N. V. DABHOLKAR, J.:- By his judgment and order dated 11-5-2004 delivered in Session Case No.97/2002, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani held to two appellants guilty for offences punishable u/ss.302, 201 r/ w.34 of IPC. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, fine Rs.1,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year, fine Rs.500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on the second count. Of course, substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story can be summarised in brief as follows: The incident in question took place on the night between 17th and 18th March, 2002, to be precise at 02-00 at 02-00 hours of 18th March, 2002. Victim of the incident namely Shrirang s/o. Pandurang Nalwade was husband of accused no.1. It is said that he taken to liquor addition and, therefore, was not doing any work. Consequently, his father had provided finances and started a grocery shop for him. As the liquor addiction went on increasing, his capacity to took after the shop also diminished. Since about one year prior to alleged incident, therefore, it was accused no.1, who was looking after the grocery shop. It is said that accused no.2 was a customer of grocery shop and he developed intimacy, which resulted into illicit relationship between the two accused. According to prosecution, since the husband was an obstacle in the illicit relationship, as he had scolded Sunanda about the same, he was eliminated by alleged incident. It is the case of prosecution that he was killed by strangulation and thereafter the dead body was disposed of by putting him in a gunny bag and throwing it in a well. 3. Defence of the accused is that of total denial. Both of them have claimed that they are implicated in a false case. Accused No.1 Sunanda has stated that PW 1 Navrang used to pick up quarrels with her. She had learnt about his illicit relations with his material aunt long back and, therefore, he was picking quarrels with accused Sunanda. There used to be quarrels between the two also on account of the construction of the house and, therefore, he is deposil1g false against them. 4. She had learnt about his illicit relations with his material aunt long back and, therefore, he was picking quarrels with accused Sunanda. There used to be quarrels between the two also on account of the construction of the house and, therefore, he is deposil1g false against them. 4. Prosecution has placed reliance upon evidence of 9 witnesses and they can be grouped as follows: P.W. 2 Anjali and PW 5 Akshay, aged 13 and 11 years respectively at the time of recording their evidence, which means that they were 11 and 9 years respectively at the time of alleged incident are children of accused no.1 Sunanda and deceased Shrirang. Evidence of these children is the best possible direct evidence on record. Both these children have deposed that on the fateful night, Anjali woke up as she wanted to pass urine and Akshay woke up hearing her voice. The children claimed that they saw the two accused stuffing something in a gunny bag and on enquiry, accused no. 1 Sunanda informed that she was keeping Nirma packages in the gunny bag. Impliedly, prosecution desires this Court to believe that the children saw mother and accused no.2 packing the dead body of the father in the gunny bag. P.W. 1 Navrang, brother of the victim, PW 3 Ramabai apparently front door neighbour and PW 7 Mahendra resident of the vicinity are witnesses examined on a common point i.e. development of illicit relationship between the two accused. P.W. 6 Gangaram is a panch witness to memorandum (Exh.46) of the statement of accused no.1 Sunanda and panchanama of discovery (Exh.4 7) of the articles, which sued to be upon the person of the deceased. The articles include a gold ring and a gold pendant Om. Dr. B. G. Shaikh is autopsy surgeon and although dead body was recovered from the well, he was opined that death is caused by strangulation. As the discussion later on will reveal, the medical evidence has become academic evidence, because of peculiar circumstances in which the dead body was found. Even the assistance of medical evidence has become unnecessary to establish homicidal death in view of the fact that dead body as recovered floating on the w~1l water after more than 3 days and tied in a gunny bag. Even the assistance of medical evidence has become unnecessary to establish homicidal death in view of the fact that dead body as recovered floating on the w~1l water after more than 3 days and tied in a gunny bag. P.W 8 ASI Govind Gajbhar has recorded missing report (Exh.53) lodged by Sunanda on 18-3-2002 at about 19-45 hours and he has also registered the report by Babuappa Keru (Exh.54) regarding floating gunny bag with stinking oduor being noticed in his well. This was on 21-3-2002 at 19-00 hours. The dead body was in fact retrieved on 22-3-2002. Investigation is carried out by PW 9 Nagnath Jakkawad, the PSI. 5. On going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial Judge considered the medical evidence and also evidence regarding the position in which the dead body was found in paras 13, 14 and 15. Considering both things together, he arrived at a conclusion that the death was neither natural, nor accidental nor suicidal, but it was homicidal. For the reasons discussed in paras 16 to 18, the learned Judge has rejected the arguments advanced by the defence against possible finding of death to be homicidal. We may state here itself that was have no reason to disagree with the findings of the Judge that the death was homicidal. As already expressed earlier, even if medical evidence is ignored or even if we arrive at a conclusion that opinion of the medical officer to the effect that death was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation is to be rejected, for the sake of arguments, the manner in which and the position in which the dead body was recovered, is sufficient to establish that death was homicidal. The only change or modification that will require in the finding of the trial Court would be that the death was due to asphyxia. From the report (Exh.54), it is evident that the owner of the well situated in the Survey No.174 found that a tied gunny bag was seen in the well and it had a strong disagreeable odour. According to evidence of P.W. 9 PSI Jakkawad, the floating gunny bag was taken out from the well water and on opening the gunny bag, it was found to contain a dead body "male". According to evidence of P.W. 9 PSI Jakkawad, the floating gunny bag was taken out from the well water and on opening the gunny bag, it was found to contain a dead body "male". Navrang Nalwade (PW 1) was amongst the people, who had gathered and he identified the dead body to be that of Shrirang. There is no dispute that Shrirang was missing since early dawn of 18-32002 and he was found in the well on 21-3-2002 in dead condition kept in a gunny bag and the tied gunny bag was thrown in the well. The dead body within a tied gunny bag and the gunny bag within a well, rule out natural, accidental or suicidal death and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in recording a finding that death of Shrirang was homicidal. 6. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and following are the circumstances relied upon by prosecution in order to bring home the guilt. (1) Children Akshay and Anjali witnessing mother Sunanda (accused no.1) and Suresh (accused no.2) stuffing a gunny bag at odd hours past midnight of 17th and 18th march, 2002. (2) Dead body of Shrirang found in a tied gunny bag thrown in the well owned by one BapuappaMallikmjunappa Kurhe. (Death to be homicidal). (3) Illicit relationship between the two accused persons (evidence of PW s. 1, 3 & 7). (4) Subsequent conduct of accused Sunanda by filling application (Exh.53) (which according to trial Judge, is misguiding the investigation machinery). (5) Seizure of gold ornaments i.e. ring and pendant Om, which were usually worn by Shrirang, at the instance of information given by accused no. 1 Sunanda (Exhs.46 & 47). (6) Attempt on the part of the accused to screen themselves by disposing of the death body by throwing it in a well. We may say that after discussion of his reasons the learned trial Judge felt that above circumstances are proved upto the bench mark of standard of proof as required in the cases based on circumstances evidence and the circumstances taken together form a complete chain leaving to other hypothesis open except the guilt of the accused and hence he was recorded finding of guilty against both the accused persons and proceeded to pass conviction and sentence, that is under challenge. After compiling admitted facts in para 19, the learned Judge proceeding to describes the evidence of almost all the witness in brief. Evidence of Navrang is described in paras 20 & 21, that of Anjali in paras 22 & 23, Ramabai in para 24, Akshay in para 25. Similarly, evidence of discovery panch Gangaram is described in para 26 and that of PW 7 Mahendra in para 27. In paras 28 and 30, the learned Judge has referred to evidence of two investigating officers and in para 29, he has referred to report by the well owner. The learned trial Judge commenced his appreciation of evidence in the real sense in para 31 and concluded the same with para 44. The conclusions drawn by the learned Judge can be summed up as follows: (1) Evidence of PW 2 Anjali and PW 5 Akshay shows presence of accused no.2 Suresh in the house of accused no. 1 Sunanda during midnight since when Shrirang is missing. (2) Cumulative effect of evidence of PW 1 Navrang, PW 3 Ramabai, PW 7 Mahendra shows that accused Sunanda and Suresh had developed illicit relations. (3) Exhibit 53 (missing report by Sunanda) demonstrates that she tried to put'the investigation on the wrong track. (4) Discovery evidence shows that ornaments of the deceased were in the custody of accused no. 1 after death of Shrirang. (5) Fact that dead body was found thrown in a well after packing in a gunny bag, that was evidence of the two accused trying to screen themselves by causing disappearance of the dead body. 7. We may say that the learned Judge has considered the case law placed on his table by both the sides regarding caution about acceptance of child witnesses and he has also referred to the parameters regarding standard of proof in the matters based on circumstances evidence. We may say that in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to establish each and every circumstances with firmness and by cogent evidence. All the circumstances together should form a complete chain and all circumstances considered together should leave no other hypothesis possible except the guilt of the accused. It is established legal position that "accused might have committed the offence" is not sufficient to base a conviction and the foundation required is "accused must have committed the offence". All the circumstances together should form a complete chain and all circumstances considered together should leave no other hypothesis possible except the guilt of the accused. It is established legal position that "accused might have committed the offence" is not sufficient to base a conviction and the foundation required is "accused must have committed the offence". Prosecution ought to travel the long distance between "may" and "must" before claiming to be entitled to a decision of conviction. We may not hesitate to say that circumstances enlisted above, which are held firmly proved by the trial Judge, if those arc so firmly proved, would certainly lead to the hypothesis of the two accused persons having committed murder and having disposed of the dead body by throwing it in the well. The question to be examined is whether the circumstances are so firmly established. Coming to third circumstances amongst those enlisted hereinabove, the trial Court has recorded that by report (Exh.53) lodged to the Police Station on 18-3-202 at about 19-45 hours, accused no. 1 has put the investigation on the wrong track and this is accepted as subsequent conduct of the accused as influenced by fact in issue demonstrating an attempt on her part of conceal the death of her husband. On reference to report, it appears that she has reported that husband is missing since the night, inspite of search in Puma township as also with the relatives, the husband was not found out. She has also concluded the report by saying that he is mentally affected persons and probably under the lunacy, he has gone away. The learned trial Judge, while giving considerable importance to this circumstances, has not taken a note of admission by PW 1 Navrang. PW.1 Navrang in his cross-examination has admitted: "My father accompanied with Sunanda when she visited ,Police Station, Purna on 18-3, 2002 at 4p.m. and filed a missing report of Shrirang." The acidity of the report as a tool to suppress the murder reduces when we' take- a note of the presence of father of the deceased alongwith accused Sunanda for lodging the missing report. Ordinarily, it must be presumed that the report must have been lodged within hearing of the father of the deceased and yet it is nobody's case that father took an exception to the narration that the deceased is mentally disturbed person and he might have gone somewhere under such lunacy attack; The admission by Navrang 'is not an erroneous admission. When we refer to his statement as recorded on 22-3-2002 at 13-00 hours, which was treated as FIR against the accused persons, he has stated in the compliant that Sunanda alorigwith his father Pandurang and his uncle Prakash went to Police Station. Purnanand Sunanda filed a missing report indicating that husband has gone somewhere, may be under lunacy attack. When we take into consideration the fact that possible lunacy attack was described by, Sunanda in presence of father and uncle of the deceased the gravity of situation reduces to a considerable extent. It can not be said that this was an attempt on the part of Sunanda to misguide the investigation machinery by giving a false report, with the same force as felt by the learned trial Judge. 8. As already stated, evidence of Anjali and Akshay is the best possible evidence. The learned trial Judge has felt their evidence to be convicting, because they are deposing against their mother and he did not find anything that would suggest that they were tutored witnesses. Vole feel that even arriving at this conclusion the learned Judge has missed certain details, which are availed on record. We refer to cross-examination of Akshay and he has stated in para 4 as follows: "My statement recorded before the Police had been read over to me today in the office of PP. Yesterday Anjali told me about her deposition in the Court. Anjali told me to depose as deposed by her. I have not met my mother Sunanda since the date of incident." (Deposition of Anjali and Akshay are recorded on 18th and 19th March, 2002 respectively) We do not think that it has open for the learned trial Judge to say that there is no possibility of Akshay being a tutored witness. He is a witness kept secluded from his mother from the date of incident and he was certainly tutored by his sister Anjali, as admitted by him. He is a witness kept secluded from his mother from the date of incident and he was certainly tutored by his sister Anjali, as admitted by him. So far as Anjali is concerned, no doubt in her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that she was tutored. Her deposition that accused Sunanda used to abuse her father when father tried to persuade not to talk to accused no.2. has come on record as a result of an improvement over her Police statement. The defence before the trial Court has assailed to evidence of these two witnesses by pointing out that from 18th morning till discovery of the dead body on 22nd morning, children had not informed to any of the family members, the incident of their having witnesses the two accused stuffing one gunny bag. Anjali has tried to explain this by saying. "Accused no.1 Sunanda was alongwith us since that day and she was not allowing me to inform the incident seen by me to my uncles and grand-fathers. Therefore, I could not inform the said fact to them." The statement quoted hereinabove clearly indicates that Anjali had some suspicion about the occurrence, she claims to have seen at odd midnight hours, atleast after she leant that her father was missing. By above version, she was tried to explain as to why she did not disclose to her grand parents or uncles and aunts as to what was witnesses by her tonight. The arguments of two sides on this point are considered by the learned trial Judge in paras 39 and 40 of the judgment and he has observed that consideration the explanation given by the witness, their evidence can not be doubted. Unfortunately, the learned trial Judge has not referred to be explanation available within above quoted deposition of Anjali. The trial Judge observed. "They have specially deposed that they have learnt that father died when the dead body of Shrirang was found on 22-3-2002 and that time they suspected that the accused persons were not keeping Nirma packets in the gunny bag, but they were keeping dead body of Shrirang in it." This inference of the learned trial Judge does not match the explanation by Anjali quoted hereinabove. The learned Judge, therefore, has not dealt with the explanation, much less its satisfactoriness rendered by Anjali. The learned Judge, therefore, has not dealt with the explanation, much less its satisfactoriness rendered by Anjali. On reference to further cross-examination of Anjali, there are admissions, which indicate that children could have had opportunities to disclose what they had seen and their suspicion as well. We quote: "It is true that my uncle, grand father and mother Sunand, went outside the house to take search of my father Shrirang on 18-3-2002. They took search of my father Shrirang for 3 to 4 days. No elderly person was present in the house with us when they were going outside the house for taking search of my father Shrirang." Anjali was just 11 years at the time of incident and 13 years at the time of deposition. But the terminal sentence in the quotation above dearly indicates that she is able to think about the effect of her answers and thereafter answer the question. When she deposed that Sunanda used to go out in search of the father, she realise that earlier explanation was becoming shaky that she could not disclose anything to anybody, because Sunanda used to be with her all the while and, therefore, she has added that clause by saying that no elderly person used to remain at home. She has narrated that Sunanda, grandfather and uncle used to go in search of her father. On reference to para 19 of the impugned judgment wherein the trial Judge has enlisted admitted his three brothers and parents was residing in the same house, although separately. They were joint in mess, although independent in residence of three rooms for each of the brothers. It is not the case of Anjali that all three uncles, three aunts, her mother and grand parents used to leave in search of her missing father. In further part of the same para 3 of her cross-examination. Anjali admitted, "My aunt and my maternal uncle visited our house on third day (20th March), from missing of my father Shrirang. I had talk with them. I told them that my father was missing." Thus, it is evident that the child had, if at all, suspected the act of the two accused filling gunny bag at odd hours much before the recovery of dead body and the child also had opportunity to talk to other elderly family members. I had talk with them. I told them that my father was missing." Thus, it is evident that the child had, if at all, suspected the act of the two accused filling gunny bag at odd hours much before the recovery of dead body and the child also had opportunity to talk to other elderly family members. The explanation that they did not disclose their suspicion to anybody either because mother was with them throughout or because they did not suspect foul play till the discovery of dead body, is, therefore, not acceptable. The deposition of Anjali and Akshay gets further set back when we refer to certain details which have come on record in the deposition of complainant Navrang. In his chief-examination itself, he has narrated that on 17-3-2002 after family members had dinner, all went to bed, Shrirang slept on a cot in the verandah and thereafter a lock was put to the door of the verandah. Accused Sunanda and her children slept in their room. According to him, went his father awoke for passing urine, he had seen Shrirang fast asleep on the cot at about 1-30 a.m. These detail are required to be taken into account in the light of admissions in the cross-examination, to following effect: "We used to keep key of the lock put to the door of verandah with our mother or father (Grand parents of the children). My parents were sleeping in one of the room occupied by my brother Dhanraj and Sharad at the time of the incident. Bath-room of our house is situated in the premises itself. There is no need to go outside the house by opening door to go outside the house by opening door of the verandah in order to go to toilet. It is true that in case any member in the family wants to go outside the house during night time, then he has to collect key from our parents and then to open the lock and door of the verandah." When this practice followed by the family at night hours is taken into account that gives the incident as narrated by the children a sense of artificiality. We may states here itself that further Navrang has admitted that in the morning, the lock of the verandah was opened at about 7 a.m. by his father. We may states here itself that further Navrang has admitted that in the morning, the lock of the verandah was opened at about 7 a.m. by his father. It is not very clear on record that this door, which was being kept locked, is so positioned that victim outside the locked door or victim was inside the locked door, when he slept on a cot in the verandah. But in either case, it creates a difficulty for prosecution by creating an inherent improbability. On perusal of panchanama of spot of occurrence (Exh.57), the name is panchanama of the location near the well where the dead body was found and there is no panchanama of the house on record. We do not have details as to how a person inside, the house could go out or an outsider could come in, once the entrance door was locked at night hours. If it is considered that victim was sleeping on a cot beyond the locked door and outside the house, it was not at all necessary for the assailants to bring him inside the house and by an arduous path such as over the compound all etc. or pacing him in a gunny bag, because taking the gunny bag outside was an earlier option. In that case, version of the children should stand totally falsified. Anjali has not described exact location where the act of filling the gunny bag was going on. According to Akshay, it was in another room wile they were sleeping in one room. If the victim was sleeping in one room. If the victim was sleeping inside the locked door, the prosecution owes an explanation as to how accused no.2 entered the house and why the dead body was not filled in a gunny bag near the cot itself where the deceased was sleeping and was subjected to alleged strangulation. More over, carrying a dead body outside the house was not possible since the door was locked to night and the key was with the old family member i.e. father of the victim, who opened the door at 7 a.m. It is also unnatural that both the children woke up and witnessed the violence, but none other family members, although there appear to be at least 8 to 10 adult family members. Whether there was any other passage, may be out of way, such as by jumping over the wall has not come on record with clear evidence. Even this fact has some importance, to which we will refer when we discuss next points. To sum up regarding the evidence of children, Akshay clearly made admission indicating that he is a tutored witness, Anjali offered false explanation for not disclosing the night occurrence to other elderly family members immediately on the next morning and the lock of the entrance door, which was locked on the night, but was opened on the next morning only by father of the deceased, gives the story of children having witnesses occurrence within one room of the part occupied by accused no.1 in the house, a colour of artificiality. It must be said that evidence of children is not convicting evidence and, therefore, can not be relied upon without risk. 9. The trial Court has relied upon evidence of PW 1 Navrag, PW 3 Ramabai and PW 7 Mahendra. By relying upon their evidence, he has arrived at a conclusion of prosecution having firmly established that there was illicit relationship between the two accused. We may state here itself that, even if the evidence of these 3 witnesses is swallowed as sufficient to establish illicit relationship, that may provide a motive, that may provide a ground of having a strong suspicion against the two accused, but that by itself may not be a proof that the two accused together have committed murder of deceased Shrirang and thrown the dead body into the well by packing the same in a gunny bag. According to Navrang, accused no.2 Suresh used to accompany Sunanda when she used to visit market and, therefore, he learnt about their illicit relations. He claims that Shrirang and other family members asked Sunanda not to kept illicit relations with accused no.2 and behave properly. According to him, at that time, she gave threats to commit suicide. On reference to FIR (Exh.37), Navrang had also tried to persuade his wife against illicit relations with accused no.2 Suresh. PW 3 Ramabai claimed that her house is situated in front of the house of deceased Shrirang. According to him, at that time, she gave threats to commit suicide. On reference to FIR (Exh.37), Navrang had also tried to persuade his wife against illicit relations with accused no.2 Suresh. PW 3 Ramabai claimed that her house is situated in front of the house of deceased Shrirang. According to her, the reason for belief about illicit relations between accused nos.l & 2 is that accused Suresh had liberty to visit the shop of Sunanda at any time in the morning, afternoon, evening or night. According to her, accused no.2 also used to visit the house of accused no.1 Sunanda by climbing on the wall. (It is because of this version, we have referred to requirement of carrying the dead body over the wall when we discussed the evidence of child witnesses). According to her, accused Sunanda used to quarrel with the husband whenever he referred to this illicit relationship. Ramabai claims that all the neighbours had advised Sunanda to behave properly. On reference to her cross-examination. Ramabai appears to have narrated during her Police statement that her house is situated on the backside of house of Pandurang (father of deceased) and not on the front side or opposite to the house of Pandurang. Her statement that accused no.2 used to visit Sunanda even after 10 p.m. is an improvement over the Police statement. Lastly, PW 7 Mahendra, who has not disclosed location of his house in relation to the location of house of deceased so as to convince the trial Court about his having opportunity to know the occurrence in or around the house of the deceased, but upon inviting in the cross-examination, he claims that it is in front of the house of the deceased. He has given many reasons for his belief regarding illicit relations between the two accused. According to him, he had seen accused no.2 Suresh coming from the house of accused no.1 Sunanda in early dawn hours of 5 a.m. by climbing over the wall. He had seen the two accused together in the Urus at Parbhani. He had also seen them together in the bazaar and he claims that he also witnesses children Akshay and Rani (probably Anjali) reaching tiffin given by accused no. I to accused no.2. On reference to his cross-examination, his statement that he had seen the two accused in the Urus at Parbhani is an improvement. He had also seen them together in the bazaar and he claims that he also witnesses children Akshay and Rani (probably Anjali) reaching tiffin given by accused no. I to accused no.2. On reference to his cross-examination, his statement that he had seen the two accused in the Urus at Parbhani is an improvement. Admittedly, he has not narrated to Police that accused Sunanda was sending tiffin for accused Suresh through her children. He has also not stated before the Police that he had tried to persuade Suresh that he should not visit the shop of Sunanda. He is unable to explain why his Police statement does not contain any recital of his having seen accused no.2 jumping over the wall from the house of Sunanda at early dawn hours of 5 a.m. Thus, it is evident that the reason for belief of PW 7 Mahendra about illicit relationship between the two accused have come on record during his deposition at the cost of improvement over and above the Police statement. Narration of all three witnesses regarding their knowledge of illicit relation between the two accused, regarding their having witnesses certain incidents by which such belief was confirmed and their claims that everyone of them had tried to persuade Sunanda to behave properly, stands falsified for two reasons. None of them have narrated about the behaviour of accused Suresh to his family members, although it is admitted position that Suresh is a married person having children. Secondly, although Shrirang was missing from 18th and the family members had either visited the Police Station or Police had visited the family, during this period, none of the family members referred to such illicit relations or those being possible cause for disappearance of Shrirang. ASI Govind Gajbhar PW 8 has stated in his chief-examination that 0 20-3-2002, he recorded statements of father and brother of the victim as a part of enquiry into the missing report and he had also visited the scene of offence i.e. house of the deceased (because till then the dead body was not recovered and location of the well as not known to anybody). This was also an opportunity for Akshay and Anjali to disclose the suspicious occurrence that they had witnesses on the night between 17th and 18th. 10. This was also an opportunity for Akshay and Anjali to disclose the suspicious occurrence that they had witnesses on the night between 17th and 18th. 10. Coming to the evidence of discovery of articles and especially the gold ring and gold pendant, which were generally worn by the deceased at the instance of accused no. 1, no doubt the prosecution is supported by evidence of panch witnesses Gangaram (PW 6), but in this context, the time gap and location at which the articles were discovered is required to be taken into consideration. The accused were arrested on 22-3-2002 and discovery was effected on 27-3-2002. It must be taken into consideration that for 5 days, Sunanda was not at home, whereas all the brothers whom defence has tried to paint to be jealous towards Sunanda, because father had given finance for the grocery shop and that was being enjoyed by Sunanda alone, were at home. It is the claim of PW 8 Govind Gajbhar ASI (para 3 of the chief-examination) that on 20-3-2002 itself, he had visited the spot i.e. he had visited this house. The discovery becomes more doubtful when we refer to the missing report (Exh.53) lodged by accused no.1. Referring to original, we have not able to rule out the suspicion that part of the description, which includes gold ring and the gold pendant as part of the description of the victim, being subsequent addition. We have unable to appreciate as to why the description was written on the left side of the signature of the applicant. Earlier paragraph had ended with the sentenced, description as below. The description of the victim could have been continued in the same fashion as the earlier writing of the report. But the description has come on the left side of the signature thereby giving an impression regarding possibility that description was subsequently added. We feel that this manner in which description of the victim is recorded in Exhibit 53 does create a cloud of doubts about the discovery evidence or claim of the prosecution that gold ornaments on the person of deceased were seized at the instance of accused no.1. 11. We feel that this manner in which description of the victim is recorded in Exhibit 53 does create a cloud of doubts about the discovery evidence or claim of the prosecution that gold ornaments on the person of deceased were seized at the instance of accused no.1. 11. Having felt that there is an Achilles's heal in each of the circumstances held by the trial Court to have been firmly established, we must say that the evidence of the prosecution has not reached the requisite standard of firmness of the proof as expected in the cases based on circumstantial evidence. The moment we find that evidence of children is artificial, there remains no strength in the prosecution case. This is certainly a case wherein accused deserved atleast benefit of doubt. Hence, following order. 12. Appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 11-5-2004 delivered by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Case No.9712002 thereby holding the appellant guilty for offence punishable u/Ss.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC ad consequent sentence imposed upon, are quashed and set aside. They are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Accused no. I Sunanda is on bail. Her bail bond shall stand cancelled. Accused no.2 Suresh is in jail. He shall be set to liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, shall be refunded to accused persons. Registrar (Judicial) to ensure early dispatch of appropriate writ for the release of accused no.2 - Suresh. Appeal allowed.