has clearly stated that he saw the dead body in hanging condition. The appellant came and cut down the orna. He has stated the same to PW-16. All the witnesses who visited the place of occurrence saw the orna hanging from the fan. Moreover, PW-1 stated that she was beaten to death. He found several injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Such statement has been repeated reiterated by all the related witnesses as stated above. Both from the Post Mortem Report, Exbt.P/3, and the inquest report, Exbt.P/3, it has been established that except some bruise marks over the body as mentioned by PW-22, there were no injuries over the entire body of the deceased. These witnesses cannot be relied for any purpose. They failed in their duty to state the truth. They were aggrieved by death of Ganga Rani and being angered by the circumstances they weaved a story to implicate the appellant who lived together with the deceased. Even PW-1 has stated that he did not agree that the deceased should marry the appellant. The part of Modi‟s observation as relied by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant as well as the observation from Modi as reproduced by the apex court in State of Rajasthan vs. Ramesh (supra), this court is of the view that the observation of the Post Mortem Report does not extend assurance to this court based on which the conviction can be sustained. Moreover, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel was absolutely right when he had contended that there were two sets of witnesses, one set has stated of the hanging and other alleged of the torture and murder by the appellant. The latter set, as already observed, cannot be relied by the court for obvious
