MANJUSHA NAMJOSHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr. PC has been preferred by the accused Sunderlal against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, in Sessions Trial No. 246/03, decided on 17-5-2004. ( 2 ) APPELLANT, Sunderlal, his father Ramkumar and mother Kusumbai were charged under Sections 307, 302, 202 and 201 of the IPC on the ground that on 7-4-2003 at about 2. 00 noon in Village Badwar, P. S. Ramnagar, District Satna, attempted to commit murder of Kamala (wife of Sunderlal), committed murder of Ajay (son of Sunderlal), caused disappearance of evidence of offence of murder of Ajay and intentionally omitted to give information of offence to the police or authorities concerned. ( 3 ) LEARNED Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has found the following charges proved against the appellant and has, accordingly awarded punishment as under:- Sr. No . Name of the accused Conviction Sentence. Fine Sentence default of fine 1. Appellant/ Sunderlal Section 324, IPC R. I. 1 year Rs . 2,000/- R. I. for 3 months . Appellant/ Sunderlal Section 304, Part II, IPC R. I. 5 years Rs . 2,000/- R. I. for 3 months . Appellant/ Sunderlal Section 202, IPC R. I. for 1 month Rs . 500/- R. I. for 2 days . Appellant/ Sunderlal Section 201, IPC R. I. for 1 year Rs . 1000/- R. I. for 1 month The remaining accused persons namely Ramkumar and Bhuribai were acquitted of the offences charged. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution in short is as under:-Admittedly accused Ramkumar and Bhuribai are father and mother of the accused sunderlal and Kamlabai is wife and Ajay was son of the accused Sunderlal. That the incident took place on 7-4-2003. The Child Ajay @ Anil died on 10th April and Kamala Bai's father reported the matter to the police on 15th April, 2003 (Report Exhibit P-11 ). In the meanwhile, Marge intimation was given by Dr. S. P. Tiwari to the Police Kotwali, Satna on 10th April, 2003 which is Exhibit P-9. Kamlabai was medically examined by Dr. The Child Ajay @ Anil died on 10th April and Kamala Bai's father reported the matter to the police on 15th April, 2003 (Report Exhibit P-11 ). In the meanwhile, Marge intimation was given by Dr. S. P. Tiwari to the Police Kotwali, Satna on 10th April, 2003 which is Exhibit P-9. Kamlabai was medically examined by Dr. R. P. Garg (P. W. 4) who opined that there was one stitched healed wound with five thread stitches without formation of scar margins aijucent to, no gapping wound, length 2 1/2" obliquely on left shoulder, upper part. According to the Doctor, she had already taken treatment from some other doctor. The duration of injury was 10 days. Exhibit P-10 is her medical report. Post-mortem of deceased Ajay was performed by Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W. 2 ). According to him, the abdomen was distended. There was incised wound of 11/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" margin dark brownish colour, and tail outer side is 11/2" length and inner 2" anti-mortem readness was present beneath incised wound. The cause of the death was perforations peristalsis due to perforation on small intestines caused by Trauma. According to doctor the injury could have been caused by hard and sharp edged object. Duration was within 48 to 72 hours. Exhibit P-8 is post-mortem report. ( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid evidence available on record, learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the deceased Ajay met with a homicidal death, and Kamlabai had sustained bodily injuries. Thus, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter any further. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION examined as many as 11 witnesses and accused examined two witness in defence. ( 7 ) P. W. 6 Kamlabai is mother of the deceased and wife of the accused appellant. According to her Court statement, she was in her house in noon the appellant came to the house for his meals, he took his meals and left for Raha (agricultural work) which was near about their house. Thereafter, mother-in-law and father-in-law came for the meals. Mother-in-law started abusing her saying that in the garb and pretext of child's' weeping she does not want to work. By that time appellant also came back. Thereafter, mother-in-law and father-in-law came for the meals. Mother-in-law started abusing her saying that in the garb and pretext of child's' weeping she does not want to work. By that time appellant also came back. Mother-in-law told her that since her father has not given anything in dowry, so kill her and her child also, so that he may get second marriage done. Thereafter, mother-in-law took her meals and left for Raha. The accused thereafter hit a puppy and then hit the child Ajay with a stick. Ajay fell down on earth. Thereafter he went to another room and from there he brought one farsa and hit the child causing injury in the stomach. She cried for help and tried to come out of the house but accused dealt a farsa blow on her shoulder. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law came there. Father-in-law took the child to the nearby Doctor. According to her since the accused and in-laws were threatening her for dire consequences, hence, she did not narrate the incident to any one. Her parents visited her about 8-9 days after the incident and then only she narrated the factual position to them and thereafter the matter was reported to the police. When she took the child to the doctor what she told was that the child fell down on farsa which was lying on earth and therefore, the child sustained injuries. She did not say anything about her injury. ( 8 ) IN her cross-examination, she admits that after consulting doctor in Amarpatan, she was returning to her house. Her in-laws were not with her, even then she did not reported the matter to police nor narrated anything to anyone. Her Phoopha (father's sister's husband) (Ram)gopal also belongs to the same village, where she resides but she did not intimate him but he came to her house of his own accord. After 8-9 days she sent message to her parents through Phoopha Gopal. ( 9 ) RAMSUSHIL (P. W. 8), Ramprasad (P. W. 9) who are said to be eye-witnesses of the incident do not support the prosecution. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 Ramkhelawan is father of Kamlabai. According to him, his nephew Jageshwar (P. W. 1) told about the incident. He specifically denies that he received information through someone whom his daughter Kamlabai might have deputed. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 Ramkhelawan is father of Kamlabai. According to him, his nephew Jageshwar (P. W. 1) told about the incident. He specifically denies that he received information through someone whom his daughter Kamlabai might have deputed. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 Jageshwar Prasad deposes that he is cousin brother of Kamlabai. He was in Maihar where Ramgopal (Phoopha) came there and told about the incident, hence, he went to her father and told about the occurrence. This witness had no direct talk with Kamlabai. He is a formal witness of memorandum (Exhibit P-2) and recovery memo of farsa and cloths of deceased (Exhibits P-3 and P-4 ). ( 12 ) THE other evidence on record is of formal nature. The important witness was Ramgopal Phoopha who lives in the same village where the incident took place. Ramgopal had visited the house of Kamlabai of his own accord. He was best person to say what Kamlabai told him. Kamlabai has not explained how she had apprehension when Phoopha Ram Gopal was already residing in the said village. She has also not explained as to how she was prevented by her-in-laws from approaching her Phoopha. It is also a fact that her relations with her husband are now tense and hence, she does not reside with the husband. Exhibit P-7 is FSL report. According to the report, there are no blood stains or any other mark of stain on the said farsa. ( 13 ) KAMLABAI has also not explained as to why she did not call her phoopha immediately who and whose family was available in the same village. Her in-laws who were made accused in the Trial Court had helped her to carry the deceased to the doctor and hospital. The story of dowry has been introduced for the first time in the case. There was no background nor any antecedents known to any witness about demand of dowry. No report was lodged nor any protest was made to the accused or in-laws at any point of time. ( 14 ) THE Trial Court has accepted the version of Kamlabai as to apprehension. But bare use of word apprehension does not amount to any sort of fear or intimidation in the mind of a person apprehended, unless the circumstance which resulted in alarming him are explained and are reasonable to be believed. ( 14 ) THE Trial Court has accepted the version of Kamlabai as to apprehension. But bare use of word apprehension does not amount to any sort of fear or intimidation in the mind of a person apprehended, unless the circumstance which resulted in alarming him are explained and are reasonable to be believed. Kamlabai has failed to explain that there was any real apprehension and hence she could not dare to make report to the police or could not intimate her parents or phoopha or neighbourers. There is no evidence on record to show that the threats were accompanied by any gesture, attitude or intentions. She has also failed to explain any such past conduct of her husband/appellant and her in-laws. The apprehension or intimidation should mean anxiety about something in future; fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen to one who is apprehended. Intimidation may not be using actual or direct force but it may be exerted upon the person wronged by operating upon his fears, the fear of injury to his person or character. It is constructive force. The intimidation or apprehension must inspire with fear and thereby compelling to action or inaction. ( 15 ) IN the present case, Kamlabai made cries when her husband/accused hit the child with farsa. She had not explained what cries were made by her, and who heard them, if she made cries that her husband attempted to kill her and her child. Neighbours might have gathered but she barely says that she did cry, this itself shows that the injuries on the person of the deceased were by accident only. ( 16 ) THE accused has examined two witnesses namely, Santosh Kumar Patel (D. W. 1) and Medani prasad Patel (D. W. 2) who say that the child fell on farsa and was injured. However, the evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence because the presence of witnesses is doubtful. These witnesses do not specifically speak about injuries on the person of Kamlabai. ( 17 ) KAMALABAI's statement that the accused caused injuries to her is absolutely unrebutted and to that extent she should be relied upon. ( 18 ) THUS, the total result is that the accused caused hurt to Kamlabai but the prosecution has failed to prove that the intention of the accused was to kill her. ( 17 ) KAMALABAI's statement that the accused caused injuries to her is absolutely unrebutted and to that extent she should be relied upon. ( 18 ) THUS, the total result is that the accused caused hurt to Kamlabai but the prosecution has failed to prove that the intention of the accused was to kill her. The injury is simple in nature and was not on vital part. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused hit farsa blow on Ajay and attempted to cause disappearance of evidence of offence of murder of Ajay or failed to report the incident to police or other authorities. ( 19 ) THE result is that the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentences under Section 324, IPC is maintained and the conviction and sentence under Section 304 (Part II), 202, 201 of the IPC is set aside. ( 20 ) IF the amount of fine is recovered a sum of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred) be paid to Kamlabai, wife of Sunderlal Kushwaha, resident of Bagat (Badwara), P. S. Ramnagar, Distt. Satna. The accused is in jail for about 2 1/2 years. Therefore, if he is not required in any other case, he be released from the jail. .