R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- The State has preferred this appeal to impugn acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code. 2. The facts which lead to the prosecution of the respondent are tragic. The respondent was married to Rajkanya-complainant around 1983. This marriage led to birth of daughter Savita. Thereafter Rajkanya conceived and delivered a male child. Accused Digamber went to bring back his family to the matrimonial home after deli very. After return to the matrimonial home accused Digamber used to ask Rajkanya to kill the newly born child because he believed that it was not born of him. This led to quarrels. On 07-12-1987 at about 6.00 a.m. the accused took the child and started leaving the house. Wife Rajkanya followed him to take the child back, but Digamber threw the child in a well and also pushed Rajkanya in the well. Police Patil of the village came to know of the incident and went to the well. He learnt from Rajkanya as to what had happened and gave a report to the police. Thereupon, the police registered an offence. The newly born child was dead, and after an inquest, body was sent for Post Mortem examination. The police performed panchnama of the spot, recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Achalpur. 3. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Amravati. After separate sessions division at Achalpur was carved out the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge at Achalpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code for murdering a child by name Nilesb and attempt to murder Rajkanya. The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined in all ten witnesses. The defence of the accused was that Rajkanya had herself thrown the child into well and had falsely implicated him. Upon consideration of the prosecution story and the defence the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit the respondent, aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri. A. G. Mujumdar for the State and Ms. Upon consideration of the prosecution story and the defence the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit the respondent, aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri. A. G. Mujumdar for the State and Ms. Haidari, appointed as an Amicus Curiae to defend the respondent, who had been served but had not engaged a counsel. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted the eyewitness account of Rajkanya and convicted the respondent of murder as well as attempted murder. He submits that there was enough motive for the respondent to commit this ghastly act of killing an infant. Therefore, he wanted the judgment of the trial Court to be reversed. 6. It seems that the respondent got married to Rajkanya, and, after the birth of first child Savita, got himself sterlised on 30th August, 1983. The prosecution has filed on record necessary certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Family Planning Centre of Achalpur Municipality at Exh.35. The Investigating Officer P.W. 10 A.P.I. Rathod stated that after he learnt from the accused about sterlisation he obtained necessary certificate from the Medical Officer. The police had also caused a sample of semen of accused to be taken by P.W.9 Dr. Walsimbhe and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide requisition at Exh.37. The report of the Laboratory at Exh.38 shows that there were no spermatozoa in the semen sample as examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, corroborating Medical Certificate at Exh.35. 7. Evidence of P.W.6 Rajkanya does not show that she new of sterlisation of the accused. In paragraph 4 of her cross-examination she first stated that she has undergone "tubec tormicery" (tubectomy) and then changed and said that she had not undergone any family planning operation. She denied the suggestion that she had undergone such a family planning operation at the instance of husband of her sister Ratna. Had she known that her husband had undergone sterlisation there would have been no question of her undergoing tubectomy as she had unwittingly let out in her cross-examination. Thus, there was enough reason for the respondent to believe that second child Nilesh was not his son. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this was the motive for the respondent to commit murder of Nilesh. Thus, there was enough reason for the respondent to believe that second child Nilesh was not his son. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this was the motive for the respondent to commit murder of Nilesh. When the accused knew that he had undergone sterlisation and yet put up with his wife's pregnancy naturally a question would arise as to whether he had accepted this pregnancy. But it is not necessary to go into this question because there could be variety of reasons for the respondent to keep quiet throughout the pregnancy till the birth of the child. He may be under the belief that the family planning operation had not succeeded. He may have felt it improper to confront his wife because of her father's better financial standing and the like. Speculations in this behalf are not necessary. Suffice it to say that the accused had reason enough to believe that the victim Nilesh was not his son and therefore, a motive to eliminate Nilesh. The question is whether, this motive propelled the respondent to actually eliminate Nilesh or not? 9. P.W.2 Damodhar, Police Patil had gathered information from villagers and sent report with P.W.3 Ramesh. This report at Exh.13 would show that according to the Police Patil, Rajkanya had jumped into the well alongwith her son and her son died in the accident. He had added that Rajkanya however, stated that, she was pushed into the well by her husband. P.W.1 Dr. Akotkar had examined Rajkanya and had found that there was a small contusion on left side frontal region caused by hard and blunt object. He proved his certificate at Exh.11 to this effect. He denied in cross-examination that the contusion could be self inflicted but added that the injury was possible by fall in a well, as well as while entering in a well on coming in contact of any hard substance. According to P.W.2 Damodhar Police Patil, the well had only 2 to 21/2 ft. water with roots of Pipple tree scattered in the well, while as per panchnama Exh.22 proved by P.W.5 Ramdas it had five feet water and was 17 feet deep above water. If one looks on the scenario of woman being pushed in a well, the fall would have produced more injuries than a simple contusion. 10. P.W.4 Dr. water with roots of Pipple tree scattered in the well, while as per panchnama Exh.22 proved by P.W.5 Ramdas it had five feet water and was 17 feet deep above water. If one looks on the scenario of woman being pushed in a well, the fall would have produced more injuries than a simple contusion. 10. P.W.4 Dr. Raikwar conducted Post Mortem on the body of Nilesh and did not find any external injuries. In his opinion, the child had died of drowning. P.W.6 Rajkanya has stated that her husband threw the child in the well. It is surprising that the child sustained no external injuries. Throwing a child from the height of 17 feet ordinarily ought to have produced injuries even by forcible contact of water, considering the tender skin of the child. 11. P.W.S Gajanan is related to the parties. He stated that on the day of incident he as well as accused and two others had gone to a place near the well for answering a call of nature. They heard a thud from the side of well. Hence, all of them went towards the well and found Rajkanya inside the well holding a root of the tree. If the accused had thrown his child and pushed Rajkanya into the well he could not have been with P.W.S Gajanan at the time when the sound was heard. Evidence of Gajanan rules out complicity of the accused in drowning of the victim Nilesh. 12. It would be difficult to believe the word of Rajkanya P.W.6 because of her conduct. First, she seems to have obviously cheated her husband. Secondly, she was evasive about having undergone family planning operation. Thirdly, both she and her child did not suffer any external injuries which might have ordinarily occurred due to fall in 17 feet deep well. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the word of Rajkanya ought to be believed because there is a motive in the accused to eliminate the infant cannot be accepted. How a human mind will react to a situation is - unpredictable. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the word of Rajkanya ought to be believed because there is a motive in the accused to eliminate the infant cannot be accepted. How a human mind will react to a situation is - unpredictable. Rajkanya herself eliminating the child on finding that her husband knew well that child was not his, or even attempting to rope in her husband on false charge after eliminating the child in order to get freedom from the bonds of matrimony with the respondent is as possible as the elimination of the child by the accused. 13. In view of this, since the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge are perfectly deducible from the evidence tendered and are neither perverse nor improbable, they cannot be disturbed by or substituted with our own conclusions. Hence, we see no merit in the appeal and therefore, dismiss the same. Bail Bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.