within 36 hours from the time of death. As per the prosecution case, death occurred at around 4.00 AM on 30.11.2009 whereas the postmortem has been conducted by the Medical Board comprising of PW-1 Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary and PW-2 Dr. Usha Singh in the noon of 30.11.2009, but the doctor has categorically stated that the death occurred within 36 hours of the occurrence. Learned Amicus Curiae has drawn attention of this court to the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext.-1 which suggest that rigors mortis was present. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in the month of winter (November), rigor mortis will appear after 24 hours of the occurrence on the dead body. Thus, it appears that the death of deceased occurred prior to 30.11.2009 and as such, the prosecution case seems to be doubtful. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the Investigating Officer who has recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant, has investigated into the matter, but has failed to prove the place of occurrence. As such, there was no fair investigation by the police. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that no prosecution witness has claimed that he has seen the occurrence, rather as per the Fardbeyan, four persons including the informant, Daniel Soren, Santosh Soren, Karan Soren and Babudhan Soren who have reached the place of occurrence after hearing brawl and saw Mary Soren lying on the ground. None of the witnesses have claimed that he had seen the occurrence from his naked eyes, nor they have given exact description regarding manner of the occurrence. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that since FIR has been filed against the appellant, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the ground that he is the husband of the deceased and that the informant and other witnesses have stated that they have seen the accused fleeing away. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that on the basis of the surmises and conjectures, conviction of the accused / appellant has been passed by learned Trial Court, which cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the informant who has been examined as PW-7 and other witnesses such as PWs-3, 4, 5, and 6 have given description of their arrival at the place of occurrence which is contradictory to each other. As such, appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence brought by the prosecution in absence of any eyewitness to the occurrence. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that the appellant may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt as
