JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:-Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Shri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-9-1998 passed by the second Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions trial No. 14/1998 whereby appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of rupees two hundred, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants, states that though prosecution has examined ten witnesses, majority of them turned hostile. It is contended that P.W. 1 Kausalya Nagaorao Savat, P.W. 2 Meena Pundlik Pawar and P.W. 3 Atalakha s/o Inaoolakha though examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses to the incident, however, all these three witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, their evidence is of no consequence. It is further contended that P.W. 5 Sheikh Azim was examined by the prosecution to prove spot panchanama (Exh. 38). However, this witness also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similar is the case with P.W. 8 Shivprasad, who was examined by the prosecution on seizure of clothes and other articles, but he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Daga submits that prosecution of accused in the present case is primarily based on the dying declaration (Exh. 46) recorded by P.W. 9 Keshao Raghoji Muley, Police Sub-Inspector as well as another dying declaration recorded by P.W. 7 Mohammad Adbul Rashid, Special Executive Magistrate (Exh. 43). It is contended that so far as Exh. 46 is concerned, it is alleged by the prosecution that the same is the oral report given by deceased Suresh Khade in the Hospital at Murtizapur, which was reduced in writing by P.W. 9 P.S.I. Muley and signature of deceased Suresh was also obtained by him on the said report. It is further contended that if this piece of evidence is treated as a dying declaration after death of maker of the report, namely, Suresh Khade, then this piece of evidence is suspicious and creates doubt about authenticity of this document (Exh. 46). It is submitted that opening words of Exh. It is further contended that if this piece of evidence is treated as a dying declaration after death of maker of the report, namely, Suresh Khade, then this piece of evidence is suspicious and creates doubt about authenticity of this document (Exh. 46). It is submitted that opening words of Exh. 46 show that the report was given by deceased Suresh in the Police Station and there is overwriting in the report in this regard. It is submitted that this fact is also admitted in the cross-examination by P.W. 9 P.S.I. Muley. The opening sentence of Exh. 46 is "Me Police Station Madhye Yeun Jabani Report Deto" and overwriting is in respect of "Madhye", which is corrected and police wanted to read as "Haddeet", It is contended that very foundation of this report creates doubt about authenticity of this document. If report is lodged by deceased Suresh in the Police Station, then report (Exh. 46) cannot be the same since case of the prosecution is that P.W. 9 P.S.I. Muley went to the Hospital where deceased Suresh was admitted, obtained information from him about the incident, reduced the same in writing and obtained signature of deceased Suresh on the same, which is Exh. 46. It is further contended that these factors create serious doubt about authenticity of this report. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Daga states that in Exh. 46, the case of the prosecution is that accused Ashok Kondiba Waghmare fell down deceased Suresh and accused Padma Shamrao Kakde helped him in doing that and at that time, accused Asha Suresh Khade poured kerosene on the person of deceased Suresh and set him on fire. It is contended that story put forth by deceased Suresh in Exh. 46 is totally different and distinct than the story put forth by him in Exh. 43, i.e. dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate. It is further contended that so far as Exh. 43 is concerned, it is stated by deceased Suresh that on 22-11-1997, his divorced wife accused Asha called him at about 7 p.m. and it was dark at that time. She had a bottle of kerosene with her, she poured kerosene on his person and set him on fire. It is further contended that so far as Exh. 43 is concerned, it is stated by deceased Suresh that on 22-11-1997, his divorced wife accused Asha called him at about 7 p.m. and it was dark at that time. She had a bottle of kerosene with her, she poured kerosene on his person and set him on fire. It is submitted that there is no whisper about the name of other accused, i.e. Ashok Kondiba Waghmare and Padma as well as about their participation in the crime in question. It is also contended that in view of above evidence on record, serious doubt is created about authenticity of this document. 6. Learned Counsel Shri Daga further states that deceased Suresh was not examined by the Doctor in order to find out whether deceased Suresh was in a fit mental condition to give statement before P.W. 9 P.S.I. Muley, who recorded his oral statement (Exh. 46) and, therefore, even on this count, it is difficult to hold that deceased Suresh was in the fit state of mind to give oral statement at the relevant time particularly when the burn injuries caused to him were to the extent of 64%. It is contended that Exh. 46 firstly cannot be treated as a dying declaration and even if it is presumed to be a dying declaration for the sake of argument, the same is totally inconsistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case as reflected in the dying declaration (Exh. 43) recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate in the Hospital. It is submitted that so far as accused Ashok Waghmare and Padma are concerned, this is the only piece of evidence brought on record by the prosecution against them and since authenticity of this document (Exh. 46) is very much in doubt, it can safely be said that prosecution in fact failed to establish its case as against accused Ashok Kondiba Waghmare and Padma Sheshrao Kakde. 7. Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the defence, contended that the trial Court completely erred in holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving in case for the offences charged against the appellants-accused. 7. Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the defence, contended that the trial Court completely erred in holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving in case for the offences charged against the appellants-accused. It is submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not only completely inadequate to prove the charge of murder against the appellants, but the evidence on record is inconsistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case and, therefore, ought to have been rejected by the trial Court. It is contended that the alleged eye-witnesses have turned hostile and the so called dying declarations (Exhs. 43 and 46) being inconsistent with each other, a doubt is created about the authenticity of these two documents and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgment and findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and cannot be sustained in law. 8. Mr. Loney, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment and findings recorded by the trial Court, and contended that the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined ten prosecution witnesses. Smt. Kausalyabai (P.W. 1), Smt. Minabai (P.W. 2) and Shri Ataoolakha son of Ainoolakha (P.W. 3) were examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Dr. Tayade (P.W. 4) is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Suresh Khade and issued a report (Exh. 29). Sheikh Ajim (P.W. 5) and Shivprasad (P.W. 8) are the prosecution witnesses examined to prove the spot Panchanma (Exh. 38). Dr. Sandip Alsat (P.W. 6) is another Medical Officer, who had examined deceased Suresh Khade and issued a Medical Certificate that the deceased was in a fit condition to give dying declaration to Shri Mohammed Abdul Rashid (P.W. 7), Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying Declaration of the deceased. It is stated that Police Sub-Inspector Shri Keshav Mule ( P.W. 9) is one of the Investigating Officer, who recorded First Information Report (Exh. 46) lodged by deceased Suresh Khade and after his death, this document is treated as a dying declaration. It is stated that Police Sub-Inspector Shri Keshav Mule ( P.W. 9) is one of the Investigating Officer, who recorded First Information Report (Exh. 46) lodged by deceased Suresh Khade and after his death, this document is treated as a dying declaration. It is contended that though some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, however , in the instant case, there are two dying declarations given by the deceased, which, in clear terms, implicate all the present appellants and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in placing reliance on these dying declarations. It is further contended that the recitals in the dying declarations are corroborated by the evidence Dr. Tayde (P.W. 4), who has opined that the deceased suffered 64% burns and the death was caused due to "Hypovolumic and Neurogenic shock due to 64 per cent burns". It is also opined that these burn injuries were sufficient to cause death. Mr. Loney, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that in the instant case, prosecution succeeded in proving the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court are just and proper. 9. The Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that so far as Exh. 46 is concerned, the discrepancy, as pointed out by the Counsel for the defence in this document, does not affect the veracity of this document and, therefore, the document can be treated as a dying declaration and the trial Court was justified in placing reliance on this document. The so called overwriting alleged to have been by the Police Officer does not destroy the authenticity of the document and, therefore, the same can be relied on. It is further contended that there is no inconsistency in substance in the two dying declarations given by deceased Suresh as alleged by the defence and the trial Court was justified in placing reliance on these two dying declarations. It is, therefore, contended that the findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper and sustainable in law. 10. We have given our anxious thought to various contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 11. The circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellants for the offence of murder, are summarized in nutshell. 10. We have given our anxious thought to various contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 11. The circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellants for the offence of murder, are summarized in nutshell. The same are as follows:- Deceased Suresh Dagdu Khade was the husband of appellant No. 2-Smt. Asha Suresh Khade and Ku. Surekha, aged 10/12 years, is their daughter. Accused Asha had taken a divorce from deceased Suresh Khade about seven to eight years before the incident and after divorce, accused Asha was residing at Murtizapur along with her daughter Surekha. Deceased Suresh Khade on occasions used to visit his daughter. On the day of incident, i.e., on 22nd November, 1997, deceased Suresh had gone to see his daughter at the house of accused Asha. Accused Asha, after she was divorced by deceased Suresh, was doing prostitution. As deceased Suresh came to know that Asha was compelling their daughter Surekha to become a prostitute, deceased Suresh wanted to take away Surekha from Asha and, therefore, when he went to meet his daughter on the day of incident, he asked Asha to allow him to take his daughter Surekha with him. Though Asha quarrelled with Suresh, however, told him to come in the evening at about 7-00 p.m. Asha called accused No. 1-Ashok and accused No. 3 Ku. Padma to her house on the day of incident and when deceased Suresh went to Asha's house around 7-00 p.m. on 22-11-1997, the accused Ashok felled him down. Accused No. 3 Padma assisted him to doing that and accused No. 2 Asha poured Kerosene on his person and set him on fire. All the three accused ran away from the place of incident. 12. In the instant case, it is, no doubt, true that the prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses in order to prove the charge of murder against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. However, Kausalya (P.W. 1), Minabai (P.W. 2), Ataoolakha son of Ainoolakha (P.W. 3), Sheikh Ajim (P.W. 5) and Shivprasad (P.W. 8) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case before the Court. So far as admissibility of evidence of the hostile witnesses is concerned, we will discuss it at the appropriate stage. However, apart from this evidence, the prosecution case mainly rests on the two dying declarations (1) Exh. So far as admissibility of evidence of the hostile witnesses is concerned, we will discuss it at the appropriate stage. However, apart from this evidence, the prosecution case mainly rests on the two dying declarations (1) Exh. 43 recorded by Mr. Mohammed Abdul Rashid (P.W. 7), Special Executive Magistrate, and as well as (2) Exh. 46 recorded by P.S.I. Keshav Raghoji Mule (P.W. 9). So far as Exh. 46 is concerned, the same is recorded by P.W. 9 on 22-11-1997 on the basis of information given by the deceased and registered as First Information Report. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22-11-1997 Keshav (P.W. 9) was on duty and around 8-00 p.m., while he was passing by the side of the hospital at Murtizapur, he came to know that one person was admitted in the hospital in a burnt condition and , therefore, he entered the Government Hospital at Murtizapur and recorded the statement of deceased Suresh who was admitted in the hospital in a burnt condition. P.W. 9 in his examination-in-chief has stated that deceased Suresh told him that Asha was his wife and divorce had taken place between them. Deceased Suresh further disclosed to this witness Keshav that he has a daughter from Asha who was residing with Asha at Murtizapur. He went to the house of Asha and told her to permit him to take away his daughter Surekha and, therefore on this count quarrel took place between them at about 7-00 p.m. Suresh further informed P.S.I. Keshav that while accused Ashok felled him down, accused Padma helped him in doing that and accused Asha poured Kerosene on his person and set him on fire by a match-stick. All the three accused thereafter ran way from the spot. 13. In the cross-examination, it is admitted by this witness that the opening sentence of Exh. 46 is "Me Police Station Madhe Yeoon Jabani Report Deto". However, the word "Madhe" is substituted by the word "Hadditat". The original opening sentence in Exh. 46 is thus:- "By coming to the Police Station, I lodge an oral report as under:-" Which clearly demonstrates that deceased Suresh had been to the Police Station, Murtizapur, and lodged Exh. 46. 46 is "Me Police Station Madhe Yeoon Jabani Report Deto". However, the word "Madhe" is substituted by the word "Hadditat". The original opening sentence in Exh. 46 is thus:- "By coming to the Police Station, I lodge an oral report as under:-" Which clearly demonstrates that deceased Suresh had been to the Police Station, Murtizapur, and lodged Exh. 46. However, the prosecution wants to convey that the deceased lodged an oral report with Keshav (P.W. 9) in the hospital which is within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Murtizapur camp, and not by coming to the Police Station. The cross-examination of P.W. 9 Keshav would show that he was admitted that there is an overwriting in respect of the word "Madhe". However , according to him, the correction is effected as per the general practise. However, it is difficult to reconcile with the situation, particularly when the opening sentence on Exh. 46, in no uncertain terms, shows that deceased lodged the report (Exh. 46) by going to the Police Station and, therefore, suspicion is created as to whether Exh. 46 was the report lodged by the deceased by going to the Police Station, or the information is obtained by P.S.I. Keshav from deceased in the hospital and reduced it into writing in the form of Exh. 46. 14. Similarly, evidence of P.W. 9 shows that when he went to the hospital and before he met deceased Suresh, he obtained an oral permission from the doctor and it is only thereafter he recorded the statement of deceased Suresh. The prosecution has neither examined any doctor in this regard, nor any document showing grant of permission by the doctor is placed in record. In the instant case, in fact, neither there is anything on record to show that deceased Suresh was examined by doctor in order to find out his mental condition before recording Exh. 46, nor there is any certificate issued by the doctor in this regard on record. In absence thereof, the prosecution case in this regard becomes suspicious and creates a doubt as to whether Exh. 46 was reduced into writing by P.S.I. Keshav (P.W. 9) in the hospital on the information given by deceased Suresh. Even otherwise, in absence of written opinion of the doctor about the mental health of the deceased, it will not be proper to place reliance on the contents of Exh. 46. 46 was reduced into writing by P.S.I. Keshav (P.W. 9) in the hospital on the information given by deceased Suresh. Even otherwise, in absence of written opinion of the doctor about the mental health of the deceased, it will not be proper to place reliance on the contents of Exh. 46. It is, no doubt true that the First Information Report drawn upon the statement of a dying man is not hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since it is only thereafter that the police investigates the case, rather gets jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation of the cognizable offence. Even in the process of investigation, if the Investigating Officer records statement of a dying man, it becomes relevant under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act which is a sort of exception to the general rule of relevancy of evidence and under section 162(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not put any bar in considering such dying declaration in evidence. However, in the instant case, we are faced with the situation as to whether the prosecution has proved genuineness and authenticity of Exh. 46. In the instant case, the prosecution has placed on record another dying declaration (Exh. 43) of deceased Suresh recorded by Executive Magistrate Mohammed Abdul Rashid (P.W. 7). Before recording of the dying declaration, Dr. Sandeep Alsat (P.W. 6) examined deceased Suresh and after completion of recording of dying declaration, this doctor again examined the deceased and issued certificates accordingly. Those are Exhs. 39 and 40 respectively, wherein the doctor has certified that deceased Suresh was fully conscious and was in a fit condition to give a dying declaration as well as patient was conscious and oriented while recording dying declaration. Deceased Suresh has stated in his dying declaration (Exh. 43) that he is a resident of Bhim Nagar, Akola, and sustained burn injuries at the hutment area, Murtizapur, under the jurisdiction of Police Station, Murtizapur. His wife had taken divorce from him. She does prostitution at Murtizapur. About a month back, she took away his daughter Surekha, aged 12 years, from Akola to Murtizapur to make her prostitute. On 22-11-1997 at about 7-00 O'clock, accused Asha called Suresh in the dark. She brought kerosene in a liquor bottle and set him on fire. He lodged a report at Police Station, Murtizapur. Police Constable Buckle No. 1596 admitted him in the hospital. On 22-11-1997 at about 7-00 O'clock, accused Asha called Suresh in the dark. She brought kerosene in a liquor bottle and set him on fire. He lodged a report at Police Station, Murtizapur. Police Constable Buckle No. 1596 admitted him in the hospital. His statement was recorded at Murtizapur. The recitals in the dying declaration (Exh. 43) implicate only the accused Asha and there is not even a whisper about the other co-accused Ashok and Ku. Padma. Similarly, deceased Suresh has specifically stated in Exh. 43 that he had lodged a report at Police Station, Murtizapur and thereafter a Police Constable admitted him in the hospital. This dying declaration is proved by Executive Magistrate (P.W. 7) and nothing is brought in the cross-examination of this witness in order to affect the veracity of the ocular testimony of Mohammed Abdul Rashid (P.W. 7). This dying declaration appears to be free from any influence, straightforward, consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case and inspires confidence and, therefore, reliance can safely be placed on this document. It is, no doubt, true that conviction on the basis of sole testimony of dying declaration though not barred, however, the rule of prudence is to seek corroboration to such testimony. In the instant case, there is a corroboration forthcoming from the medical evidence of Dr. Tayde (P.W. 4), who has conducted post-mortem examination in the dead body of deceased Suresh Khade and found 64 per cent burns and opined that the case of death was "hypovolumic and neurrogenic shock" due to these burns and these burn injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So far as other corroboration is concerned, which comes forth from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, we will discuss the same at a later point of time when we will consider the admissibility of the evidence of hostile witnesses. At this stage , we must express that Exh. 43 only implicates the accused Asha and so far as other co-accused Ashok and Ku. Padma are concerned, there is not even a whisper about them in the dying declaration (Exh. 43). Similarly, this dying declaration is recorded by the prosecution as per the procedure contemplated in this regard, i.e., after obtaining an opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the deceased before and after recording the dying declaration. Padma are concerned, there is not even a whisper about them in the dying declaration (Exh. 43). Similarly, this dying declaration is recorded by the prosecution as per the procedure contemplated in this regard, i.e., after obtaining an opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the deceased before and after recording the dying declaration. The dying declaration is also recorded by the Executive Magistrate. All these factors lend complete authenticity to this document (Exh. 43), and in our considered view, the same can safely be relied on. As against this, apart from the reason already given by us for doubting the genuineness of this document (Exh. 46), another factor, which creates doubt about the authenticity of this document, is the recitals in Exh. 46, wherein not only all the three accused are implicated by the deceased, but the deceased even disclosed the role placed by each one of them in the crime in question. This further renders Exh. 46 suspicious and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to place reliance on this document (Exh. 46). 15. So far as the evidence of the hostile witnesses is concerned, merely because a Court gives permission to the prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness characterizing as a hostile witness does not completely affect his evidence. Evidence remains admissible in the trial and his testimony can be used for corroborating the other reliable evidence. In the criminal prosecution, when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge on the facts to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands throughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to the part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness as a while with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. 16. 16. In the instant case, it is unfortunate that though Smt. Kausalyabai (P.W. 1), Meena (P.W. 2) and Ataoolakha, Ainoolakha (P.W. 3) have given the statements about facts within their personal knowledge under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the course of investigation, they have resiled from the correctness of the versions in the statements. However, they have not given any reason as to why the Investigating Officer could record statements contrary to what they had disclosed. As we have already observed, it is well a settled law that the evidence of hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of prosecution or accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that position of evidence, which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence, can be accepted. 17. On the backdrop of this law regarding hostile witness, the trial Court after close scrutiny of the evidence of hostile witnesses, namely Kausalya (P.W. 1), Meena (P.W. 2) and Ataoolakha Ainoolakha (P.W. 3), came to the conclusion that the testimonies of these witnesses are valuable and admissible to the extent that deceased Suresh Khade had come to the house of his divorced wife accused No. 2 Asha and demanded to allow her to take away their daughter. However, she tried to prevent him from taking away their daughter and quarrelled with the deceased Suresh at the relevant time. The hostile witnesses have not given any reason, whatsoever, as to why the Police Officer has not recorded their statements under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code as per their versions. In absence thereof, the trial Court, in our considered view, was justified in relying on the part of the evidence of the hostile witnesses which is consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case mentioned in the dying declaration (Exh. 43). The above referred evidence of the hostile witnesses corroborates the fact of presence of deceased at the house of house of Asha- the genesis of quarrel put forth by the prosecution. 18. In the instant case, the trial Court did not properly consider the shortcomings in Exh. 46 as well as the evidence of Keshav (P.W. 9), particularly in respect of lodging of First Information Report by the deceased in the Police Station. 18. In the instant case, the trial Court did not properly consider the shortcomings in Exh. 46 as well as the evidence of Keshav (P.W. 9), particularly in respect of lodging of First Information Report by the deceased in the Police Station. Similarly, the trial Court has not considered the fact that the prosecution failed to place on record any evidence, oral or documentary, to show that deceased Suresh was examined by a doctor before or after recording of Exh. 46, though Keshav (P.W. 9) claimed in his evidence that such permission was obtained from the doctor before recording statement of deceased Suresh in the hospital. The trial Court has also not considered the fact that another dying declaration (Exh. 43) is recorded by Executive Magistrate after obtaining a certificate from the doctor about mental health of the deceased Suresh, in which the deceased has only implicated accused Asha and nobody else. The trial Court, without considering these vital circumstances, wrongly placed reliance on the dying declaration (Exh. 46) and convicted all the accused-appellants for the offence of murder. After considering the totality of the evidence of the prosecution, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, serious doubt is created about the authenticity of Exh. 46 and, therefore, the same cannot be relied on. So far as the accused No. 1 Ashok and accused No. 3. Ku. Padma are concerned, their complicity in the crime is based on this dying declaration (Exh. 46) and when the genuineness of this document is doubted, the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused No. 1 Ashok and accused No. 3 Ku. Padma. However, so far as accused No. 2 Asha is concerned, there is an evidence of dying declaration (Exh. 43), which is consistent with the prosecution case and is corroborated by other cogent and reliable evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence of murder of Suresh against accused No. 2 Asha Suresh Khade. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction against accused/appellant No. 1 Ashok Kondiba Waghmare and accused/appellant No. 3 Ku. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence of murder of Suresh against accused No. 2 Asha Suresh Khade. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction against accused/appellant No. 1 Ashok Kondiba Waghmare and accused/appellant No. 3 Ku. Padma daughter of Shamrao Kakade is hereby quashed and set aside, and the conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code awarded against accused/appellant No. 2 Asha Suresh Khade is hereby confirmed. Application dismissed. -----