internal injury on the body of Manju. In these circumstances, unless the prosecution excludes the possibility of Manju having committed suicide by consuming potassium cyanide poison, as rightly pointed out by my learned Brother Fazal Ali, J., no adverse inference of guilt can be drawn against the appellant from the fact that he was last seen with Manju, he being no other than her own husband who is naturally expected to be with her during nights. Some of these 17 circumstances cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held to point to the guilt of the appellant. Circumstance No. 6 is an attempt of the appellant's father Birdhichand to get the body of Manju cremated before 7 a.m. on June 12, 1982 by expressing such a desire to PW 30. Circumstance No. 9 is arrangement of the dead body of Manju to make it appear that she died a peaceful and natural death. Circumstance No. 11 is absence of an anklet of Manju from her leg. Circumstance No. 12 is the conduct of the appellant in allegedly concealing the anklet in the fold of the chaddar. Circumstance No. 15 is the fact that according to the medical evidence Manju was pregnant by four to six weeks and it would normally dissuade her from committing suicide. With respect to the learned Judges of the High Court, in my view, by no stretch of imagination, can any of these circumstances be considered to point to nothing but
