No. 1 is admitting that the dead body was taken from beam where it was hanging and that was done prior to arrival of first informant and police. It is the case of prosecution that the ligature material i.e. rope was subsequently recovered under section 27 of the Evidence Act on the basis of statement given by Rambhau. In the spot panchanama, there is no mention that the rope was hanging at the beam. Though the rope is shown to be recovered at the instance of Rambhau, the rope was not sent to Office of Chemical Analyser to ascertain as to whether the same rope was used in the incident. Further, one inconsistency is pointed out by the learned counsel of appellant that the length of rope mentioned in the seizure panchanama does not match with the length of rope shown to be produced in the Court. In any case, the circumstance that rope was not with the beam is not sufficient to infer that the deceased had not hanged herself to commit suicide and the accused had finished her. Thus, even if other circumstances are considered, it is not possible to draw inference that the accused persons or accused No. 1 had murdered Urmila. In ordinary course also, ordinary prudent man would make an attempt to save the life, if he feels that the body was still warm and she can be saved. For such an attempt, they cannot be blamed and inference against them cannot be drawn.
