As per case facts, the appellant Bhartiben was convicted for murdering her husband, Guneshbhai Gamit, by strangulation. The prosecution relied on an extrajudicial confession, recovery of a nylon string, and ... motive stemming from matrimonial disputes and suspicion of her character. The appellant appealed, arguing the confession was involuntary, the recovery flawed, and motive unproven. The question arose whether the extrajudicial confession, discovery of the weapon, and alleged motive were sufficiently proven and reliable to sustain the murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Finally, the High Court found the extrajudicial confession unreliable and likely influenced. The recovery of the weapon was not properly established under the Evidence Act. The alleged motive was based on suspicion, not cogent proof. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside.