J. N. PATEL, J.:- The State as well as the original accused who were tried in Sessions Case No.75/87 have preferred appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 24-5-1995 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The original accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No.20l/95 challenging their conviction and 'sentence under Sections 304(b), 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code whereas the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 1/95 challenging their acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The appellant/original accused No.1 Sudhakar s/o. Sukram Hazare and his father appellant/original accused No.2 Sukram s/o. Adku Hazare were charged for having subjected Sou. Meera w/o. Sudhakar Hazare to cruelty and harassment at Village-Rampuri in furtherance of their common intention with a view to coerce her or' her brother to satisfy unlawful demand of dowry which is an offence u/s.498-A of the I.P.C. They were also charged that in furtherance of their common intention in between the night of 17-2-1987 and 18-21987 they strangulated Sou. Meera and caused her death! otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and, therefore, committed an offence punishable u/s.304-B of IPC. They were further charge, of having committed her murder u/s.302 of IPC and for having caused disappearance of evidence connected with the said offence by throwing the dead body of Sou. Meera in the well with the intention to screen themselves from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.201 of IPC and on all these counts having committed the offence in furtherance of their common intention, charge of Section 34 of IPC was also framed against them. 3. In reply to the charge, the pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The have taken a common plea in their defence of alibi that they had gone to their field on the fateful night and it is only on the next day in the morning they learnt that Sou. 3. In reply to the charge, the pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The have taken a common plea in their defence of alibi that they had gone to their field on the fateful night and it is only on the next day in the morning they learnt that Sou. Meera was not in the house and, therefore, they searched for her body which was subsequently found in the well which was reported to the police by original accused No.2 who also took a plea that he learnt that on that night Meera had a quarrel with one Shrawan Thakare who was staying in their house as a guest and had an evil eye on her. 4. The trial Court on conclusion of the trial found them not guilty of having committed offence u/ss.302 and 201 of IPC but convicted them for having committed offence punishable u/ss.498-A and 304-B of IPC. It is the prosecution's case that the marriage of Meerabai was performed with accused No.1 Sudhakar about ten months before the incident as she was treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws so as to coerce her to bring a sum of Rs.500/- as part of a dowry and further that accused No.2 Sukram her father-in-law had an evil eye on her. That Meera had complained about it to her parents and relatives and also informed them that though she told her husband that her father-in-law, i.e. accused No.2 was insisting her to have illicit relations with him, her husband has told her to act as per desire of her father-in-law and on the fateful night she was throttled and thrown in the well. 5. PSI Sawarkar who was at the relevant time posted at Police Station Brahmapuri lodged a report on the basis of which Crime No.30/87 came to be registered e against the accused persons for having committed offence punishable u/ss.498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The investigation in the case was taken over by PW. 14 Dilip Shrirao, SDPO, Brahmapuri SubDivision. On the basis of the report (Exh.53), SDPO PW-14 Shrirao visited the spot and in the course of investigation he recorded statements of various witnesses and conducted house search of the accused but could not find any incriminating material. The investigation in the case was taken over by PW. 14 Dilip Shrirao, SDPO, Brahmapuri SubDivision. On the basis of the report (Exh.53), SDPO PW-14 Shrirao visited the spot and in the course of investigation he recorded statements of various witnesses and conducted house search of the accused but could not find any incriminating material. He prepared the spot-panchanama (Exh.35) on 21-2-1987 and thereafter took down statements of other witnesses and seized certain articles from Devidas Shcnde (PW -13), the brother of the deceased Meera. He collected handwriting of Pandurang Hajare for forwarding it to handwriting expert. He filed charge-sheet in the case against the accused persons on 13-8-1987 and a supplementary charge-sheet after receiving the report of the handwriting expert to the Court of Sessions on 30-3-1988. 6. The major part of the investigation was done by PSI Sawarkar on the basis of case of A.D. registered by him on the oral report of accused No.2, i.e. Sukram Hazare. Immediately on receipt of the report, he had visited the spot and dead body of Meera was sent for post-mortem examination. He received the postmortem report on 19-2-1987 in which the cause of death came to be mentioned as Asphyxia due to throttling and smothering and not due to drowning and, therefore, on the basis of statement of the parents and relatives of the victim, he lodged the said report over the suspicion that the two accused have throttled Meera to death in the night falling between 172-1987 and 18-2-1987 and threw her dead body into the well so as to destroy the evidence. 7. In support of their case, the prosecution has placed reliance on the panch witnesses who were concerned with various panchanamas, relatives of the deceased and mother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased Meera and their neighbour and also relies on medical and forensic evidence. 8. The trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants/accused have committed her murder but having arrived at a conclusion that the death is homicidal on the basis of medical evidence on record and that the relatives of the victim having disclosed the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to Meera at the hands of the accused persons, the appellants/accused can be safely convicted for having committed offence u/ss.304-B and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. C. S. Kaptan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused, submitted that the finding of the trial Court that the appellants/accused cannot be held guilty for having committed offence u/s.302 of IPC clearly exonerates them and, therefore, they could not have been convicted for having committed offence u/s.304-B of IPC. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the death of Meera was homicidal, suicidal or accidental for want of evidence and that the medical evidence in the matter does not inspire confidence. 10. It is submitted that the evidence of relatives of the deceased, namely, PW-5 Shrihari, cousin of the deceased, PW-6 Bisan, father of the deceased, PW-7 Devkabai, sister of the deceased, PW -10 Bhagirathabai, mother of the deceased and PW -13 Devidas, brother of the deceased does not inspire confidence as their evidence is full of contradictions and omissions in so far as it relates to proving the offence u/ s.498-A of IPC. It is submitted that all these witnesses have made material improvement in their evidence before the Court as regards allegations of demand of dowry of Rs.500/- and that the father-in-law of the deceased had an evil eye on her and, therefore, their evidence deserves to be discarded. According to Mr. Kaptan, if the prosecution has failed to prove a charge against the appellants/accused u/s.498-A, then there is no material on record to show that merely because deceased Meera died an unnatural death within ten months of her marriage, it can be held to be a dowry death u/s.304-B and, therefore, the appellants/accused deserve to be acquitted. 11. Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted that even though the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants/ accused u/ss.498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC, still there is sufficient evidence brought on record to show that it is the appellants/accused who have committed her murder and threw her body in the well. It is submitted that the deceased Meera was admittedly residing with them at the time of her death and the conduct of the appellants/accused in causing disappearance of the evidence by throwing her dead body after throttling her to death and then the appellant No.2 having gone to Police Station and lodged a false report is sufficient evidence to establish that they have committed her murder. Mr. Mr. Mirza submits that it is only after the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of Meera by Dr. Pralhad Patankar it was revealed that the death was caused because of asphyxia due to throttling and smothering and not due to drowning and that the injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem for which the appellants/accused had no explanation. 12. Mr. Mirza further emphasised that the appellants/accused having taken a plea of alibi stands falsified by their conduct and the falsity of defence taken by them is the missing link in the chain of circumstances which clearly brings out the offence of murder against them and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have convicted them for having committed offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Sec.34 of IPC. 13. In reply, Mr. Kaptan, learned Counsel for appellants/accused, submitted that the prosecution's case at the most can be said to be based on grave suspicion and that by itself is not sufficient to convict the appellants/accused for having committed offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. In support of· his contention, Mr. Kaptan has placed reliance on the case of Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in (2004)11 SCC 282 . According to Mr. Kaptan, the facts of the present case are quite similar to the case of Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy as in that case also, the allegations against the accused were of the nature of demanding additional dowry which were not established beyond doubt and though evidence relating to the deceased last seen in the company of the accused was there but it was not found reliable by the trial Court and even though the plea of alibi was not established, the trial Court had held that the facts brought on record did not lead to irresistible inference that the accused were present in their house, i.e. the place of occurrence on the night in question and the Supreme Court expressed that the High Court was not justified in convicting the accused oil such circumstantial evidence and upheld their acquittal by the trial Court. 14. Another case relied upon by Mr. Kaptan is that of Mulak Raj and Ors. Vs. 14. Another case relied upon by Mr. Kaptan is that of Mulak Raj and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996)7 SCC 308 , which was also based on circumstantial evidence that the accused persons were charged of offence of dowry death, the deceased having died homicidal death in the house of her in-laws and the Supreme Court held that merely because the deceased died homicidal death and the body was found in the kitchen with post-mortem burns, it cannot be said that the said circumstance by itself would connect all the accused or anyone of them with the crime and, therefore, in view of unsatisfactory state of evidence led by the prosecution, the question as to who killed the deceased remained unanswered and the accused were acquitted. 15. Therefore, Mr. Kaptan submitted that merely because the prosecution has established that the deceased Meera died a homicidal death, it cannot be said that merely on the basis of circumstances that she was residing with the accused at the relevant time and the accused persons having taken a plea of alibi and the conduct of accused particularly accused No.2 in lodging a report after the dead body of deceased Meera was traced out from the well is not sufficient to bring home the guilt particularly when the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry from the accused persons and, therefore, the possibility of falsely implicating the appellants/accused in the case cannot be ruled out. 16. Mr. Mirza, in reply to the authorities cited by Mr. Kaptan, submitted that the case will have to be examined considering the peculiar facts and circumstances under which Meera was throttled to death and thrown in the well. It is submitted that though the witnesses examined in the case to prove a charge of Sections 498-A and 304-B are interested witnesses, their evidence is credit-worthy and can be accepted and further the fact that she was found in the well after being throttled to death is sufficient to establish that death of Meera was homicidal and not suicidal or accidental. 17. Mr. Mirza has placed reliance on the case of Alamgir Vs. State (NCT, Delhi) reported in (2003)1 SCC 21 and on the case of Anthony D'souza and others Vs. 17. Mr. Mirza has placed reliance on the case of Alamgir Vs. State (NCT, Delhi) reported in (2003)1 SCC 21 and on the case of Anthony D'souza and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003)1 SCC 259 , in which falsity of defence was considered by the Supreme Court as an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain as in, the present case also the accused persons have offered false answer in their examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code against the established facts that the deceased Meera was throttled to death and then thrown in the well, whereas they have come with the case that she might have committed suicide. 18. Another case on which reliance is placed by the learned A.P.P. is that of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1237 in which the wife was first strangulated to death and thereafter she was set on fire along with her infant child, aged 1-1/ 2 years and Supreme Court held that the prosecution has proved its case even though no witness was examined from the place where the wife had her matrimonial home. 19. In order to prove the charge u/ ss.498-A and 304-B, the prosecution has examined the cousin, parents and brother of the deceased Meera, i.e. P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.10 & P.W.13. On going through the evidence, we find that the allegations as regards demand of Rs.500/- and that her father-in-law had an evil eye over her having expressed his desire to have intercourse with her is a material improvement made by all the witnesses in their evidence before the Court with which they are confronted with their statements u/s.161, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge against the appellants/accused for having committed offence u/ss.498-A and 304-B of IPC and to that extent the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused persons on these two counts. 20. The prosecution has examined Indira Kisan Tiwade PW-11, daughter of the accused No.2, who has turned hostile on the point that she was residing in the house of the accused persons at the time of the incident and what happened on the fateful night. Similarly, the prosecution has examined Bhagirathabai PW-12 wife of accused No.2. 20. The prosecution has examined Indira Kisan Tiwade PW-11, daughter of the accused No.2, who has turned hostile on the point that she was residing in the house of the accused persons at the time of the incident and what happened on the fateful night. Similarly, the prosecution has examined Bhagirathabai PW-12 wife of accused No.2. In her evidence, Bhagirathabai wife of Sukram Hazare has deposed that one Shrawan who was the husband of her sister is no more but he had come to their house one day prior to the death of Meera and there was exchange of words between Shrawan and deceased in the night time. She has stated that her daughter Indira PW -11 was not present on the day of the incident. According to her, accused No.1 and deceased Meera were sleeping in one room and they were sleeping in other room. She does not know that happened on that night. Her husband had gone on field on that day. What one gets from the evidence of Bhagirathabai is the fact that on the fateful night both the accused, the deceased and Bhagirathabai PW-12 were present in the house. Though this witness did not whole-heartedly support the prosecution's case and APP sought permission to cross-examine her, she has in her evidence admitted that on the fateful night they were present in the house, i.e. the accused persons as well as deceased Meera, who was sleeping with the accused No.1 in one room and "we were sleeping in other room", i.e. her husband and she, but she does not know what happened in the other room. Therefore, the fact that at the relevant time the deceased Meera was residing with her in-laws and on the fateful night she along with her husband and father-in-law were very much present in the house, stands established by the evidence of PW-12 Bhagirathabai who has also admitted her presence and which is quite natural being the wife of accused No.2 Sukram Hazare and mother-in-law of Meera. Therefore, by this evidence, the prosecution has established that the accused No.1 and Meera were sleeping together in one room on the fateful night which has been specifically denied by accused No.1, who took up a plea when questioned by the Court under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code in answer to question No.32 that he and his father had gone to their field and their maternal uncle was guest in their house and his mother was also in the house. Same is the plea taken by accused No.2 against this established fact that on the fateful night they were very much present in the house. 21. The next important circumstance is that Meera was throttled to death on the said night which has been duly established by the prosecution by examining PW-8 Dr. Patankar. On 19-2-1987 he performed post-mortem on the dead body of Meera and found the following injuries on her person :External injuries :- I. Multiple bruises seen on both sides of neck. II. Bruises on nose and lips. There was no external injury on her person. Internal injuries : 1. Carotid artery was ruptured. No other injury was seen. In the opinion of Dr. Patankar, the injuries were ante-mortem. The death might have occurred hours after taking meal. He found absence of sand and earth within the nails. The lungs were congested. Stomach filled with food material, semi-digested. In cross-examination, 3 suggestion was made that bruises are possible on the neck if Mangalsutra and Garsodi (ornament like necklace) around the neck is tied so as to explain the bruises. The Doctor has not accepted it. In so far as bruises are concerned, the Doctor has clarified that as there were antemortem secretions to the bruises and hence he opined that they were ante-mortem though he has not noted down anywhere in his postmortem report. The doctor has specifically denied the suggestion that if a person becomes unconscious before coming into contract with water, then there would be no water inside the stomach or air passage. The doctor was thoroughly cross-examined on the issue of homicidal death by referring to kinds of drowning like typical and a-typical drowning but the doctor has been very sure while giving evidence before the Court that the victim died due to throttling not for any other reason. The doctor was thoroughly cross-examined on the issue of homicidal death by referring to kinds of drowning like typical and a-typical drowning but the doctor has been very sure while giving evidence before the Court that the victim died due to throttling not for any other reason. We do not find that the medical evidence brought on record cannot be accepted as to the cause of death which is quite clear from the injuries found on the deceased and the various symptoms highlighted by the Medical Officer which have been duly recorded in column Nos.17 & 20 of the post-mortem report. Therefore, another circumstance which has been established by the prosecution is that the cause of death of Meera was asphyxia due to throttling and smothering and not due to drowning. 22. The third fact which has been brought on record is that the body of Meera was found in a well. It is not expected of a dead body to have walked over to the well which according to the map was at a sufficient distance from the house of accused persons and for which there is no explanation given by the accused. 23. The next circumstance which can be taken into consideration is the conduct of the accused persons, i.e. the appellant/accused No.2 father-in-law of the deceased Meera going to Police Station and lodging an oral report which has come in the evidence of PW-16 Deorao Sawarkar, who stated that on the night of 17-21987 his daughter-in-law the deceased Sau. Meera Hazare was sleeping in the house and on not noticing her in the house in the morning, they started searching for her and that while searching her, on putting gal (iron hook) into the well in front of the house, her dead body hooked to the gal (iron hook), which reveals that she committed suicide, assumes importance. The accused No.2 has come up with a specific case in his defence that the victim committed suicide. 24. Therefore, we find that the appellants/accused had opportunity to commit the crime and the fact that the deceased Meera was throttled to death and then thrown in the well read with the established circumstances that on the fateful night she was sleeping in a room along with her husband and even accused No.2 was present in the house to which there is no explanation given by the accused. On the other hand, a false plea in defence is taken and that of alibi which has been belied by none else than mother of accused No.1 and wife of accused No.2, who in her evidence has stated that they were present in the house, in our opinion, completes the chain of circumstances and all facts taken together are conclusive to establish that it is the appellants/accused who in furtherance of their common intention have committed murder of Me era by throttling her to death and then throwing her dead body in the well so as to cause disappearance of evidence. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.20l/95 is partly allowed. The trial Courts judgment and order finding appellants guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them thereunder is quashed and set aside. The Criminal Appeal No.30l/95 filed by the State is allowed. The respondents/accused, i.e. No.1 Sudhakar Sukram Hazare and Sukram Adku Hazare are held guilty and convicted for having committed offences punishable u/ss.302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. U/s.302 r/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, the respondents/accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for one year each. U/s.201 r/w. Sec.34 of I.C. Code, the respondent/accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to undergo R.I. for six months. The substantive sentences to run concurrently. The respondents/accused Nos.1 & 2 shall surrender before the trial Court on or before 30th September, 2005 to undergo remaining part of their sentence. They shall also be entitled to set off, if any, as admissible under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.