R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- Being aggrieved by respondents' acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad for an offence of murder, the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts which led to the prosecution of four respondents are as under :Deceased Anandrao was married to P.W. No.4 Kashibai. Accused No.1 Maroti, Accused No.2 Namdeo, Accused No.4 Bapurao are cousins of Kashibai and Accused No.3 Ganpat is her uncle. Kashibai had a younger sister by name Suwarnamala who died by drowning after she was married. Accused Nos.1 to 4 killed Anandrao on 5-4-1989 in the village Krishnapur by inflicting blows by an axe and sticks. Anandrao was lying in injured condition and was spotted by his relatives who took him to police out post, and then to Dr. Chinnawar, who pronounced Anandrao dead. 3. On a report by victim's cousin Madhav, an offence was registered and investigation started. In course of investigation, the police performed inquest and sent dead body for post-mortem examination. They performed panchanama of spot, recorded statements of witnesses, seized incriminating articles and arrested and charge-sheeted the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umarkhed, who committed the case to the court of Sessions at Pusad. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, to whom the case was made over, charged the four respondents of the offence' punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all thirteen witnesses. After considering the evidence of these witnesses, in the light of defence of denial taken by the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the guilt of accused was not proved and proceeded to acquit the accused. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Advocate Sonak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Shri. Gupta for the respondents/accused. With the help of both the learned counsel we have gone through the entire evidence in order to find out whether the learned trial judge erred in concluding that the guilt of respondents was not proved. 6. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence since there are no eyewitnesses to state that they saw four respondents or any of them assaulting the victim. 7. 6. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence since there are no eyewitnesses to state that they saw four respondents or any of them assaulting the victim. 7. The circumstances on which the prosecution relied were: first that the victim's affair with deceased Suwarnamala had led to her unnatural death, after her marriage to another person. Secondly, it was the belief of the respondents/accused, close relations of Suwarnamala, and that the victim was responsible for Suwarnamala's death. Thirdly, oral disclosures made by the victim Anandrao about the cause of his death. And lastly, recovery of incriminating articles which connect the accused to the crime. 8. Though the witnesses have stated about Suwarnamala's death by drowning after her marriage, nobody categorically stated that Anandrao had any affair with Suwarnamala resulting in the respondents' harbouring a grudge about the victim. P.W. No.4 Kashibai had stated that her uncle Shiwaji suspected that her husband i.e. deceased Anandrao, had committed murder of Suwarnamala, but denied the suggestion in cross-examination about any affair between Anandrao and Suwarnamala. She admitted that she did not attend the marriage of Suwarnamala. Kashibai had contradicted portion of her statement under section 161 where she had reported to the police that her sister had told her that she would marry only Anandrao or otherwise she would commit suicide. But since the witness did not state so before the court, the portion of her statement to police, contradicted by her and which is marked as Exhibit No.80A, does not become substantive evidence. No other reason for any discord is even faintly suggested in the evidence of any prosecution witness. Thus, there is no evidence to show any motive for the respondents to commit murder of Anandrao. The first two circumstances on which the prosecution relied are thus not established. 9. P.W. No.1 Madhao is the victim's cousin. He stated that on 5-4-1989 when he had reached the field of Ramrao, he heard his maternal uncle Deorao Bhujanga saying that Ananda was lying in injured condition in bushes abutting the field. P.W. No.3 Deorao, stated that he learnt that Ananda was lying in injured condition from his sister Chandrabhagabai (mother of P.W. No.1 Madhao). Instead of himself going to the bushes, he ran to call Madhao. Chandrabhagabai who was examined as P.W. No.2 stated that she saw Ananda was lying in the bushes near the field and called her brother Deorao. P.W. No.3 Deorao, stated that he learnt that Ananda was lying in injured condition from his sister Chandrabhagabai (mother of P.W. No.1 Madhao). Instead of himself going to the bushes, he ran to call Madhao. Chandrabhagabai who was examined as P.W. No.2 stated that she saw Ananda was lying in the bushes near the field and called her brother Deorao. She stated that her son P.W.No.1 Madhao was also coming towards the field. Deorao and Madhao then went towards the bushes to see injured Anandrao. 10. P.W. No.1 Madhao stated that he and Deorao saw that Anandrao was lying on the ground with serious bleeding injuries on head and leg. He and Deorao lifted and brought Ananda at the shed in the field. According to Madhao, Anandrao was unconscious when he and Deorao reached Anandrao. Deorao, however, stated that Anandrao was conscious right from the beginning till they reached village Dhanki. According to P.W. No.2 Chandrabhagabai, she spotted Anandrao because Anandrao had shouted and called her out. She too stated that Anandrao was conscious at that time, and also till Ananda was taken to village Dhanki. It seems that Anandrao was taken to Dhanki in the Cart of one Madhao Punjaji Sakarage. This Madhao Punjaji· Sakarage has not been examined as witness. It is the story of P.W. No.1 Madhao, P.W. No.2 Chandrabhagabai, who is Madhao's mother and P.W. No.3 Deorao, Chandrabhagabai brother, that the victim disclosed to them in the shed in the field, before being taken to Dhanki, that the four accused persons had assaulted him. 11. P.W. No.7 Dr. Chinnawar stated that the victim was brought in a bullock-cart to his dispensary at the Dhanki at about 7.30 p.m. He wenttto bullock-cart, examined the victim and found him to be dead. It may be seen from the evidence of P.W. No.1 Madhao that the incident had taken placed about 4 to 4.30 p.m. in the afternoon. The victim was already dead when P.W. No.7 Dr. Chinnawar examined him at 7.30 p.m., after victim was taken from the field to the village Krishnapur and from there to Dhanki. According to Madhao, the victim was unconscious when he and Deorao first approached the victim. There is no independent word to show as to when victim actually died. The victim was already dead when P.W. No.7 Dr. Chinnawar examined him at 7.30 p.m., after victim was taken from the field to the village Krishnapur and from there to Dhanki. According to Madhao, the victim was unconscious when he and Deorao first approached the victim. There is no independent word to show as to when victim actually died. In view of this, the possibility of victim having been unconscious as stated by P.W. No.1 Madhao and, therefore, not being in a position to make any disclosure to any of the witnesses about the cause of his death is greater than the victim having been in a position to make any statement. 12. P.W. No. 10 Dr. Laxman Rawate conducted post-mortem examination and found a lacerated wound with fracture of right wrist joint, bruises on buttock and shoulder, lacerated wound on the frontal bone and lacerated wound on right parietal bone resulting in haemorrhage under the scalp. While Dr. Rawate ruled out possibility of instant death. He stated that haemorrhage was result of rupture of vessel in the brain. He stated that the haemorrhage in the brain was the direct result of the blow over the skull. Since in this case, the time of assault is not known, it would be difficult to infer from the nature of injuries observed by P.W. No.10 Dr. Rawate whether the victim could have been in a position to make any disclosure about the identity of these assailants. In view of this, it has to be held that the story of victim having made an oral dying declaration to P.W. No.1 Madhao, P.W. No.2 Chandrabhagabai and P.W. No.3 Deorao is not free from doubt. 13. Of the other witnesses examined, P.W. No.9 Vas ant is a hostile Panch on memorandum and seizure at the instance of accused vide Exhibit Nos.57 to 64; P.W. No.12 Datta is another hostile witness who does not prove seizure at the instance of accused vide Exhibit Nos.58 to 60; P.W. No.8 Govindrao proved spot panchanama vide Exhibit No.48 and seizure on the spot at Exhibit No.49; P.W. No.11 Head Constable Adhar and P.W. No.13 P.I. Vishwanth JataIe, had conducted investigation in parts and had proved various seizures effected in course of investigation. Property had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exhibit No.20. Property had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exhibit No.20. Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exhibit No.55, does not help in connecting any of the accused persons to the crime, since the result is inconclusive in respect of some articles and no blood was detected on the clothes allegedly seized at the instance of or from the accused, in view of this, there is nothing which could be said to connect the accused to the death of Anandrao. The conclusions drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are consequently fully justified and does not call for any interference on our part. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents, shall stand cancelled.