JUDGMENT - MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:---The subject matter of this appeal is the homicidal death of one Asaram s/o. Mithu Chavan, resident of village Dhagi, which has a population of about 1000 with about 100 houses in Jalna district. 2. In Sessions Case No. 174 of 1995, the present appellants and accused No. 2 (deceased during pendency of the trial) were put on trial for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dated 8-11-2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna convicted original accused No. 1 Laxman Bhima Rathod and original accused No. 3 Jhamabai w/o Laxman Rathod for an offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default thereof further R.I. for six months each. The said order of conviction and sentence came to be challenged in this appeal which was admitted by this Court on 3-12-2001, however, the prayer for bail by suspending the order of sentence was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10-12-2001 in Criminal Application No. 2174 of 2001. The appellants, therefore, approached the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 624 of 2002, which was rejected by order dated 15-2-2002, with a request to us to hear the appeal early. It is under these circumstances, this appeal was taken up for final hearing by us on priority. 3. The prosecution case unfolds thus: Mithu Chavan had two sons Asaram (deceased) and Prakash (P.W. 3) Ansabai (P.W. 4) is the wife of Prakash (P.W. 3) and Kausabai (P.W. 2) is the wife of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of occurrence was about 30 years, whereas Prakash was about 25 years age. Deceased has two sons and a daughter and Ramesh (P.W. 5) the son of deceased was of 6 years of age at the time of occurrence. Mithu has his house adjacent to the house of the brother of accused No. 1 and this portion was purchased by Mithu about six years prior to the incident. Deceased has two sons and a daughter and Ramesh (P.W. 5) the son of deceased was of 6 years of age at the time of occurrence. Mithu has his house adjacent to the house of the brother of accused No. 1 and this portion was purchased by Mithu about six years prior to the incident. This newly purchased house was allotted to the deceased Asaram and Mithu (P.W. 1) and Prakash (P.W. 3) were staying in the old portion of the house, whereas Asaram was staying in the adjoining portion which was purchased from the brother of the accused No. 2. However, both the houses were separated only by a small wall and Kangis (Kangi is a grain storage drum made of Bamboo like material and is normally in round shape). The road leading to the house of Asaram and Mithu was through the courtyard of the present appellants. Original accused No. 2 was the son-in-law of the present appellants and was allegedly staying with them. It is also on record that there was some dispute between the family of deceased and the present appellants on account of this approach road and three days prior to the date of occurrence, there was some quarrel that had taken place between the deceased and the accused No. 1, however, it was sorted out and no complaint came to be filed with the Police Station. 4. On the fateful day i.e. on 25-8-1995 (day of Pola festival), Kausabai (P.W. 2) served dinner to her husband and children and left her house to go to the temple. On the way, she went to her sister's house and stayed there for some time. In her absence, the three accused entered the house of the deceased. They assaulted him with Musal (a heavy wooden bar normally used in households to mash the grains), one of them strangulated the deceased and during the attack the children of deceased raised alarm and, therefore, Asararm, Prakash and Ansabai got alerted and they saw through the gap between the Kangis the actual assault being inflicted by the accused on Asaram. Prakash and Ansabai immediately rushed to the house of Asaram, but were stopped from entering by the accused, who also assaulted these two persons. As a result of this assault, Prakash fell unconscious and Ansabai also received some injuries. Prakash and Ansabai immediately rushed to the house of Asaram, but were stopped from entering by the accused, who also assaulted these two persons. As a result of this assault, Prakash fell unconscious and Ansabai also received some injuries. They could not enter the house of Asaram and Mithu also did not enter the house of Asaram immediately after the assault. Kausabai returned and noticed that her husband was killed by the assailants and Prakash and Ansabai, who had rushed to her house after the alarm raised by the children, were not allowed to enter her house. Mithu came to the spot of occurrence only after few hours and Prakash when regained consciousness on the next day morning realised that he was in his house. Police Patil of the village reported the matter to the police out post at Shivli which comes under Mantha Police Station between 7.00 a.m. to 7.30 a.m. on 26-8-1995. Nanasaheb Phalke (P.W. 9) Assistant Sub-Inspector at the said out post sent one Kotwal to Mantha and he proceeded to village Dhagi. He went to the spot of incident, saw the dead body, prepared the inquest panchanama and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to the Medical Officer at Mantha. Dr. G.G. Deshpande (P.W. 8) received the dead body at about 1.00 p.m. and performed the post-mortem examination between 2.00 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. on 26-8-1995. He issued postmortem report on the same day. 5. Mithu (P.W. 1) approached Mantha Police Station and lodged report regarding Asaram's death (Exh. 43), which came to be registered as first information report at about 3.30 p.m. by Phalu Uttamrao Tambe (P.W. 10) Police Sub-Inspector attached to Mantha Police Station at the relevant time. The A.P.I. then came to the spot of incident at village Dhagi after registering Crime No. 138 of 1995 under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and in the presence of panchas he drew spot panchanama Exh. 53. On 27-8-1995 all the three accused came to be arrested and they were produced before the Magistrate on the next day. Copy of the first information report was also submitted to the Magistrate's Court on that day. On completion of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Partur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. 6. Copy of the first information report was also submitted to the Magistrate's Court on that day. On completion of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Partur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. 6. The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses and Pralhad (P.W. 6) and Tukaram Jagtap (P.W. 7) who were the panch witnesses turned hostile during the trial. Ramesh (P.W. 5) was about 12 years of age when he was examined before the trial Court. 7. Dr. Deshpande (P.W. 8) in his deposition stated that he received the dead body at 1.00 p.m. and performed the post-mortem examination between 2.00 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. on 26-8-1995. The dead body of the deceased was identified by relations. On examination of the dead body, he noted the following external injuries : "1. Blackening of the skin on right side of face, near right side of right eye and contusion on forehead above right eyebrow 2 c.m. x ½ c.m. 2. Contusion in front of neck horizontal extending on either side below cricoid Bone of 10 c.m. length totally and 1 c.m. in breadth. 3. Contusion over Cricoid bone. 4. Contusion on the neck left side below left ear 1 c.m. x ½ c.m. 5. Fracture of left clavicle medial end. 6. Fracture of 2nd and 3rd right ribs on either side." The internal injuries noticed by the Medical Officer were : "1. Fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs on either side near medial end. 2. Right and left lungs were congested. 3. Arch of Aorta and superior vena cava was ruptured with severe haematoma formation." The doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and they were ante mortem. As per his opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation associated with fracture of multiple ribs and rupture of large vessels. He accordingly submitted the postmortem report at Exh. 55 under his signature on 26-8-1995. He further stated that the injuries which were appearing on the dead body were sufficient to cause the death and the age of the injuries could be within 24 to 48 hours. He did not notice any finger or palm marks on the neck of the deceased. He outrightly rejected that the deceased died a suicidal death and that the opinion given by him was wrong. 8. He did not notice any finger or palm marks on the neck of the deceased. He outrightly rejected that the deceased died a suicidal death and that the opinion given by him was wrong. 8. The medical evidence unfailingly leads to the conclusion that Asaram died a homidical death in the night of 25-8-1995. We are, therefore, required to examine, on the basis of the evidence that is available on record, whether the culpability of the present appellants, in the said homicidal death, is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of five eye-witnesses i.e. Mithu the complainant (P.W. 1), Kausabai (P.W. 2), Prakash (P.W. 3), Ansabai (P.W. 4) and Ramesh (P.W. 5), in addition to the testimony of the police personnel i.e. Nanasaheb Phalke (P.W. 9) and Phalu Tambe (P.W. 10). 9. Mithu (P.W. 1) stated in his deposition that both his sons were married and Asaram was the elder son, who was staying separately, while Prakash was staying with Mithu. Accused No. 2 Trimbak was the son-in-law of accused Nos. 1 and 3. The house of the accused was on the south side of his house and the road to his house was from the courtyard of the house of accused Nos. 1, 2-3 days prior to the pola festival, there was a quarrel between Asaram and accused No. 1, as the accused No. 1 was objecting to the path way from his courtyard. He also stated that accused No. 1 pelted stone on Asaram and he, therefore, intervened and separated both of them. However, he did not lodge any report regarding this incident. On the pola festival day (25-8-1995) between 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., he was present in his house after the dinner was over and he heard the noise of assault on somebody in the adjacent house. He, therefore, saw from the gap of two Kangis and noticed that the accused were assaulting Asaram. Accused No. 2, Trimbak was having a big stick in his hand (musal) and he was assaulting Asaram with the same; whereas the accused No. 1 Laxman had caught hold of Asaram's legs and strangulated by one hand. Asaram was lying on the ground. On seeing this, he, his son Prakash and daughter-in-law Ansabai rushed to the house of Asaram, but were obstructed by the accused. Accused Nos. Asaram was lying on the ground. On seeing this, he, his son Prakash and daughter-in-law Ansabai rushed to the house of Asaram, but were obstructed by the accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted Prakash with the Musal and accused No. 3 also assaulted Ansabai. Prakash fell down due to the injuries and Asaram was lying dead. All the accused fled away. He lodged report with the Mantha Police Station at 11. 00 a.m. on 26-8-1995 and his oral report was reduced in writing, on which he put his thumb impression. He confirmed the said report Exh. 43 before the Court. He identified the articles Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which were clothes of the deceased and also the black thread wrapped around his waist. He also identified articles Nos. 5 and 6 Rudraksha beads and cap, respectively and they belonged to accused No. 2 Trimbak. He stated that when he noticed the assault on Asaram by the accused, Kausabai w/o Asaram was not present in the house, and the 3 children were present. He did not know whether his son was lying dead immediately when the accused left his house and did not inform any other person or try to take victim to the hospital. He entered the house after few hours and noticed that Asaram was dead. He admitted that there was a medical practitioner in his village, but he did not approach him. He stated that village Shivli is at a distance of two miles from his village Dhagi and there is a Government hospital at village Shivli. On a specific question, he replied that he did not think it necessary to take the deceased to the hospital as he was already dead. On the next day, police took the dead body of Asaram at about 11.00 a.m. for postmortem examination and Prakash and Ansabai were treated in the Government Hospital. From this deposition, it is clear that Kausabai (P.W. 2) was not in her house when the accused had assaulted Asaram and there was no role attributed to accused No. 3 Jhamabai while assaulting Asaram. A contradiction to this effect was pointed out during his cross-examination and his testimony at the most may show that Jhamabai had assaulted Prakash and Ansabai while they were trying to intervene and rescue the deceased. 10. A contradiction to this effect was pointed out during his cross-examination and his testimony at the most may show that Jhamabai had assaulted Prakash and Ansabai while they were trying to intervene and rescue the deceased. 10. Prakash (P.W. 3) the younger son of Mithu (P.W. 1) stated before the Court that on the date of incident, he had gone to the house of Asaram, as he was invited for meals, however he did not have the meals with Asaram and while he was having his meals in his house, he heard the shouts of Asaram's son and, therefore, he and his wife saw through the gap between two Kangis which were used for partition between two houses and he noticed that the accused were assaulting his brother Asaram. It was about 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. The accused No. 1 Laxman had caught hold of the legs of Asaram accused No. 2 Trimbak was assaulting Asaram with the Musal and accused No. 3 Jhamabai was assaulting on the private part of Asaram. He rushed towards the house of Asaram, but was stopped by the accused, who also assaulted him. His wife also was assaulted when she was also rushing to the house of Asaram. Accused No. 3 Jhamabai assaulted Ansabai. As a result of the assaults inflicted by the accused, he fell unconscious and regained consciousness after about half an hour and at that time he was in his house. He stated that there was a dispute between Asaram and the accused No. 1 on account of the path way from the courtyard of the house belonging to the accused. He also confirmed the quarrel that had taken place 2-3 days prior to the pola festival on account of the same reason between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. He stated that after he regained consciousness, he did not enter the house of Asaram during the whole night as he was not able to stand and the accused were not allowing his family members to come out of their house. It was only next day morning that he and his wife went to the house of Asaram. He also stated that when Asaram was assaulted by the accused, Kausabai was not present in her house. It was only next day morning that he and his wife went to the house of Asaram. He also stated that when Asaram was assaulted by the accused, Kausabai was not present in her house. He further stated that though he was treated by the Medical Officer and a certificate was issued to him, the same could not be submitted before the Court as it was handed over to one Mr. Baliram, who was no more. However, his testimony regarding the assault at the hands of accused No. 3 on the private part of Asaram was contradicted by referring to his statement made during the investigation and he could not assign any reason why such a statement was missing from the statements recorded by the police. He specifically denied the suggestion that Asaram had committed suicide. 11. Ansabai (P.W. 4) the wife of Prakash (P.W. 3) stated before the Court that while she was taking her meals, she heard noise of quarrel and along with her husband rushed towards the house of Asaram after seeing from the gap of 2 Kangis the assault that was being inflicted on Asaram by the accused. She stated that she had seen accused No. 1 Laxman pressing the neck of Asaram, accused No. 2 Trimbak assaulting Asaram with Musal and accused No. 3 Jhamabai had caught hold the legs of Asaram. She corroborated the evidence given by Mithu (P.W. 1) and Prakash (P.W. 3) regarding their efforts to rush to the spot of occurrence and the assault inflicted by the accused on Prakash and herself, so that they could enter the house of Asaram. She also reiterated the incidents of quarrel between accused No. 1 and the deceased prior to the Pola festival on account of the path way through the courtyard of accused No. 1 and the accused Nos. 1 and 3 had threatened that they would take care of Asaram. The said quarrel was settled by the elders. The Kangis which were separating two houses could not be pushed so as to enter the house of Asaram, as they were full of grains. Wife of Asaram was not present in the house when they had gone to see Asaram and she did not know when she returned. The said quarrel was settled by the elders. The Kangis which were separating two houses could not be pushed so as to enter the house of Asaram, as they were full of grains. Wife of Asaram was not present in the house when they had gone to see Asaram and she did not know when she returned. She with her husband were sent to the Government Hospital and did not enter the house of Asaram during the night of the occurrence and she saw him only in the next morning. Some villagers had gathered at the house of Asaram but could not give the names. We have gone through the testimony of Ramesh (P.W. 5) who stated before the Court that the accused had assaulted his father on Pola day when his mother had gone to her sister's house in the night and accused No. 1 Laxman had caught hold of the legs of the deceased, accused No. 2 Trimbak had caught hold of his hands and accused No. 3 was assaulting the deceased while he had fallen on the ground. The deceased was assaulted on head, back and on the right leg. He raised shouts and, therefore, uncle Prakash and aunt Ansabai came there, who were not allowed by the accused to enter the house of deceased. Thereafter the accused ran away. He claims to have narrated the incident of assault on his father by the accused to his uncle and grand-father subsequently. The testimony of this minor till the narration of the incident of assault by the accused and his raising alarm could be accepted, but it would not be safe for us to cull out the acts of each of the accused while assaulting the deceased. There is no doubt that he was the child of about six years on the date of occurrence and his memory of the occurrence six years later may naturally suffer from some infirmities. 12. Pralhad Dharme (P.W. 6) and Tukaram Jagtap (P.W. 7) were the panch witnesses and they were declared hostile by the learned Prosecutor before the trial Court. It is well settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It is well settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Though these two witnesses were declared hostile, they have admitted the fact that they were called by the police on the next day of pola festival, and that they had seen the dead body of Asaram. Pralhad (P.W. 6) stated that the inquest panchanama was drawn in his presence (Exh. 50) and he had signed the same. He also said that the dead body of Asaram was covered with some cloths. Tukaram (P.W. 7) also admitted that he had gone to the house of Asaram along with another panch Shri Narhari who was no more. 13. There have been two police personnel who were examined before the trial Court. Nanasaheb Phalke (P.W. 9) and Phalu Uttamrao Tambe (P.W. 10). It is evident from the testimony of this two witnesses that Nanasaheb Phalke was attached to the Shivli out post under the Mantha Police Station and he got the report regarding the death of Asaram through the Police Patil of Dhagi between 7.00 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. on 26-8-1995 and he himself went to the said village, he saw the dead body and prepared the inquest panchanama and observed black signs on the neck of the deceased, marks of assault and injuries on the back of the ear as well as around the waist. The eyes were closed and tongue was between the teeth. There was no bleeding injury. He confirmed the inquest panchanama and Exh. 50 and he was the person who sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the Government Hospital at Mantha. Phalu Tambe (P.W. 10), who was the Police Sub-Inspector at Mantha Police Station at the relevant time, recorded the report made by Mithu (P.W. 1) and registered the offence (Crime No. 138/1995) under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He went to village Dhagi and visited the spot of occurrence on 26-8-1995 and had drawn spot panchanama (Exh. 50). He claimed to have recovered one white cap and beats of Rudraksha from the spot, articles 6 and 5 respectively. He went to village Dhagi and visited the spot of occurrence on 26-8-1995 and had drawn spot panchanama (Exh. 50). He claimed to have recovered one white cap and beats of Rudraksha from the spot, articles 6 and 5 respectively. He arrested the accused on 27-8-1995. During his cross-examination, though he stated that accidental death was registered, but there is no such proof either at the Mantha Police Station or at the Shivli out post. Nanasaheb Phalke (P.W. 9) immediately received a message from the Police Patil of village Dhagi in the early hours of 26-8-1995 regarding the death of Asaram and there was no further information whether Asaram was killed or he had committed suicide or it was an accidental death. It is possible that Nanasaheb Phalke (P.W. 9) and Phalu Tambe (P.W. 10) were initially under impression that it was an accidental death, but the subsequent investigation, as undertaken by Phalu Tambe (P.W. 10), lead him to register the first information report on the basis of the report lodged by Mithu (P.W. 1). 14. The evidence, as discussed above, has established the following incriminating circumstances/occurrences : "a) The deceased was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 and 2, but no specific role of assault could be attributed against accused No. 3. b) The testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, Mithu (P.W. 1), Prakash (P.W. 3) and Ansabai (P.W. 4) is consistent regarding the participation of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the assault inflicted on the deceased. These three witnesses are also specific about the role of each of these two accused i.e. accused No. 1 pressed the neck of the deceased and accused No. 2 used the Musal in inflicting the assault on the deceased. This testimony read with the medical evidence clearly proves that the cause of death of Asaram has to be attributed to both of them and the individual culpability has to be read on the basis of medical evidence. The doctor stated that the cause of death was due to strangulation and rupture of multiple ribs and large vessels. c) The evidence of these three witnesses as well as Ramesh (P.W. 5), regarding the participation of accused No. 3 in the crime is contradicted and, therefore, unreliable. The doctor stated that the cause of death was due to strangulation and rupture of multiple ribs and large vessels. c) The evidence of these three witnesses as well as Ramesh (P.W. 5), regarding the participation of accused No. 3 in the crime is contradicted and, therefore, unreliable. Mithu (P.W. 1) did not assign any role to accused No. 3 regarding the assault on Asaram, but specifically stated that she had assaulted Prakash, on the other hand, the evidence of Prakash implicates her in assaulting the deceased on his private parts, but Ansabai (P.W. 4), on the other hand, stated that accused No. 3 Jhamabai had caught hold of the legs of the deceased. Ramesh (P.W. 5) merely stated that accused No. 3 Jhamabai was assaulting his father. The first information report (Exh. 43) does not implicate the accused No. 3 Jhamabai by assigning any specific role in the assault inflicted on the deceased. d) Kausabai (P.W. 2) was not present in the house when the deceased was assaulted and, therefore, she was not an eye-witness; whereas Mithu (P.W. 1), Prakash (P.W. 3), Ansabai (P.W. 4) and Ramesh (P.W. 5) were the eye-witnesses to the incident. e) Though Prakash (P.W. 3) and Ansabai (P.W. 4) in their depositions stated that they were assaulted by the accused while they were rushing to the rescue of the deceased and they were subsequently taken to the Government Hospital at Mantha, no medical certificate was brought before the trial Court by the prosecution regarding the injuries suffered by them and in the absence of such medical evidence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused from the charge of offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. They could not be, therefore, termed as injured witnesses. f) The trial had proceeded only against accused Nos. 1 and 3 and was abated against accused No. 2 on account of his death. The prosecution evidence, as placed before the trial Court, has established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in causing the death of Asaram by assaulting him in the night of 25-8-1995 (leading to 26-8-1995) and the said offence would fall within the ambit of section 300 Thirdly r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence, as placed before the trial Court, has established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in causing the death of Asaram by assaulting him in the night of 25-8-1995 (leading to 26-8-1995) and the said offence would fall within the ambit of section 300 Thirdly r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The order of conviction and sentence assailed in this appeal, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmities so far as original accused No. 1 is concerned. 15. Coming to the culpability of accused No. 3 Jhamabai, as we have observed, a little while ago, there is no reliable evidence on record in support of the prosecution case that she was also one of the assailants, who caused the death of Asaram. The testimony of the eye-witnesses is contradictory to each other and the statement made by one eye-witness has not been corroborated by any other witness. Though the first information report was registered around 3.00 p.m. her name does not appear in the same inculpating her in the assault on Asaram. 16. On giving our anxious considerations to the evidence, as we have discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code is not proved beyond reasonable doubt so far as accused No. 3 Jhamabai is concerned and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against her cannot be upheld. Both the accused have been acquitted for an offence punishable under section 323 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the said order has become final. 17. Before we part with the appeal, we must also note an issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants regarding the delay caused in lodging the first information. It is well settled law that mere delay caused in lodging the first information report does not vitiate the prosecution case and in each case the circumstances are required to be examined by the Court. Village Dhagi is an interior hamlet, away from the Police Station Mantha as well as it's out post at Shivli. Mithu (P.W. 1) an old man was an witness of an assault on his elder son and had believed that his son died on the spot. Village Dhagi is an interior hamlet, away from the Police Station Mantha as well as it's out post at Shivli. Mithu (P.W. 1) an old man was an witness of an assault on his elder son and had believed that his son died on the spot. He also stated before the Court that he had seen the accused assaulting Prakash and Ansabai while they were rushing towards the house of Asaram. It is in the evidence of Prakash that as a result of the assault inflicted by the accused on him, he had fallen unconscious and when he gained his consciousness, he was in his house. The path way leading to the house of Prakash and Mithu was through the courtyard of accused No. 1 and it is in the evidence that they did not allow anyone to enter after they had assaulted Asaram. The evidence also shows that there were hardly any other related families to Mithu who would be expected to reach the spot in the night on the festival day. The circumstances under which Mithu went to lodge the first information report clearly show that there was no inordinate delay in lodging the same. The reliance of the learned Counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (L/NK. Meharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh)1, 1995 Cri.L.J. 457 in support of her contentions that the eye-witnesses testimony was not reliable, cannot be accepted on the face of the evidence that we have discussed in the above paragraphs. 18. In the result, we confirm the order of conviction and sentence, passed in Sessions Case No. 174 of 1995, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, on 8-11-2001, for an offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code, so far as original accused No. 1 Laxman is concerned, and we set aside the said order of conviction and sentence, passed against accused No. 3 Jhamabai (present appellant No. 2). We allow the appeal partly in her favour and acquit her of the offence charged against her under section 302 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Fine if paid, be refunded to the accused No. 3. We direct her release forthwith, if not required in any other case. -----