S. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 476/83 filed by Anusuyabai. Both these appeals arise out the judgment of conviction passed on 1-2-1983 by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur district Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 93/82 u/s. 302 read with section 201, I. P. C sentencing both the appellants u/s. 302 with imprisonment for life and u/s. 201 with 4 years rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) ON 22-9-1982, Tulsibai, the wife of appellant No. 1 Gotya, was found dead in their residential house with some burn injuries on her person. It is alleged that Tulsibai was done to death by strangulation and later on, put on fire in order to destroy the evidence. She was married to appellant Gotya about 5 10 6 months before the said incident. Appellant No. 2 Anusuyabai is the mother of appellant No. 1. All the three, that is, the appellants and deceased, were living in the said house and it is alleged by the prosecution that the said two appellants used to beat and scold the deceased Tulsibai. ( 3 ) THE investigation commenced by a report at 5 P. M. on telephone by an un-known person, lodged with the Police Station, City Kotwali, Burhanpur stating that a lady has died due to burn injuries. The informant refused to disclose his name. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Nehru Hospital, Burhanpur and it was opined by Dr. Ashok Pagare (P. W. 1) that she died because of strangulation. His opinion was that after her death, kerosene oil was poured on her and an attempt to burn her was made. One Ramlal Mistry (Mason), who was the neighbour of these persons, was cited by the prosecution for proving that he had seen the accused persons along with the deceased in the house immediately before the said incident and, therefore, an inference was drawn that the appellants committed the said offences. ( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the death of Tulsibai was homicidal and the circumstances put fourth by the prosecution were sufficient to conclusively hold that the appellants were responsible for causing the death of late Tulsibai. Criminal Appeal No. 476/83 has been filed by Anusuyabai while this appeal has been filed by Gotya, challenging the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. Criminal Appeal No. 476/83 has been filed by Anusuyabai while this appeal has been filed by Gotya, challenging the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the death of Tulsibai was suicidal and not homicidal. His explanation is that the eyes, nose and mouth were tied with a piece of paper; hence carbon could not be found in the lungs. All the injuries pointed out by the doctor suggest that they were burn injuries due to which late Tulsibai died. No authority has been cited by the counsel nor the findings of the doctor have been challenged on the basis of any authority. The injuries as shown in Ex. P-i demonstrated that the burn injuries were post-mortem and the death was caused due to asphyxia. There is nothing on record to differ with the opinions recorded by Dr. Ashok Pagare (P. W. 1) and Dr. L. S. Mahboob. We, therefore, hold that the death of late Tulsibai was caused by strangulating the deceased with a part of the sari which she was wearing as opined in Ex. P-i. ( 6 ) THE main question for consideration in this case is as to who caused the death of late Tulsibai and whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold that the appellants were responsible for causing the death of Tulsibai. ( 7 ) THE autopsy on the dead body of late Tulsibai was commenced at 10. 30 A. M. on 23-9-1982. The opinion of the doctors is:. . . the deceased died of Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Duration of death about 18 to 36 hours and the body has been burnt soon after death as it has assumed pugilistic posture. Thus, from this opinion, it appears that the incident would have taken place any time in between 10. 30 P. M. on 21-9-1982 and 4. 30 P. M. of 22-9-1982. It is proved by Dhannalal (P. W. 7) that appellant Anusuyabai was working in his house on 22-9-1982 from 8 A. M. till 11 A. M. and again from 4 P. M. till she received the intimation that her daughter-in-law was found burnt in the house. In the same manner, Syed Farid (P. W. 8) has proved that appellant Gotya was employed by him on monthly salary of Rs. In the same manner, Syed Farid (P. W. 8) has proved that appellant Gotya was employed by him on monthly salary of Rs. 250/- per month. He came to work at 9 A. M. on 22-9-1982 and left in the noon in between 1 and 2 for taking his lunch. Then again, he joined his duty at about 4 P. M. and left the premises at about 5 or 5. 30 P. M. on receipt of information that his wife has died. Prom this evidence, the presence of the appellants at the place of their work for the times mentioned above is fixed. ( 8 ) THE prosecution has examined Ramlal (P. W. 3) for proving that at about 2 P. M. he came back to his house which was adjacent to the house of the appellants and he saw Anusuyabai going into her house with milk. At that time, Tulsibai was alive and was sitting near a window. The appellant Gotya was present in the house. He gave implements to the labourers who were working with him and went to market for taking tea. He returned back after some time and found that the window and the door of the house were closed. He sat down for taking his lunch when the wife of Narayan, the tenant on the first story of his house, informed his wife that the tin roof of her house is very hot and nobody is responding to the call from the house of the appellants. He, therefore, went to the house of the appellants and opened the doors by pushing them. He found that Tulsibai was burning at that moment. The evidence of this witness has been relied on by the trial Court. According to us, the entire prosecution story is built on the evidence of Ramlal (P. W. 3 ). If he is believed, there are strong circumstances against the appellants while if he is disbelieved there is nothing against the appellants to implicate them for the commission of the offences. It is, therefore, the necessary to scrutinise the statement of this witness. ( 9 ) RAMLAL (P. W. 3) is a mason. According to him, he goes early in the morning for his duty and comes back at 6. It is, therefore, the necessary to scrutinise the statement of this witness. ( 9 ) RAMLAL (P. W. 3) is a mason. According to him, he goes early in the morning for his duty and comes back at 6. 30 in the evening but it was on that fateful day that he came back at about 2 P. M. for taking his lunch and for giving the implements to his subordinate labourers. After giving the implements to the labourers he did not take his lunch but went to the market for taking tea which sounds quite abnormal. The person who has come to take lunch would not go to the market for taking tea; instead of taking the lunch or tea at home. Another discrepancy in his statement is that after having seen the dead body of Tulsibai, he did not inform anyone but goes to Khargone for his own treatment where allegedly his mother resides. It is a very unnatural conduct on the part of the witness. Since the masonry work in which he was employed was going on and he was expected to join his other labourers in the said work, his absence not only from the work but from the town raises a doubt in his conduct. Apart from this, the wife of Narayan has not been examined to corroborate the statement of Ramlal (P. W. 3 ). No other person from the vicinity has been examined even though, according to Narayan there were so many persons present on the spot when he saw late Tulsibai burning. His statement was recorded by the Police in the evening of 24th September, 1982. Till his statement was recorded by the Police, there was no material before the investigating officer for proving that Tulsibai was seen alive in the noon while the appellants were present in the house approximately at the time when the offence was committed. We, therefore, disbelieve Ramlal and hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for causing the death of Tulsibai on 22-9-1982. ( 10 ) WE, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the conviction and consequent sentences as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur and acquit the appellants. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. Appeals allowed. .