R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28-4-1993 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in S. T. No. 420/92 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. for having committed murder of his own wife Jhinglibai in a lonely place between villages Dholbodra and Dholpajya and under Section 201, I. P. C. for causing disappearance of evidence by cremating the body of his wife for screening the offender; and sentenced to imprisonment for life and R. I. for five years respectively. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story in brief is that deceased Jhinglibai was the wife of the accused. There were some differences between them and, therefore, she had gone to her brothers house and was living with him. Accused suspected fidelity of his wife and went to the residence of his brother-in-law Gorelal (P. W. 10) and brought her back, on 25-9-1992. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that he caused injuries to Jhinglibai who died in consequence thereof. He cremated the body by putting inside a pit and thrown mud and earth over it. Accused informed Totaram (P. W. 5) that he was bringing back his wife who died on way and, therefore, he has cremated the body. ( 4 ) TOTARAM reported the matter to the police. Shri R. S. Yadav investigated the offence. The accused was interrogated on 28-9-1992. He gave information about the body vide Ex. P/14. The same was exhumed in presence of Tahsildar vide Ex. P/10 under the orders of S. D. M. and Panchnama was prepared. Shri Yadav prepared inquest report and sent the body for post mortem examination. He also seized earth from the spot vide Ex. P/is and prepared site map Ex. P/20. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. ( 5 ). PW 17 Shri Yavle registered an offence on the basis of information under Sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. under Crime No. 224/92. He arrested the accused on 5-10-1992 who gave information about lathi used in beating vide Ex. P /17. He thereafter got the lathi recovered vide Ex. P/18. He sent the earth seized from the spot and clothes of the deceased for chemical examination and report vide Ex. P/22 was obtained. He arrested the accused on 5-10-1992 who gave information about lathi used in beating vide Ex. P /17. He thereafter got the lathi recovered vide Ex. P/18. He sent the earth seized from the spot and clothes of the deceased for chemical examination and report vide Ex. P/22 was obtained. According to the report blood was found on clothes of the deceased. Viscera was also sent for chemical examination, but no poison was detected vide report Ex. P/23. Map of the spot Ex. P/25 was got prepared from the Patwari. ( 6 ) POST mortem of the body was conducted by Dr. Ramesh Kumar (P. W. 4) on 29-9-1992 who found presence of mamaggots all over the body. Both thighs were slightly torn. Tongue was protruding and beaten between the teeth. Pupils were dilated. There was swelling around the vagina and anus. Following injuries were found: (1) Lacerated wound 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm. on lower one third part of right leg. (2) Lacerated wound 1 x 1/4 skin deep on left side of head. Both the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Dr. Ramesh Kumar preserved viscera and sent it to the police in a sealed bottle for examination by Forensic Expert. He opined that death occurred between 36 to 72 hours prior to his examination. He could not give any opinion about the cause of death. ( 7 ) AFTER investigation, the accused was prosecuted who pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned trial Judge, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as above, hence this appeal. ( 8 ) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for the appellant is that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to warrant conviction. Prosecution witnesses have relied on material points and improved the story. Learned Counsel has also contended that there is no evidence to show that the injuries caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 9 ) AS against it learned Counsel for the State submitted that evidence of last seen and false explanation given by the accused are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Witnesses have also seen the accused beating his wife and, therefore, inference of murder has rightly been drawn. ( 10 ) WE have been taken to the evidence on record. Fact of death of Jhinglibai due to homicidal injuries has not been challenged. Witnesses have also seen the accused beating his wife and, therefore, inference of murder has rightly been drawn. ( 10 ) WE have been taken to the evidence on record. Fact of death of Jhinglibai due to homicidal injuries has not been challenged. Even otherwise that stands proved from the statement of P. W. 16 Shri R. S. Yadav, P. W. 16 Shri Yavle who prepared inquest report and from the statement of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (P. W. 4) who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jhinglibai. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 Zabarsingh has stated that the accused was in jail. As such his wife Jhinglibai had gone to her brothers house. Prior to the date of incident, he saw the accused coming along with his wife. The accused assaulted and caused injuries to his wife. She was weeping and walking alongwith the accused. He further stated that later on one Jhapadia informed him that the accused is continuously beating and carrying his wife to his residence. He further stated that Totaram (P. W. 5) inquired from the accused whereabouts of his wife. The accused thereafter admitted that he had killed his wife and cremated her. This witness has further stated that accused took them to a rivulet where body of Jhinglibai was lying. ( 12 ) P. W. 2 Renjla and P. W. 3 Nansingh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, P. W. 5 Totaram, P. W. 6 Zabdu, P. W. 7 Butasingh, P. W. 8 Fattu and P. W. 9 Chhagan have also turned hostile and have not supported prosecution case, P. W. 10 Gorelal brother of deceased Jhinglibai has stated that Jhinglibai was living with him as accused had kept another lady as his wife. Jhinglibai had declined to go with the accused. However, the accused requested and promised to keep her with comfort and. therefore, he sent Jhinglibai alongwith the accused, but thereafter he was informed about his sister having been murdered. His uncle Amarsingh brought the body for last rituals. ( 13 ) THUS from the evidence of Gorelal it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused took Jhinglibai alongwith him. It is proved from the evidence that of Zabarsingh (P. W. 1) that Jhinglibai was beaten by the accused. Thereafter Jhinglibai was never seen alive. His uncle Amarsingh brought the body for last rituals. ( 13 ) THUS from the evidence of Gorelal it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused took Jhinglibai alongwith him. It is proved from the evidence that of Zabarsingh (P. W. 1) that Jhinglibai was beaten by the accused. Thereafter Jhinglibai was never seen alive. The fact of recovery at the instance of the accused cannot be accepted as the police had information about the dead bady (as per statement of Zabarsingh ). However, the fact remains that accused took Jhinglibai from her brothers house, caused injuries to her/she was never seen alive thereafter. Burden lies on the accused to explain as to how Jhinglibai sustained homicidal injuries. There is no evidence to show that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No sharp edged weapon was used. It appears that Jhinglibai was declining to live with the accused and the accused wanted to give her a good beating. It was during this beating that Jhinglibai died and therefore, the accused threw, the dead body in a rivulet. In such a situation, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of murder. However, he would be held responsible for causing grievous injuries and also for causing disappearance of the evidence for screening the offender. In our considered opinion, the act of the accused would be covered under the offence of causing grievous injuries punishable under Section 325, IPC and for causing disappearance of the evidence for screening the offender, which is punishable under Section 201, I. P. C. ( 14 ) AS a result, the appeal partly succeeds. The accused is acquitted of offence under Sec. 302. I. P. C. but is convicted under Sections 325 and 201 I. P. C. The accused in jail all along. He has suffered incarceration and imprisonment of nearly 4 years and 4 months. That would be taken to be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. The accused is, therefore, sentenced to R. I for 4 years and 4 months for offence punishable under Section 325, I. P. C. , which has already undergone by him. He is also sentenced to RI for two years for offence punishable under Section 201, I. P. C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is, therefore, sentenced to R. I for 4 years and 4 months for offence punishable under Section 325, I. P. C. , which has already undergone by him. He is also sentenced to RI for two years for offence punishable under Section 201, I. P. C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 15 ) SINCE the accused has already undergone the sentence awarded to him as above, he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Appeal allowed partly. .