JUDGMENT B.B. Vagyani, J. - After having examined the dialogue which had taken place between appellant and his wife Jaishree P.W.1, it is clearly seen that there is something in the form of preparation of crime. But because of provisions of section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, any kind of communication between husband and wife is liable to be excluded and cannot be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. However, what Jaishree PW1 actually witnessed can very well be taken into consideration. Because what is witnessed by Jaishree PW1 is not a communication. In this behalf, reference with profit can be made to the case of Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 704. In the said case, the actual communication between the accused and his wife was held inadmissible under section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act but the acts of the husband witnessed by wife are held admissible, as it has reference to the acts and conduct of the accused and not to any communication made by the husband to his wife. Bearing in mind the ratio in the case of Ram Bharosey (cited supra), we have to exclude the inadmissible part with regard to actual communication between the appellant and his wife Jaishree PW1. However, what Jaishree PW1 saw at the relevant time is certainly admissible in evidence. Jaishree PW1 saw the appellant searching and collecting Kookari (Article 12) and leaving the house with Kookari. This part of evidence is certainly admissible in evidence. However, this much evidence by itself is not sufficient to prove the complicity of appellant in crime. Order accordingly.