Judgment K. J. ROHEE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged his conviction for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, fine of Rs. 500/- respectively under each section. ( 2 ) THE appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the appellant had taken place about 10 years before the incident with Nalu, the daughter of PW 1 Govinda s/o Fakiraji Hatwar, resident of Umarga-Bazar, Tah. Karanja, District - Washim. After marriage Nalu cohabited with the appellant at Anjangaon-Bari, District - Amravati. Out of the said wedlock the couple was blessed with a daughter, aged about 9 years and a son, aged about 5 years. According to the prosecution Nalu was treated properly by the appellant for about two years in the beginning. Thereafter the appellant started illtreating her. The appellant was addicted to liquor. The appellant used to demand money from her father. On the last occasion i. e. about eight days before the incident the appellant had demanded Rs. 2,000. 00 from his father-in-law. However the demand of the appellant could not be fulfilled. Thereupon the appellant raised quarrel with Nalu and threatened her with dire consequences. ( 3 ) THE appellant was residing in his house with his wife and children. His younger brother was also residing in the same house which was separated by a partition. The appellants father Shankar Kisnaji Yerne (PW 2) was residing in the hutment area of Anjangaon-Bari. ( 4 ) ON 10-12-1999 around 11. 00 p. m. PW 2 Shankar learnt that his daughter-in-law Nalu sustained burn injuries. PW 2 Shankar immediately came criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2002 decided on 12-12-2005. (Nagpur) to the house of the appellant and found that Nalu was burnt and dead. Hence at 1. 00 a. m. on 11-12-1999 he informed Police Station Badnera about the death of his daughter-in-law Nalu by report (Exh. 18 ). PSI Shendokar (PW 6) immediately visited the spot and carried out necessary investigation. He noticed that there was injury above the right eyebrow of deceased Nalu and her tongue had protruded from the mouth. Hence at 1. 00 a. m. on 11-12-1999 he informed Police Station Badnera about the death of his daughter-in-law Nalu by report (Exh. 18 ). PSI Shendokar (PW 6) immediately visited the spot and carried out necessary investigation. He noticed that there was injury above the right eyebrow of deceased Nalu and her tongue had protruded from the mouth. On the same day in the afternoon PW 5 Dr. Nanwani, Medical officer, General Hospital, Amravati conducted autopsy. Dr. Nanwani noted bleeding from right ear, deformed dislocated left wrist joint, deformed dislocated left thumb, deformed nose, fracture nasal bone and burn injures amounting to 100% all over the body. Dr. Nanwani opined that the injuries other than burn injuries were ante mortem and the burn injuries were post mortem. On receipt of the post-mortem report offence under sections 498-A, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal code was registered against the appellant on 15-12-1999. The appellant was arrested. On his medical examination burn injuries on right forehead, left foot and nose were noted. After completion of investigation the appellant was charge- sheeted and tried. The defence put forth by the appellant is that his wife Nalu set herself on fire due to quarrel between her and her maternal uncle Prakash. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined PW 1 Govinda s/o Fakirji Hatwar (the father of deceased Nalu); PW 2 Shankar s/o Kisnaji Yerne (the father of the appellant); pw 3 Shrikrishna s/o Marotrao Sakharwadhe and PW 4 Sau. Suman s/o rambhauji Yerne (panch witnesses); PW 5 Dr. Nanwani (Medical Officer) who conducted autopsy and PW 6 PSI Shendokar, who investigated the matter. ( 6 ) THE trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it held that Nalu met with homicidal death and that the appellant committed murder of his wife Nalu. The trial Court further held that the appellant intentionally burnt the dead body of nalu, thereby causing disappearance of the evidence with intent to screening himself from legal punishment, accordingly the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. ( 7 ) MR. S. V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there is no direct evidence and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that as such motive for commission of the alleged offence assumes great importance. ( 7 ) MR. S. V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there is no direct evidence and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that as such motive for commission of the alleged offence assumes great importance. He pointed out that the appellant has been acquitted of the offence of subjecting his wife to cruelty and the State has not preferred appeal against his acquittal. Thus the acquittal of the appellant for the offence of subjecting his wife to cruelty has become final. Mr. Sirpurkar submitted that in view of this fact there was no motive for the appellant to kill his wife Nalu. ( 8 ) WE find considerable force in this submission. As the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal code has failed there appears no reason for him to kill his wife. It appears highly improbable that the appellant would kill his wife for no obvious reason. ( 9 ) MR. S. Y. Deopujari, the learned APP submitted that the absence of proof of motive does not break link in chain in circumstances connecting accused with crime nor militates against prosecution case. In support of his submission he relied on Mulakh Raj vs. Satish Kumar and others, AIR 1992 SC 1175 (B), wherein it is held as under :"in case of circumstantial evidence motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and sometime it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, for militates against the prosecution case. " ( 10 ) WE have carefully considered the submission of the learned APP. In the circumstances of the present case we find that motive plays an important role. Thus we find no force in the submission of Mr. Deopujari. ( 11 ) MR. Sirpurkar further submitted that the trial Court was not justified in holding that Nalu met with homicidal death. In the circumstances of the present case we find that motive plays an important role. Thus we find no force in the submission of Mr. Deopujari. ( 11 ) MR. Sirpurkar further submitted that the trial Court was not justified in holding that Nalu met with homicidal death. He submitted that the trial Court was influenced with the finding of Dr. Nanwani that the burn injuries were post mortem. He submitted that on the basis of this evidence the trial Court jumped to the conclusion that firstly the appellant beat his wife and then set her on fire in order to destroy the evidence. In this respect Mr. Sirpurkar submitted that there is fine distinction between burning before death and burning after death. He invited our attention to the evidence of Dr. Nanwani and particularly the post-mortem report (Exh. 24 ). In column No. 17 of Exh. 24 following injuries are described : (1) Blackish superficial burn injuries over face, ears, scalp, hairs totally burnt, (2) Protruding Tongue out of mouth, (3) Bleeding from (R) ear present, (4) Deformed dislocated left wrist joint, (5) Deformed dislocated left thumb, (6) Deformed nose, fracture nasal bone, (7) Deep burn injuries over neck-black coloured, (8) Deep burn injury over chest-black coloured, (9) Abdomen superficial burn injuries, (10) Burn injuries over whole back, (11) Burn injuries over both upper extremities, (12) Burn injures over both lower extremities, (13) Genitalia burn injuries seen, (14) Charring of muscles over chest left side muscles of (L) arm (L) forearm seen, (15) Rupture of muscles of left thigh seen. Column No. 18 again shows two injuries : dislocation of left wrist joint and fracture nasal bone. ( 12 ) COLUMN No. 18 (a) mentions that burn injuries are post-mortem burn injuries and injuries at No. 2 to 6 are ante mortem injuries. The last column of the post-mortem report (Exh. 24) shows that no definite opinion can be given as to the cause of death. During cross-examination Dr. Nanwani stated that if a woman sustaining burn injuries falls on hard substance like iron cot, then injury Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are possible due to fall. He added that deformation of nose and fracture of nose can be possible by fall on iron cot. Dr. During cross-examination Dr. Nanwani stated that if a woman sustaining burn injuries falls on hard substance like iron cot, then injury Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are possible due to fall. He added that deformation of nose and fracture of nose can be possible by fall on iron cot. Dr. Nanwani further stated that protruding of tongue can occur if the spot is congested and there is no ventilation, provided that the injuries are ante mortem. ( 13 ) MR. Sirpurkar vehemently urged that Dr. Nanwani has simply mentioned that the burn injuries were post mortem, but he has not given any reason to come to the said conclusion. Mr. Sirpurkar submitted that in the absence of such reason the trial Court should not have accepted the testimony of dr. Nanwani and should not have held that Nalu was firstly killed and thereafter she was burnt. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology, 22nd Edition at page 317, three main points to differentiate between ante-mortem and postmortem burns are given which are as under :- (i) line of redness, (ii) vesication, (iii) reparative processes. ( 14 ) IN this respect Mr. Sirpurkar relied on Archi Nawal Kishore Kujur vs. State of Bihar, XII-1995 (4) Crimes 855, wherein it is held as under :"on close scrutiny of the post-mortem report and the doctors opinion in that respect, I am of the opinion that in this case it cannot be held positively and beyond all reasonable doubt that the burn injuries caused on the person of the deceased were due to post-mortem burns made by the accused or somebody else after the deceased was made to death either by strangulation or by suffocation. The strangulation death has already been negatived by the doctor himself who was one of the party in the autopsy held on the dead body of the deceased. The carbon monoxide were found on the nostrils and on the vocal cods which might rather display about the ante mortem burn injury ". ( 15 ) WE find that the evidence of Dr. Nanwani is silent on these points. It may further be noted that Dr. Nanwani could not give definite opinion as to the cause of death. In view of this it is difficult to accept that Nalu was firstly killed and, thereafter, her dead body was burnt. ( 15 ) WE find that the evidence of Dr. Nanwani is silent on these points. It may further be noted that Dr. Nanwani could not give definite opinion as to the cause of death. In view of this it is difficult to accept that Nalu was firstly killed and, thereafter, her dead body was burnt. ( 16 ) THE prosecution shows that the appellant was residing with his wife nalu and two children. It is not known as to where were the children at the time of the alleged incident. The investigating officer has not done any enquiry in this respect. In fact, the children were the best witnesses to tell as to what exactly had happened to their mother. It may further be noted that the prosecution has not adduced the evidence of the brother of the appellant is the immediate neighbour of the appellant. In fact he could have thrown some light on what had happened during the fateful night. Thus the prosecution has not even attempted to collect proper evidence to bring home the guilt of the appellant. ( 17 ) IT was observed by the trial Court that there was no attempt on the part of the appellant to save his wife Nalu and his subsequent conduct in not informing about the death of his wife to the Police Station is very suspicious. In the opinion of the trial Court these circumstances indicate the involvement of the appellant in causing the death of his wife. ( 18 ) IN this respect it may be noticed that the appellant had also sustained burn injuries on flexor aspect of right forehead, dorsal aspects of left foot, forehead and ante aspect of nose when he was arrested on 15/12/1999. The possibility of the appellant sustaining burn injuries in an attempt to extinguish the fire cannot be overlooked. It may be noticed that the accused did not try to abscond and he was very much available till his arrest on 15/12/1999. It is true that he himself did not go to the Police Station to inform, but his father had gone to the Police Station in the midnight. Under these circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant that he was involved in killing his wife. It is true that he himself did not go to the Police Station to inform, but his father had gone to the Police Station in the midnight. Under these circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant that he was involved in killing his wife. We find it difficult to agree with the trial Court that it cannot be said that the evidence on record is insufficient to establish the fact of causing the death of deceased Nalu at the instance of the appellant. We are of the considered view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is quite insufficient to prove that the appellant killed his wife and, thereafter, set her on fire in order to cause disappearance of evidence against him. We, therefore, pass the following order : (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. (iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal allowed.