ORDER A.A. Desai, J. - The appeal by the State is directed against the finding of acquittal for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Appeal No. 233 of 1989 is preferred by original accused for their conviction for the offence punishable under section 498 A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since both the appeals arising out of the common set of facts and ORDER, have been heard together and being disposed of by this ORDER: 2. On 2.5.1986 Lala (since deceased) married with original Accused No. 2 Trimbak. Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao and original Accused No. 3 Kailash are respectively his father and uncle. On 25.6.1987 at night Lala in her matrimonial home found dead owning to bum injuries. Accordingly, Accused No. 3 Kailash lodged a report vide Ext. 80. A case of accidental death was registered. The body was then sent for post-mortem. Dr. Garje (P.W. 12) who conducted the autopsy, submitted report vide Ext. 75 wherein he has stated that amongst other deceased Lala suffered an incised wound 6" deep on chest and other contused wound on her person. P.W. 1 Vilas Pawar vide Ext. 20 lodged a report of homicidal death. The offence was accordingly registered. P.W. 2 Shankarrao, P.W. 3 Subhadrabai, P.W. 9 Sitaram and P.W. 10 Ramdas are the persons who speak about the demand of dowry and ill-treatment to deceased Lala. P.W. 5 Sub hash is a witness on Panchanama of various seizures and particularly Ext. 31 is a Panchanama of a demonstration made by accused No. 2 Trimbak as regards the opening and closing of the door from outside of a room where Lala was found dead. Ext. 24 is the inquest. Ext. 30 is a discovery memorandum and seizure Panchanama is Ext. 30-A of article knife which is claimed to have been used by the accused at the time of crime. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, recorded a finding of homicidal death discussing the material in Paras 7 and 8 of the impugned ORDER. Ext. 24 is the inquest. Ext. 30 is a discovery memorandum and seizure Panchanama is Ext. 30-A of article knife which is claimed to have been used by the accused at the time of crime. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, recorded a finding of homicidal death discussing the material in Paras 7 and 8 of the impugned ORDER. However he further proceeded in Para 12 onward and reached a conclusion that since there is no evidence on the record indicating any overt act on the part of any of the accused, they cannot be held guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge further held that no doubt there is an evidence indicating motive of the accused persons against Lala. But in absence of any incriminating circumstance, they cannot be held guilty. The learned Judge, therefore, by the impugned ORDER recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of all accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Judge convicted the accused under section 498-A and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence these two appeals. 4. Mrs. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the defence, vehemently urged that in absence of any direct evidence - oral or otherwise - there could not be a conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She has further urged a broad proposition that in appeal against acquittal, the Court need not interfere with the finding unless the same is grossly erroneous or suffers from perversity or patent illegality. She further made a submission that the acquittal as recorded is having regard to the material version on record. The view as taken is possible and as such this Court need not interfere with the same. While scrutinising the material on the record, we bear in mind as proposed by Mrs. Sirpurkar. 5. No doubt, it is true that there is no substantive evidence involving the accused persons in the incident leading to homicidal death of Lala. However, the incident of crime occurred within four walls of the house of the accused person. While scrutinising the material on the record, we bear in mind as proposed by Mrs. Sirpurkar. 5. No doubt, it is true that there is no substantive evidence involving the accused persons in the incident leading to homicidal death of Lala. However, the incident of crime occurred within four walls of the house of the accused person. The circumstances which we have noticed are as under: (A) Motive as revealed from the testimony of P.W. 1 Vilas Pawar, P.W. 2 Shankarrao, P.W.3 Subhadrabai, P.W. 9 Sitaram and P.W. 10 Ramdas. (B) Homicidal death occurred while Lala was under custody of accused Nos. 1 and 2. (C) The report lodged by accused No. 3 Kailash vide Ext. 80 is proved to be false. And (D) There is no plausible explanation from the inmates particularly, accused Nos. 1 and 2 about the occurrence of the incident leading to the homicidal death. 6. Mrs. Sirpurkar urged at this stage that these circumstance's if taken into account are not clinching. They would not lead to a definite conclusion that these accused persons alone are responsible for the death of Lala. The submission as advanced is not well founded. In the alternate plea she says that motive IS not strong which is disclosed by the prosecution witnesses and even otherwise establishing a motive by itself would not be a circumstance alone and solitary to record the finding of conviction. Weare initially dealing with the circumstances other than motive. 7. Undisputedly, as per the post-mortem report and evidence of Dr. Gajre (P.W. 12) deceased Lala suffered incised wound on chest and other contused injuries. The incident occurred in a room which is a place for sleeping of husband and wife. Mrs. Sirpurkar tried to persuade us that the injury could be self-inflicted. However, we find ourselves extremely difficult to accept the same. A suggestion in this regard was also given to Dr. Garje which he has stoutly denied. It is on the record from medical evidence that the injury is ante-mortem and also sufficient to cause death. The injury could also be pre-burning. We are not inclined to accept that such injury could be caused to deceased Lala after she was set on the and suffered 60 percent burn injuries. We, therefore, reached a conclusion that in the same room, she suffered these injuries before she was set on fire. 8. The injury could also be pre-burning. We are not inclined to accept that such injury could be caused to deceased Lala after she was set on the and suffered 60 percent burn injuries. We, therefore, reached a conclusion that in the same room, she suffered these injuries before she was set on fire. 8. After she suffered 60 to 70 per cent burninjuries, Ext. 80 came to be lodged by accused No. 3 - Kailash. This aspect is very pertinent and, therefore, we propose to reproduce the report, Ext. 80 which reads as thus:- "This day 25.6.1987.illlhe night, I was sleeping in my house. At that time at about 11 O'clock Prahlad Kisanrao. Deshmukh came to me and told me that Sau. Lala was burnt. Hence I went there and observed that Sau. Lala was died in the room due to burning and smell of kerosene was emitting and a bottle of kerosene was lying nearby. On enquiry, it was learnt, that Sau. Lala chained the door of the room from inside and burnt herself. Incidentally, my sister Mathurabai came outside to answer nature's call. She found fire in the room. Therefore, she called and awoke Bhujangrao Anandrao. When Bhujangrao pushed the door, he found it to be closed from inside. Bhujangrao called Babanrao Vithalrao and they both entered in the room by removing the tin and opened the door. When they saw Sau. Lala, they found her in dead condition. They told me as above. Hence I lodge my complaint. Enquiry be kindly held." Undisputdely, this report came to be lodged at the behest and under instruction of original accused No. 1 Bhujangrao. In this report, they tried to paint a picture of suicidal death by Lala. This report as came to be lodged at the behest of Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao is palpably false as proved from medical evidence. This report is calculatedly made to mislead the prosecution and investigating agency. It is found from the testimony of P.W. 9 Sitaram through Ext. 31 a Panchanama of demonstration that the chain of the room could be operated from outside and it was convenient to any person and particularly the inmates in a situation of emergency to open the door even from outside. It is found from the testimony of P.W. 9 Sitaram through Ext. 31 a Panchanama of demonstration that the chain of the room could be operated from outside and it was convenient to any person and particularly the inmates in a situation of emergency to open the door even from outside. Even then the venture of Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao of informing that on seeing the flames he rushed and reached the top and removed the tin sheet is farcical and was with an intention to give further colour to story of suicidal death. We, therefore, hold that the accused had positively lodged a false report and lodging false report is one of the incriminating circumstance in this case. From record, this report was lodged after two hours. Accused person deliberated and then thoughtfully lodged the report. Accused No. 1 Bhujangarao in his examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide question No. 52, has admitted by saying that Accused No. 3 Kailash had filed a report in Police Station. Undisputedly, the Accused No. I Bhujangrao has accepted this circumstance. 9. Undisputedly, further homicidal death occurred in the house. Even according to the accused, the room was chained from inside. He himself had to reach inside the room by opening the tins of the roof. It, therefore, suggests that the third person or any outsider had no access to the place where the dead body was found as per spot Panchanama. This establishes the fact that homicidal death took place while Lala was exclusively in their custody. From these circumstances, it becomes obligatory for the accused person to offer any plausible explanation that may suggest about their innocence. Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao has offered the explanation in cross-examination or in report vide Ext. 80 that he got the knowledge of burning from somebody. He had no knowledge of burning and after receiving the knowledge he removed the tins from the roof. The explanation as offered in view of our earlier discussion is not only improbable but the same is palpably false. Giving false explanation is the incriminating circumstance involving the accused in the crime. 10. Accused No. 2 Trimbak who was the husband of deceased Lala claimed alibi by saying that at the relevant time he was not there. He has not offered any explanation as to where he was. The explanation is lame and unsatisfactory. Giving false explanation is the incriminating circumstance involving the accused in the crime. 10. Accused No. 2 Trimbak who was the husband of deceased Lala claimed alibi by saying that at the relevant time he was not there. He has not offered any explanation as to where he was. The explanation is lame and unsatisfactory. Taking into consideration the incident as occurred undisputedly none of the accused have heard any cries or shouts of the deceased though it was quite natural. It, therefore, appears that piercing injury was caused by gagging her mouth. This could not be the act of individual. It necessarily requires more than one person. Besides this, the position as described of a dead-body in an inquest Panchanama marked as Ext. 24 is that the deceased was lying on a floor keeping both her hands under her head as if she was taking sleep. It also suggests that while in flames she was motionless. This further indicates that Lala was done to death before she was set on fire. These aspects definitely indicate that both the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are involved in that crime. 11. From the testimony of P.W. 1 Vilas who is a brother of deceased Lala, it is clear that there was a demand of dowry before the settlement of marriage. It is further clear that part of the payment was made and the balance could not be paid in time. Vide Exh. 19 a post-card where under he made a request to the Accused No. 1 for grant of some time for payment. Besides this, on record there is an evidence of P.W. 2 Shankar P.W. 3 Subhadra, P.W. 9 Sitaram and P.W. 10 Ramdas. They speak about the ill-treatment. Moreover Ext. 19 was seized and attached during the course of the search of the house of the accused person. This material clearly established the motive of the accused person to torture deceased Lala for extracting the amount of dowry. It, therefore, follows that both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were deeply interested and surcharged with a motive to commit a crime by bringing an end to the life of Lala. Homicidal death of Lala is fully established. The circumstance involving accused Nos. It, therefore, follows that both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were deeply interested and surcharged with a motive to commit a crime by bringing an end to the life of Lala. Homicidal death of Lala is fully established. The circumstance involving accused Nos. 1 and 2 are lodging a false report with a definite intention, homicidal death while in the custody and not offering any explanation there for, and the motive which we have lastly discussed. In view of the circumstances and the incident as occurred, accused person, namely, Nos. 1 and 2 have shared the common intention and executed their mission resulting in homicidal death of Lala. We, therefore, hold them guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The learned Judge has not adverted to these aspects and merely recorded the finding of acquittal observing that there is no direct evidence indicating any overt act on the part of the accused persons. The finding of acquittal as recorded cannot be sustained. 13. Undisputedly, as discussed earlier and from the evidence of Dr. Garje P.W. 12 and postmortem report Ext. 75 it is clear that deceased Lala sustained incised wound on chest and as per our discussion the said injury was pre-burning. The accused persons with an intention which we have discussed calculately pour a kerosene oil on her person to give a colour of suicidal death. In doing so, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were deeply interested. They did this to escape from justice. As such, they are also guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. We have heard Mr. Kukdey, the learned Counsel. He strenuously urged that Accused No. 3 Kailash has also played a vital role in lodging the false report. He, therefore, submitted that Accused No. 3 also shared the common intention with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and as such, he is equally guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. We have given our anxious consideration on the argument. However, it appears from Ext. 80 that he is residing in the same village at Shirpur. He is also near relation of original Accused Nos. 1 and 2. We have given our anxious consideration on the argument. However, it appears from Ext. 80 that he is residing in the same village at Shirpur. He is also near relation of original Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The prosecution could lead the evidence only to the extent that he has lodged the report of suicidal death due to burning but that was at the instance and behalf of original Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao. No doubt, he is a relation but he could not have the same or silimar motive like Accused Nos. 1 and 2. It cannot be further said that he has shared the same and common intention with Accused No. 1 to lodge a false report. The say or version of Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao, he has endorsed while lodging the report. However, it cannot be said with entire certainty that he could extract a know ledge or evil design of Accused No. 1 when he directed him to lodge a report. We, therefore, find ourselves difficult to hold Accused No. 3 guilty with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We maintain the finding of acquittal recorded in his favour. We, therefore, do not want to interfere with. 15. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for both the parties have perused the testimony of the witnesses referred to above. The evidence is voluminous and the learned Judge has rightly recorded the finding of conviction for the offence punishable under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the original Accused Nos. land 2 read with Section 34 as well under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. We have gone through the finding as- recorded in the impugned ORDER. We do not find that the finding suffered from any material illegality and we, therefore, maintain the same. 16. We have heard Mrs. Sirpurkar and Mr. Kukdey. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the question of sentence. Mr. Kukdey, the learned Counsel emphasised taking into account the modus operandi of the crime and the manner in which unscrupulously they executed their mission that the accused persons are liable to suffer an ultimate penalty of death. Mr. Kukde submitted that this is a case which warrants in a present social condition the deterrent punishment. This is Countered by Mrs. Kukdey, the learned Counsel emphasised taking into account the modus operandi of the crime and the manner in which unscrupulously they executed their mission that the accused persons are liable to suffer an ultimate penalty of death. Mr. Kukde submitted that this is a case which warrants in a present social condition the deterrent punishment. This is Countered by Mrs. Sirpurkar with a submission that the incident wherein the accused persons were involved does not satisfy the test of rarest amongst rare and as such in her submission leniency should be shown. We have considered the arguments and pass the following order: 17. Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1989 is hereby allowed. Finding of acquittal as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge vide ORDER, dated 3 1.1989 is hereby set aside. We convict Accused No. 1 Bhujangrao and Accused No. 2 Trimbakro for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, I.P.C. and we direct them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In case of default, they shall further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. We maintain the finding of acquittal in favour of Accused No. 3 Kailash recorded by the trial Court. We also convict original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We direct them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In case of default, they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 18. Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1989 presented by original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 against their conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby cancelled. They shall surrender to their bail bonds within one month. We direct substantive sentences to run concurrently. State appeal allowed. Appeal of accused dismissed.