of ladies chappal Ext. P5, purse Ext. He further stated that then they had telephonically informed Pradhan Virender Singh, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur. Police came to the spot and recorded the statement of Rinku Ram and his statement was also recorded. As per him, the police had lifted the dead body and from the spot, the pair of ladies chappal Ext. P5, purse Ext. P6, one ticket Ext. P8, one coin of one rupee Ext. P7 and one packet of polythene which was containing sparkle Ext.P9 were taken into possession by the police. He stated that on the next day, the police visited the spot and he again went to the spot with the police. One zipper sweater Ext.P2 over which the word ‘touch’ was written was found on the spot and from the pocket of the sweater, one ladies artificial ‘Jhumka’ Ext. P3 was also recovered which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/C. The parcel was sealed with seal ‘H’ at seven places. The sample seal Ext. PW1/B was drawn on separate piece of cloth. 20. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that he was working as Watchman in the temple for the last five years and he used to perform his duties in day time from 8.00 a.m. to 7 p.m. He admitted that it is a historical temple and several people used to visit the temple daily. He stated that PW1 was cutting the grass at a distance of about 200 metres and PW1 had gone to cut the grass at about 12.45 p.m. and he had come to take him to the spot after fifteen minutes. According to this witness, the distance between the dead body and the place where PW1 was cutting the grass was about 300 metres and the distance between spot and temple was 100 metres and they both went to the place where dead body was lying which was about 30 metres from the path. He further stated that the person was near the dead body and when they asked the person, then he ran away from the spot. He also stated that then PW1 informed the Pradhan telephonically and thereafter 5-10 persons came to the spot with Pradhan at 2.00 p.m. and 4-5 police personnel had also reached there simultaneously. He further stated that the person was near the dead body and when they asked the person, then he ran away from the spot. He also stated that then PW1 informed the Pradhan telephonically and thereafter 5-10 persons came to the spot with Pradhan at 2.00 p.m. and 4-5 police personnel had also reached there simultaneously. On the next day, the police again visited the spot for investigation at noon and the zipper sweater was recovered from the distance of one kilometre away from the dead body and the police had prepared the seizure memo on the spot and recorded the statements of witnesses. PW2 denied the suggestions that neither he had seen the accused in the shop nor the accused was present near the dead body when he along with PW1 went there. He also denied the suggestions that zipper sweater did not belong to the accused and there was no ‘Jhumka’ in the pocket of the sweater. 21. Shri Rajat Bansal was examined as PW3. He stated that he is a shopkeeper by profession and his shop is at Khairi. On 20.01.2016, the police had taken him along with Pradhan Virender Kumar, Up Pradhan Lal Singh Thakur and Dheeraj Kumar to the spot. He further stated that the dead body was lifted from the spot and pair of ladies Chappal Ext. P5, one purse Ext. P6, one ticket Ext. P8 of Rs.10/- of ‘Rahul Coach Bus’, one rupee coin Ext.P7 and silver sparkle wrapped in a paper and was kept in a polythene envelope Ext.P9 which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW3/A. He also stated that the recovered articles were sealed in a white cloth parcel which was sealed with seal ‘M’ at seven places and the seal after its use was handed over to Dheeraj Kumar. 22. In his cross-examination, PW3 stated that he along with Pradhan Virender, Up Pradhan Lal Singh Thakur and Dheeraj Rana went to the spot on foot and he did not remember the time when they had started from Trilokpur to visit the spot. It took 25 minutes to reach the spot and PW1 was already there. He further stated that the distance between the spot and temple is about 200 metres and it took one and half to two hours to investigate and to prepare the parcel on the spot. It took 25 minutes to reach the spot and PW1 was already there. He further stated that the distance between the spot and temple is about 200 metres and it took one and half to two hours to investigate and to prepare the parcel on the spot. He denied that on 20.01.2016 neither recovery memo was prepared nor anything was lifted from the spot in his presence. 23. Shri Prem Pal, Field Kanungo, entered into the witness box as PW4 and stated that on the request of police to Tehsildar, he had prepared copy of jamabandi Ext. PW4/A and copy of ‘Aksh Shajra Kishtwar, Mauza Trilokpur, Ext.PW4/B and handed over the same to the police. 24. The prosecution examined Shri Virender Parmar as PW5. He stated that he is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur from January, 2016. He stated that on 20.01.2016, he had received a telephonic call from Rinku, a shopkeeper, who told that one lady has been murdered near the temple. He informed the police of Police Station, Kala Amb. He further stated that when he along with Up Pradhan Lal Singh, Rajat Bansal and Dheeraj Rana reached at the spot, police also reached there and Rinku Ram and Karam Chand were already there on the spot. As per this witness, the dead body was lying facing towards the ground and one lady purse was also lying near the spot. He stated that one chappal was lying near the dead body and other chappal was lying from where the deceased was thrown and on checking the purse, one ticket of ten rupee of Rahul Coach Bus, one silver sparkle packet and one coin of rupee one were found in the purse. The police had taken the photographs of the spot. He also stated that he along with Rinku Ram searched the boy, who had pushed the deceased in the forest but could not be traced out and thereafter they went upto Naraingarh to search the accused. He stated that on 20.01.2016, he was called by the police to Nahan Hospital at the time of postmortem and on 14.02.2016, he was again called by the police to the police station and on the demarcation of the accused, the police again went to the spot and prepared memo Ext. PW5/C and he along with Kuldip Singh signed the same as witnesses. 25. PW5/C and he along with Kuldip Singh signed the same as witnesses. 25. In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that he was at village Firojpur near village Trilokpur when he received the telephonic call from Rinku. The village Firojpur is at a distance of 2 ½ kilometres from their village. He had received telephonic call at 1.45 p.m. on 20.01.2016 on his mobile No. 97360-39345 (Vodafone) and thereafter he informed the police at Police Station, Kala Amb on their landline No.238527 and thereafter rushed to the spot. He denied that the distance between Trilokpur to Kala Amb is about ten kilometres. The distance between the path and the spot where the dead body was lying is about 35-40 feet. He denied the suggestion that he had given the statement after consulting PW1 and PW2. He denied that accused had not shown any spot nor spot map and memo of demarcation were prepared in his presence. 26. Constable Dinesh Kumar was examined as PW6. He stated that he remained posted as Constable general duty from the year 2012 to 2016 at Police Station, Kala Amb. On 27.02.2016, Ashok Rai had produced one attendance card Ext. PW6/A of accused which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW6/B and he signed the same as witness. In his cross-examination, he denied that the card did not belong to the accused and also denied that the same was manufactured during investigation by the I.O. in connivance with Ashok. 27. Shri Dharam Singh Rana was examined as PW7. He stated that he is running a photo studio in the name of ‘Rana Studio’ at Kala Amb. He stated that police had called him to take the photographs of the spot where the dead body was lying. He took the photographs which are Ext. PW7/A-1 to Ext. PW7/A-17 and gave a certificate Ext. PW7/B to this effect. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had not developed the photographs, self-stated that he had got the photographs developed from Ludhiana through an agent. 28. HHC Ravinder No. 97 was examined as PW8. He stated that he remained posted as Constable at Police Station, Kala Amb from 2012 to 2016. On 23.01.2016, after postmortem of the deceased, the doctor had handed over to him seven sealed parcel, two sealed envelopes along with sample seal of hospital which he deposited with MHC Mam Raj on the same day. He stated that he remained posted as Constable at Police Station, Kala Amb from 2012 to 2016. On 23.01.2016, after postmortem of the deceased, the doctor had handed over to him seven sealed parcel, two sealed envelopes along with sample seal of hospital which he deposited with MHC Mam Raj on the same day. He stated that the case property remained intact so long it remained in his custody. 29. Constable Bhupinder Singh No.314 entered into the witness box as PW9. He stated that on 27.01.2016, MHC had handed over the case property to him vide RC No. 8/16 to be taken to SFSL, Junga and he had also taken finger tips of deceased to Bharari and after depositing the case property at SFSL, Junga and Bharari, he handed over the receipts to MHC. 30. Head constable Mam Raj No. 373 appeared in the witness box as PW10. He stated that he remained posted as MHC at Police Station, Kala Amb from June, 2013 to August, 2016. He stated that one rukka was brought by HHC Ravinder, on the basis of which, he registered the FIR Ext. PW10/A and also made an endorsement Ext. PW10/B on rukka Ext. PW1/A. He further stated that on 21.01.2016, ASI Jai Dev had deposited with him one parcel with sample seal which he had entered at Sr. No. 108 and on the same day, SI/SHO Yoginder Singh had deposited one parcel along with sample seal ‘H’ which he had entered in Sr. No. 109 in the Malkhana register as per abstract Ext.PW10/C. On 23.01.2016, HHC Ravinder had deposited with him seven parcels, two envelopes along with sample seals which he had entered at Sr. No.110 in Malkhana register. He deposed that on 06.02.2016, SI Yoginder Singh had deposited with him one parcel along with sample seal which he had entered at Sr. No.113 and on 10.02.2016, Lady Constable Neha had deposited one envelope and one letter addressed to the Head of Pathology Department at Shimla which he had entered at Sr. No. 114. He also stated that he had sent the case property to SFSL, Junga and Bharari through constable Bhupinder Singh, who had deposited the same there and on return handed over the receipts to him. No. 114. He also stated that he had sent the case property to SFSL, Junga and Bharari through constable Bhupinder Singh, who had deposited the same there and on return handed over the receipts to him. As per him, one parcel containing part uterus was brought back by constable Bhupinder Singh as the same was required to be sent to IGMC, Shimla for pathological report and on 11.02.2016, he had sent the same to IGMC, Shimla through HHC Sharafat Ali No. 186. 31. In his cross-examination, he denied that rukka was prepared in Police Station and he also denied that rukka was not brought by Constable Ravinder from the spot. Rukka was received in the Police Station at 7.30 p.m. He denied the suggestions that time was changed as per the convenience of I.O. and he had not sent the case property to SFSL, Bharari Laboratory and IGMC. 32. Lady Constable Neha was examined as PW11. She stated that on 10.02.2016, Medical Officer, R.H., Nahan had handed over to her one envelope addressed to Hispopathological examination, IGMC, Shimla and one letter addressed to Head of Pathological Lab., IGMC, Shimla, which she had deposited with MHC at 11.30 p.m. 33. HHC Sharafat Ali appeared in the witness box as PW12, who stated that he remained posted HHC general duty at Police Station, Kala Amb from the year 2013 to 2016. He stated that MHC, Police Station, Kala Amb, had handed over to him one parcel, sealed with seal of RH, Nahan along with letter vide RC No.14/16 dated 11.02.2016 with a direction to deposit at IGMC, Shimla, Head of Pathological Lab which he had deposited on the same day and handed over receipt to MHC. 34. PW13 HHC Love Kumar, Police Station, Kala Amb, stated that he has brought the original record of rapat Nos. 6 and 11 dated 20.01.2016 Ext. PW13/A and Ext. PW13/B which is true copy of original. 35. Doctor Sumit Sood, Medical Officer, R.H. Solan, District Solan, was examined as PW14, who stated that he remained posted as Medical Officer at R.H., Nahan from August, 2012 to July, 2016. The police had filed an application Ext. PW14/A for conducting the postmortem of an unidentified woman on 21.01.2016. He had conducted the postmortem of the body along with doctor Suman Lata and issued post mortem report Ext. The police had filed an application Ext. PW14/A for conducting the postmortem of an unidentified woman on 21.01.2016. He had conducted the postmortem of the body along with doctor Suman Lata and issued post mortem report Ext. PW14/B. He stated that as per his opinion, the cause of death was due to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to neurogenic shock caused by spinal injury resulting from dislocation of C2 and C3 vertebra. He further stated that they had taken samples of section of uterus, blood sample on FTA card for DNA profiling, vaginal smear slides, pulp of digits of hands, threads of bone around the neck which were handed over to the police. On physical examination, ligature marks were found around the neck and the width of the marks was corresponding to the red thread which was worn by the deceased. He stated that there were multiple oval contusions bluish in colour 2x2 cm situated on both sides of the mid of the neck in the vicinity of above said ligature marks and there was petechial sub co-tenuous hemorrhages below the ligature mark and there were multiple lineour abrasions over the flexure and extensor aspect over the upper and lower extremities, back and the left side of gluteal region and the ring finger of the right hand was pinkish red in colour. He stated that there were multiple superficial bruises bluish in colour on the back of shoulders, back and extensor aspect of upper and lower limbs and there was dislocation of C2-C3 vertebra with partial dissection of the spinal cord. He further stated that the associated muscles and sub co-tenuous tissue showed contusion with multiple hemorrhages. Even though, after the perusal of FSL report, their opinion remained the same, however, as per report, it shows presence of semen on vaginal slides. As per him, the report bears his signatures and the signatures of doctor Suman and they had given their opinion Ext. PW14/C on the request of the police. According to him, the injury can be caused by throwing a person from higher place and by twisting the neck with force. 36. In his cross-examination, PW14 admitted that if a person falls from higher place, then injury mentioned in the postmortem report can be caused and dislocation of C2 and C3 vertebra with partial dissection can be caused by fall from higher place. 36. In his cross-examination, PW14 admitted that if a person falls from higher place, then injury mentioned in the postmortem report can be caused and dislocation of C2 and C3 vertebra with partial dissection can be caused by fall from higher place. He further admitted that ligature marks can be caused if a person falls and the thread of neck strucks with any object. He admitted that fracture of hyoid bone can cause death of a person. 37. Shri Jai Pal was examined as PW15. He stated that he is a shopkeeper by profession. On 02.04.2016, he was associated by the police at the time of investigation and the police took into possession photocopies of an affidavit which was produced by Ram Rattan vide memo Ext. PW15/A and he along with the police officials signed the same as witnesses. As per him, the affidavit Mark ‘A’ was related to the marriage between accused and deceased and the copy of affidavit was taken by Ram Rattan at the time of renting out the room to the accused. 38. In his cross-examination, he stated that Ram Rattan was a resident of village Jheeriwala which is in Haryana. He denied that Ram Rattan had never produced Mark ‘A’ to the police in his presence. 39. Shri Sanjay Sharma was examined as PW16. He stated that he is working in a factory at Raebareli. The accused was earlier working with him at Raebareli in a Steel factory. He stated that neither accused had solemnized marriage in his presence nor he signed the marriage agreement Mark ‘A’. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor prayed to cross-examine this witness. Prayer was considered. 40. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that police had recorded his statement. He further denied that he had got recorded in his statement that he along with Raju Yadav signed the marriage agreement Mark ‘A’ before Notary Public. He also denied that in red circle on Mark ‘A’, it bears his signatures. He stated that he had never given portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement to the police. He denied that since accused was working with him, therefore, he resiled from his previous statement. 41. Sh. Raju Yadav was examined as PW17. He stated that accused had not solemnized the marriage in his presence. He stated that he had never given portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement to the police. He denied that since accused was working with him, therefore, he resiled from his previous statement. 41. Sh. Raju Yadav was examined as PW17. He stated that accused had not solemnized the marriage in his presence. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to cross-examine the witness as he had resiled from his statement recorded by the police. 42. In his cross-examination, PW17 admitted that accused had worked with him in the Steel Industry in the name ‘Van Sons’. He denied that accused had solemnized the marriage with Haseen Bano on 08.05.2015. He further denied that he along with Sanjay signed the marriage deed Mark ‘A’ as witnesses and also denied that he had signed in the red circle Mark ‘X’. He stated that he has heard portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement which he had never given to the police. He denied that he was resiling from his previous statement as accused was his co-worker in the Steel Factory. 43. The accused in his defence examined Vipin Kumar as DW1. He stated that accused is his real younger brother, who was working at Kala Amb in some Company. The police from Police Station, Kala Amb and police from U.P. came to their house on 04.05.2016 and enquired the whereabouts of accused. He stated that he told them that the accused was working in the field and thereafter he took the police to the field. His brother was wearing underwear and ‘Baniyan’ on that day. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the house where he wore the clothes. He also stated that the police brought the accused to Police Station, Kala Amb and the clothes of the accused were searched. Nothing was recovered from the accused. According to him, the accused had not solemnized the marriage anywhere and the accused had come to the home from one and half month prior to the visit of police to their village. 44. On his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that accused had solemnized marriage with Hasina Bano, a resident of Chak Bhaur Hara, Tehsil and District Raebareli. He stated that he did not know that Hasina Bano used to reside with the accused at Kala Amb in the house of Pradhan Ram Rattan after taking a room on rent. On his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that accused had solemnized marriage with Hasina Bano, a resident of Chak Bhaur Hara, Tehsil and District Raebareli. He stated that he did not know that Hasina Bano used to reside with the accused at Kala Amb in the house of Pradhan Ram Rattan after taking a room on rent. He denied that accused had given the marriage deed Mark ‘A’ to his landlord at the time of taking room on rent from him. He also denied that accused had killed his wife near ‘Lalita Mata Temple’. Lastly, he denied that he was deposing falsely in order to save his brother. 45. We have heard Shri Karan Kapoor, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Raj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. 46. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that his client has been falsely roped in a case in which he has got no role to play. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the link evidence is missing in the present case, as a result of which, judgment of conviction as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, is liable to quashed and set aside and the present appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charge as framed against him. 47. On the other hand, Shri Raj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, has submitted that since there is direct evidence qua the commission of the offence by the present appellant, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, has rightly convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC . 48. The first contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the commission of the crime/offence which could have compelled the appellant to kill the deceased. As per learned counsel for the appellant, in the absence of any motive attributed to the appellant, he could not have been convicted, therefore, the judgment of conviction is bad in the eyes of law. 49. As far as motive is concerned, we are of the opinion that motive is not always necessary for the conviction. As per learned counsel for the appellant, in the absence of any motive attributed to the appellant, he could not have been convicted, therefore, the judgment of conviction is bad in the eyes of law. 49. As far as motive is concerned, we are of the opinion that motive is not always necessary for the conviction. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in number of cases that if there is strong evidence like direct testimonies of eye witnesses or a clear unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution does not have to prove a motive. While a motive can be important and supports the prosecution case, its absence is not automatically fatal to the charges, especially in cases, based on the other compelling proof. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that the motive is not an integral part of the crime itself and the offence can occur without any motive. If the evidence is strong enough to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of motive is not a ground for acquittal. In the cases that rely on circumstantial evidence, motive is very significant because it helps to establish the accused’s culpability. However, the absence of a motive is not fatal if the circumstantial evidence is convincing. If there is direct and credible eye witness testimony, the motive becomes little relevant, as the guilt is established by the direct evidence. 50. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 has held that motive is something which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to always explain what prompted or excited them to commit a particular crime. Motive is a very important link in the circumstances, which could prove the guilt of the accused, and it loses its importance only when there is direct evidence of the eyewitnesses, which is convincing and conclusive as to the guilt of the accused. However, it was also noticed that even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to commit a particular crime, it does not lead to a conviction by itself, if the witnesses are not convincing or the chain of circumstances is not complete. 51. However, it was also noticed that even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to commit a particular crime, it does not lead to a conviction by itself, if the witnesses are not convincing or the chain of circumstances is not complete. 51. The exposition of law as laid by the Apex Court says that if the case is built solely upon the circumstantial evidence, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal. When the eye witnesses are not convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction. Likewise, when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis, the total absence of motive will be of no consequence. 52. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Jan Mohammad versus State of Bihar (1953) 1 SCC 5 has held as follows: “Motive is a relevant fact under the Evidence Act (Section 8). It is an important element in a chain of presumptive proof where the evidence is purely circumstantial, but it may lose importance in a case where there is direct evidence by witnesses implicating the accused. In a case such as the present where the prosecution evidence itself shows that the relations between the deceased and the appellants were cordial, the absence of an apparent motive, though not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, may reasonable be regarded as a fact in favour of the accused. We think, therefore, that the attempt to prove a motive against any of the appellants has failed.” [sic] 53. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 80 has held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would supply a link in the chain of circumstances, but all the same, absence of motive cannot be a ground to altogether reject the prosecution case. Para 21 of the judgment reads as follows: “21. Para 21 of the judgment reads as follows: “21. At the very outset we may mention that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime…..” 54. The Apex Court in Sukhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019) 15 SCC 622 has held that if prosecution establishes motive, it will undoubtedly strengthen the prosecution case, but to say that the absence of motive will be fatal to the prosecution, irrespective of other material before the Court in the formal circumstantial evidence is far-fetched. Para 15 of the judgment reads as follows:- “15. The last submission which is called upon to deal with is that there is no motive established against the appellant for committing murder. It is undoubtedly true that the question of motive may assume significance in a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. But the question is whether in a case of circumstantial evidence inability on the part of the prosecution to establish a motive is fatal to the prosecution case, we would think that while it is true that if the prosecution establishes a motive for the accused to commit a crime it will undoubtedly strengthen the prosecution version based on circumstantial evidence, but that is far cry from saying that the absence of a motive for the commission of the crime by the accused will irrespective of other material available before the court by way of circumstantial evidence be fatal to the prosecution. In such circumstances, on account of the circumstances which stand established by evidence as discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal and same shall stand dismissed.” 55. Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the perpetrator, which cannot, often than ever, be ferreted out by the investigation agency. Though in a case of circumstantial evidence, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot be declared as a general proposition of universal application that in the absence of motive, the entire inculpatory circumstances should be ignored and the accused be acquitted. 56. In the present case, the statements of independent witnesses, along with the official witnesses, clearly link the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the motive has not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, under such circumstances, the appellant is liable to be acquitted, is liable to be rejected. 57. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the test identification parade of the accused was not done as per the procedure as prescribed under the law. He has stated that the photographs of the accused were taken by the police and the same were shown to PW-1 and thereafter, he identified the accused. 58. PW-1 in his deposition has stated that on 10.02.2016 he was called by the SHO to the Police Station, Kala Amb, telephonically and he accompanied them to the Central Jail Nahan and remained in the jail up to 3:30 PM. He stated that all the inmates in the jail were in dress and caps. He identified the accused as he was standing at Sr. No.3 in the line and he identified the accused thrice in the jail. He has categorically denied the suggestion that SHO had shown him the photographs of the accused and on the basis of photographs he identified the accused in the jail. 59. The record reveals that the entire test identification parade was got done in the presence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sirmaur at Nahan and he has submitted in his report Ext. PW-20/B that the test identification parade was got done thrice and in all the rounds, PW-1 identified the present appellant. 59. The record reveals that the entire test identification parade was got done in the presence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sirmaur at Nahan and he has submitted in his report Ext. PW-20/B that the test identification parade was got done thrice and in all the rounds, PW-1 identified the present appellant. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the test identification parade of the appellant was not done as per the procedure as prescribed under the law needs to be rejected. 60. Now, we advert to the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. The prosecution has come forward with a case that on 20.01.2016, Sh. Virender Parmar, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur, telephonically informed at Police Station, Kala Amb that one dead body of a girl was lying in the forest near ‘Lalita Devi Temple, Trilokpur’. 61. The case of the prosecution is duly corroborated by the statement of PW-1 (eye-witness). In his statement he has stated that he is running a shop at place Trilokpur near the temple of ‘Mata Lalita’. On 20.01.2016, at about 12.30 noon, Karam Chand was sitting in his shop. In the meantime, one boy and girl came to his shop and purchased ‘Prasad’ of Rs.20/- and went to the temple to pay their obeisance and thereafter returned from the temple. He has deposed that thereafter he went to cut the grass in the forest near ‘Shiv Temple’. The same boy and girl were sitting on the parapet on the side of the path. Then, they went towards the down side. He has stated that the boy had pushed the girl from the mountain and the girl fell into the gorge and then the boy lifted a stone and threw over her which could not strike against her. As per this witness, he had raised alarm. He has also stated in his deposition that the accused present in the Court is the same person. As per his deposition, he had called Karam Chand but he could not hear his voice on account of noise of loudspeaker. PW1 has stated that then he went to the temple to bring Karam Chand and narrated the incident to him and then they both went to the spot. As per his deposition, he had called Karam Chand but he could not hear his voice on account of noise of loudspeaker. PW1 has stated that then he went to the temple to bring Karam Chand and narrated the incident to him and then they both went to the spot. As per the version of this witness, Karam Chand had asked the accused what he was doing when the boy was strangulating neck of deceased and when they raised alarm, the boy left the girl and on seeing them ran away towards the gorge. When they checked the girl, she was dead. At about 1.45 p.m., Karam Chand had telephonically informed Pradhan, Sh. Virender Parmar, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur, who informed the police and the police came on the spot. 62. The case of the prosecution is also supported by PW2, who has stated that on 20.01.2016, he was present as Watchman in ‘Lalita Mata Temple’ at Trilokpur. He has stated in his deposition that at about 12.30 p.m., the accused present in the court, came to the temple along with one lady. He was sitting in the shop of Rinku Ram (PW1). Accused had purchased ‘Prasad’ of Rs.20/- from the shop of PW1. PW2 has stated that he had taken the accused and that lady to the temple to pay their obeisance and both of them returned from the temple and went towards lower side. He has stated that PW-1 went to cut the grass and as per this witness, at about 12.45 p.m., PW1 came to temple and took him to the spot and told that the boy had thrown the lady from the parapet on the side of the path. He has also stated that he had given an alarm to the accused what he was doing. On this, the accused ran away towards lower side and the lady was lying dead facing towards the ground. He has further stated that then they had telephonically informed Pradhan Virender Parmar, Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur. 63. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are duly supported by PW-5, who was the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Trilokpur at the relevant time. He has stated that on 20.01.2016, he had received a telephonic call from Rinku, a shopkeeper, who told that one lady has been murdered near the temple. PW5 has also stated that he had informed the police of Police Station, Kala Amb. He has stated that on 20.01.2016, he had received a telephonic call from Rinku, a shopkeeper, who told that one lady has been murdered near the temple. PW5 has also stated that he had informed the police of Police Station, Kala Amb. He has further stated that when he along with Up Pradhan Lal Singh, Rajat Bansal and Dheeraj Rana reached at the spot, police also reached there and Rinku Ram and Karam Chand were already there on the spot. As per him, the dead body was lying facing towards the ground and one lady purse was also lying near the spot. He has stated that one chappal was lying near the dead body and other chappal was lying from where the deceased was thrown and on checking the purse, one ticket of ten rupee of Rahul Coach Bus, one silver sparkle packet and coin of rupee one, were found in the purse. The police had taken the photographs of the spot. He has also stated that he along with Rinku Ram searched the boy, who had pushed the deceased in the forest but could not be traced out and thereafter they went upto Naraingarh to search the accused. 64. To the similar extent is the statement of PW-3 Rajat Bansal, who was a shopkeeper by profession and his shop was at Khairi. He has stated that on 20.01.2016, the police had taken him along with Pradhan Virender Parmar, Up Pradhan Lal Singh Thakur and Dheeraj Kumar to the spot. He has stated that the dead body was lifted from the spot and pair of ladies Chappal Ext. P5, one purse Ext. P6, one ticket Ext. P8 of Rs.10/- of ‘Rahul Coach Bus’, one rupee coin Ext.P7 and silver sparkle wrapped in a paper was kept in a polythene envelope Ext.P9 which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW3/A. 65. The official witnesses PW-18 ASI Jai Dev, PW-20 SI Yoginder Singh, PW-19 ASI Jagdish Chand Sharma have also corroborated the case of the prosecution. 66. PW-18 ASI Jai Dev, who had partly investigated the case, has stated that on 20.01.2016, Head Constable Shamim Akhtar informed at the Police Station that one dead body is lying near ‘Sheetala Mata Temple’ at Trilokpur. He went to the spot from Nahan as he had gone there to attend a crime meeting on that day. 66. PW-18 ASI Jai Dev, who had partly investigated the case, has stated that on 20.01.2016, Head Constable Shamim Akhtar informed at the Police Station that one dead body is lying near ‘Sheetala Mata Temple’ at Trilokpur. He went to the spot from Nahan as he had gone there to attend a crime meeting on that day. As per this witness, he had recorded the statement of eye witness Rinku Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A and sent the rukka through HHC Ravinder Singh. He has further stated that he had filled the inquest forms Ext. PW5/A and Ext. PW5/B of dead body and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to R.H., Nahan. He has deposed that he had taken into possession pair of ladies chappal Ext. P5, one lady purse Ext. P6 and one coin Ext. P7 which was in the purse, one ticket of Rs.10/- Ext. P8, sparkle Ext. P9, which were sealed in a parcel Ext.P4 with seal ‘M’ at seven places and were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW3/A. He has stated that police party went to Uttar Pradesh in order to search the accused and he was arrested with the help of local police there on 06.02.2016. On personal search of accused, one black coloured wallet, one passport size photograph of accused and deceased, one attendance card from 1 to 19 January, 2016, one railway ticket of Rs.190/- from Ambala Cantt. to Lucknow, two tickets of Haryana Roadways of Rs.30/- and Rs.5/- and currency coins of Rs.27/- and Nepali currency of 10/- were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW18/A. 67. Similarly, PW-20 SI Yoginder Singh, has stated that he went to the spot and searched the spot and surroundings along with complainant Rinku and witness Karam Chand. He has deposed that when he went to Teran Nullah, one Zipper sweater Ext. P2 was recovered from the bushes, which was identified by Rinku and Karam Chand, as having been worn by the accused at the time of incident. On checking the pocket of sweater, one ‘Jhumka’ Ext. P3 was recovered and the recovered Ext. P2 and Ext.P3 were sealed in a parcel Ext. P1 and the same was sealed with seal ‘H’ at seven places. On checking the pocket of sweater, one ‘Jhumka’ Ext. P3 was recovered and the recovered Ext. P2 and Ext.P3 were sealed in a parcel Ext. P1 and the same was sealed with seal ‘H’ at seven places. He has stated that after a long exercise to get identified the dead body of deceased, on 04.02.2016, when the deceased was being enquired in village Jheeriwala, he came to know that one lady, who was a tenant of Ram Rattan, Sarpanch, was not seen from many days. On this, PW20 had shown the photograph to Ram Rattan of the deceased and he identified the deceased as his tenant being the wife of accused. As per this witness, accused had taken a room on rent from Ram Rattan, who got recorded his statement that on 19.01.2016, the accused had settled his dues and left the room for his home. As per PW20, Ram Rattan had produced one marriage deed mark ‘A’ which he had taken from the accused and deceased at the time of renting out his room to them as an identity. He has stated that Ram Rattan told that both of them had introduced themselves as husband and wife to him when the room was rented out to them. He has also stated that they had contacted the local Police Station, Bangar Mau and with their help, the accused was brought to Kala Amb for further investigation. He has deposed that accused was interrogated and from his personal search, purse Ext. P11, joint passport size photograph Ext. P12, railway ticket P13, bus tickets Ext. P14 and Ext. P15, attendance card Ext. P16, Nepali Currency Ext. P17 and coins P18 were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW18/A and sealed in parcel Ext.P10. He has also stated that test identification parade of accused was conducted vide report Ext. PW20/B in the jail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, on 10.02.2016. 68. To the similar extent is the statement of PW-19 ASI Jagdish Chand Sharma. PW19 has stated that he went to Raebareli for the verification of marriage deed between accused and deceased which was recovered from the room of the accused at Jheeriwala. He has further stated that he had recorded the statements of witnesses to the marriage deed Sanjay and Raju Yadav Mark ‘S’ and ‘R’ and now Exts. PW19/A and PW19/B, respectively. PW19 has stated that he went to Raebareli for the verification of marriage deed between accused and deceased which was recovered from the room of the accused at Jheeriwala. He has further stated that he had recorded the statements of witnesses to the marriage deed Sanjay and Raju Yadav Mark ‘S’ and ‘R’ and now Exts. PW19/A and PW19/B, respectively. He has also stated that he had investigated from where the stamp papers were purchased. 69. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-14, Doctor Sumit Sood, Medical Officer, R.H. Solan, District Solan, H.P. It is the case of the prosecution that accused committed the murder of deceased by throwing her from a higher place and thereafter forcibly twisted her neck. PW-14, Doctor Sumit Sood, has stated that he remained posted as Medical Officer at R.H., Nahan from August, 2012 to July, 2016. He had conducted the postmortem of the dead body along with Doctor Suman Lata and issued post mortem report Ext. PW14/B. He has stated that as per his opinion, the cause of death was due to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to neurogenic shock caused by spinal injury resulting from dislocation of C2 and C3 vertebra. He has further stated that they had taken samples of section of uterus, blood sample on FTA card for DNA profiling, vaginal smear slides, pulp of digits of hands, threads of bone around the neck which were handed over to the police. On physical examination, ligature marks were found around the neck and the width of the marks was corresponding to the red thread which was worn by the deceased. He has stated that there were multiple oval contusions bluish in colour 2x2 cm situated on both sides of the mid of the neck in the vicinity of above said ligature marks and there was petechial sub co-tenuous hemorrhages below the ligature mark and there were multiple lineour abrasions over the flexure and extensor aspect over the upper and lower extremities, back and the left side of gluteal region and the ring finger of the right hand was pinkish red in colour. He has stated that there were multiple superficial bruises bluish in colour on the back of shoulders, back and extensor aspect of upper and lower limbs and there was dislocation of C2-C3 vertebra with partial dissection of the spinal cord. He has stated that there were multiple superficial bruises bluish in colour on the back of shoulders, back and extensor aspect of upper and lower limbs and there was dislocation of C2-C3 vertebra with partial dissection of the spinal cord. He has further stated that the associated muscles and sub co-tenuous tissue showed contusion with multiple hemorrhages. Even though, after the perusal of FSL report, their opinion remained the same, however, as per report, it also shows presence of semen on vaginal slides. As per him, the report bears his signatures and the signatures of doctor Suman and they had given their opinion Ext. PW14/C on the request of the police. 70. The above stated witnesses have categorically corroborated the case of the prosecution which proves the guilt of the present appellant in the commission of the offence. PW-1 Rinku Ram, PW-2 Karam Chand, PW-3 Rajat Bansal and PW-5 Virender Parmar, are the independent witnesses and they have no axe to grind in the present case. It has come on record that PW-1 and PW-2 are the spot witnesses. They have categorically proved the case of the prosecution and they do not seem to be having any enmity with the accused. These independent witnesses have made the statements in one voice while entering into witness box and they have supported the case of the prosecution. 71. From the cross-examinations of these independent witnesses, the defence could not extract anything material in its favour. It has come on record that the accused was the resident of Uttar Pradesh and these independent witnesses were not having any proximity or enmity with the accused, therefore, they would not have deposed against him falsely. The testimonies of independent witnesses alongwith police officials and the report of the doctors also prove the guilt of the appellant. 72. The prosecution has established its case by leading cogent, clear and reliable evidence, especially, the medical report and corroborated by other officials and independent witnesses. 73. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Edakkandi Dineshan @ P.Dineshan and others vs. State of Kerala , (2025) 3 SCC 273 has held that merely because there is inconsistency in the evidence, it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. 73. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Edakkandi Dineshan @ P.Dineshan and others vs. State of Kerala , (2025) 3 SCC 273 has held that merely because there is inconsistency in the evidence, it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. The minor contradictions which have been tried to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have to be seen in the context where these minor variations are material enough for the benefit of doubt to be given to the appellants so as to set aside their conviction. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 15 to 17 has held as under: “15. The law relating to material contradiction in witness testimony has been discussed by this Court in the judgment of Rammi vs State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 . It was held that: (SCC pp.656-57, paras 25-26) “25. It is common practice in trial court to make out contradictions from the previous statements. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness….. 26…..Only such of the inconsistent statement which is capable to be “contradicted” would affect the credit of the witness’’ 16. The abovementioned settled position of law in Rummi2 was again reiterated by this Court in the judgment of Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan (2024) 15 SCC 190 wherein it was held as under: (Birbal Nath Case3, SCC paras 21 & 26) “21. No doubt statements given before police during investigation under section 161 are “previous statements” under section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness. Even if the defense is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. It is here that we feel that the learned judges of the High Court have gone wrong. * * * 26. Even if the defense is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. It is here that we feel that the learned judges of the High Court have gone wrong. * * * 26. In the landmark case of Tehshildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 this Court has held that to contradict a witness would mean to “discredit” a witness. Therefore, unless and until the former statement of this witness is capable of “discrediting” a witness, it would have little relevance. A mere variation in the two statements would not be enough to discredit a witness. This has been followed consistently by this Court in its later judgment, including Rammi (Supra)”. 17. Bearing in mind the abovementioned settled position of law, this court is of the considered opinion that though there is a variance in the statements of the witnesses, it is minor and not of such a nature which would drive their testimony untrustworthy. This court finds the deposition of witnesses PW1, 2 and 4 to be honest, truthful, and trustworthy. Hence, the observations made by the High Court in this regard are well reasoned.” 74. In the present case also, the evidence led by the prosecution is trustworthy, honest, truthful and cogent. Therefore, the findings/conviction as rendered by the learned Court below is valid and legal. 75. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to link the accused with the deceased, in any manner. He has further submitted that in the absence of any link or relation, the case as projected by the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 76. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined PW-1 and PW-2, the independent witnesses. Apart from that PW-20 Yoginder Singh has also deposed that when deceased was enquired in Village Jheeriwala, he came to know that one lady, who was a tenant of Ram Rattan, Sarpanch, was not seen for many days. On this PW-20 had shown the photograph of the deceased to Ram Rattan, who had identified her as his tenant being the wife of the accused. On this PW-20 had shown the photograph of the deceased to Ram Rattan, who had identified her as his tenant being the wife of the accused. Ram Rattan had stated that accused had taken a room on rent from him, who got recorded his statement that on 19.01.2016, the accused had settled his dues and left the room for his home. Ram Rattan had produced a marriage deed Mark ‘A’ which he had taken from the accused and deceased at the time of renting out his room to them as their identity. As per PW-20, Ram Rattan told that both of them had introduced themselves as husband and wife to him when room was rented out to them. He has stated that he prepared the memo Ext. PW-15/A and went to search the accused on the address written on the marriage deed Mark ‘A’ on 04.02.2016 and with the help of the local police, the accused was brought to Kala Amb for investigation. 77. To the similar extent is the statement of PW-19 Jagdish Chand Sharma, who has stated that he went to Raibareli for verification of the marriage deed between the accused and the deceased, which was recovered from the room of the accused at Jheeriwala. As per this witness, he had recorded the statements of witnesses to the marriage deed namely Sanjay and Raju Yadav Marks ‘S’ and ‘R’ and now Ext. PW19/A & Ext.PW19/B, respectively, as per their version. He has stated that he had investigated from where the stamp papers were purchased. Sh. Jai Pal (PW-15) has stated that he is a shopkeeper by profession and on 02.04.2016, he was associated by the police at the time of the investigation and the police took into possession photocopies of an affidavit, which was produced by Ram Rattan vide memo Ext. PW-15/A, and he alongwith the police officials signed the same as witnesses. As per him, the affidavit Mark ‘A’ was related to the marriage between the accused and the deceased and the copy of affidavit was taken by Ram Rattan at the time of renting out the room to the accused. 78. No doubt, the accused has examined DW-1 Mr. Vipin Kumar in his defence. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied that the accused had solemnized the marriage with Hasina Bano a resident of Chak Bhaur Hara, Tehsil & District Raibareli. 78. No doubt, the accused has examined DW-1 Mr. Vipin Kumar in his defence. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied that the accused had solemnized the marriage with Hasina Bano a resident of Chak Bhaur Hara, Tehsil & District Raibareli. He has stated that he did not know whether Hasina Bano used to reside with accused at Kala Amb in the house of Pardhan Ram Rattan after taking a room on rent. He has denied that accused had given the marriage deed Mark-A to his landlord at the time of taking room on rent from him. He has denied that the accused had killed his wife near Lalita Mata Temple. 79. DW-1 has only defended the accused and rightly so because he is the elder brother of the accused and being a relative, he cannot be supposed to depose against the accused. As such, no reliance can be placed on the statement of DW-1. 80. Taking into consideration the evidence of the independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and the official witnesses, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused was living with the deceased as her husband and the same is established from the perusal of the affidavit Mark ‘A’, which had been executed by the accused and the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he had no link with the deceased is beyond the record and it is not acceptable. 81. The prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellant by examining the independent as well as the official witnesses. The independent witnesses cannot be said to have any enmity with the accused and nothing to this effect has been brought on record by the defence why these witnesses would have deposed against the present appellant. The evidence as led by the prosecution is reliable, cogent, authentic and believable. 82. The learned Court below has rightly passed the judgment of conviction against the present appellant holding him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . Therefore, no interference is required in the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 83. Records be sent back forthwith.