JUDGMENT :- Appellants, hereinafter referred to as the accused, have approached this Court raising challenge to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani in a, Sessions Trial No.97/2006, decided on 13-02-2009. 2. Accused Nos.1 & 2 Munja and Bhagwan are held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and hi they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, each, for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.3 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, she is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of LP.C.. She is also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The trial Court has directed that substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 3. Victim Ranu Bhagwan Honde is married to accused No.2 Bhagwan. Accused No.1 Munja is elder brother of accused No.1 Bhagwan, whereas accused No.3 Prayagbai is mother of accused Nos.1 and 2. Marriage between victim Ranu and accused No.2 Bhagwan was solemnised some six months prior to the incident. It is stated that some amount was paid towards dowry and there was balance of amount payable by father of bride. It is alleged that accused No.3 had concealed certain golden ornaments offered at the time of marriage and put blame on Ranu, wife of accused No.1 Bhagwan. Later on, ornaments were found in the house of accused No.2. Accused No.2, it is alleged, is causing in treatment to Ranu alleging that Ranu is not paying respect to her mother-in-law by touching her feet. When Ranu was brought to her maternal home at the time of Diwali festival, she complained of ill-treatment by accused. 4. Later on, ornaments were found in the house of accused No.2. Accused No.2, it is alleged, is causing in treatment to Ranu alleging that Ranu is not paying respect to her mother-in-law by touching her feet. When Ranu was brought to her maternal home at the time of Diwali festival, she complained of ill-treatment by accused. 4. According to the informant, on 19-11-2004, while he was at his village, he received one telephonic message that his daughter Ranu is assaulted and is admitted to Civil Hospital, Parbhani. The informant, along with his wife, nephew and other relatives, went to Civil Hospital, Parbhani and found Ranu having sustained injury to her head. Fatherin-law of Ranu was present in the Civil Hospital. The informant alleges that on 1911-2004, at about 1.00 p.m., while his daughter Ranu was working in the field, her husband and brother-in-law i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted her. Accordingly, First Information Report was got recorded at Manvat Police Station on 19-11-2004. On the basis of First Information Report lodged by father of victim Ranu, Crime No.68/2004 was registered for offence punishable under Sections 307, 498A read with Section 34 of I.P.C.. After completing investigation, police presented charge-sheet against accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani. The offence being triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Court vide order dated 21-07-2005. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The defence of accused is of denial. According to them, Ranu sustained injury at the hands of some unknown persons and they are not responsible for causing injury to victim Ranu. 5. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. After recording evidence of prosecution and statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, trial Court held the accused guilty for commission of offences, as noted above and imposed sentence against them. 6. I have heard arguments advanced by Shri. N. K. Kakade, learned Counsel for appellants and Shri. Dilip Bankar Patil, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. The star witnesses examined by prosecution in the matter, to substantiate allegations against accused, are P.W.2 Ranu w/o. Bhagwan, the victim and her father P.W.3 Bhujang Uttamrao Chatte. 6. I have heard arguments advanced by Shri. N. K. Kakade, learned Counsel for appellants and Shri. Dilip Bankar Patil, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. The star witnesses examined by prosecution in the matter, to substantiate allegations against accused, are P.W.2 Ranu w/o. Bhagwan, the victim and her father P.W.3 Bhujang Uttamrao Chatte. That, so far as victim is concerned, it is stated that on receiving injury, she was admitted to Civil Hospital at Parbhani. Her condition was serious, as such, she was shifted to Nandlal Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad, where she was required to undergo surgical treatment. Police, for the first time, recorded statement of the victim on 23-12-2004 almost more than a month after the alleged incident. The charge-sheet in the matter, after completion of investigation, was presented on 23-01-2005 and charge was framed on 21-07-2006. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions and even after faming of the charge, application was tendered on behalf of Police seeking permission to record supplementary statement of victim Ranu. The Court of Sessions accorded permission to record additional statement of victim by the police and accordingly almost three years after presentation of the charge-sheet. supplementary police statement of victim Ranu was recorded on 20-02-2008. Although there is substantially nothing incriminating against the accused in the first statement of victim recorded on 23-12-2004, however, improved version is brought by way of recording supplementary statement during pendency of trial, before the Court of Sessions. The question arises as regards permissibility of the investigating machinery to collect additional evidence and place same before the Court eyen after commencement of trial before the Court of Sessions. 8. P.W.2 Ranu has stated in her deposition that her marriage with accused No.2 was solemnised some four years prior to the incident. Accused No.1 is her brother-in-law and accused No.3 is her mother-in-law. At the time of settlement of marriage, an amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid towards dowry and remaining amount was to be paid after harvesting cotton crop. She further states that for initial period of two months, she was treated well, however, accused thereafter started in treatment. The ill-treatment was on account of non-paying respect by touching feet of accused. She further alleges that whenever she tried to touch feet for paying respect, accused were beating her with kicks. She further states that for initial period of two months, she was treated well, however, accused thereafter started in treatment. The ill-treatment was on account of non-paying respect by touching feet of accused. She further alleges that whenever she tried to touch feet for paying respect, accused were beating her with kicks. In the month of 'Ashadh', her mother-in-law concealed golden ornaments and put blame on her. Thereafter victim went to her parents' home. After she returned back along with her father, her father informed her mother-in-law to search the golden ornaments in her house itself. Thereafter father of the victim left for his village. The golden ornaments were found at the house of accused themselves. She further states that accused No.1 Munja was not residing with the family members since last 8/9 years. However, eight days prior to Diwali, he came to home and started quarrel on account of purchase of truck. There was demand by the accused for an amount of Rs.45,000/- for purchase of truck to the parents of victim. At the time of Diwali festival, she was taken to her maternal home. She stayed with her parents for eight days and thereafter reached at her matrimonial home by her parents. There was once again ill-treatment meted out to her after her return to matrimonial home. It is alleged that on the relevant day, at about 1.00 p.m., while she was plucking cotton, accused No.1 Munja called her at 'dhura' i.e. near the boundary of the field. It is alleged that he snatched her saree ('pallo'). The victim started shouting. However, accused No.1 made her to fell down and tried to outrage her modesty. He also tried to throttle her neck. It is alleged that accused No. 1 assaulted her with brick on her head and she sustained injury on her head and became unconscious. She was thereafter shifted to the hospital at Aurangabad and remained in the hospital for about one month. She contended that after she gained consciousness, she was taken back to her parents' house at Moregaon. She further states that due to throttling, she was unable to talk at that time. In the police statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, she does not give all the details, which have been stated by the victim in her examination-in-chief. She admitted in her cross-examination that she had no quarrel with her husband and his father. She further states that due to throttling, she was unable to talk at that time. In the police statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, she does not give all the details, which have been stated by the victim in her examination-in-chief. She admitted in her cross-examination that she had no quarrel with her husband and his father. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, she had no quarrel with him also, but he used to look to her in anger and thereby she was getting frightened. She has stated in her cross-examination that her first statement was recorded by police at her parents' house. She states that she had stated before the police that dowry amount of Rs.One lac was settled and an amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid and remaining amount was agreed to be paid on cotton crop. She states that she has not stated before the police that accused persons were not providing her food and were asking her to clean utensils, wash clothes, cook food and force her to collect cow dung. She further states that she might not have stated to the police, while recording her statement, that she was not liked by the accused and they were ill-treating her. She cannot provide any reason as to why these statements do not find place in her police statement. Thus, the allegations in respect of ill-treatment are improvements made by the witness before the Court. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that she does not know whether she has stated to the police, while recording her first statement, that her mother-in-law was not allowing her to pay respect by touching her feet and used to assault her by kicks. She also does not remember as to whether she had stated to the police, after return from Aurangabad hospital, that her mother-in-law was telling to the villagers that she was not paying respect to her by touching her feet and assaulting her by kicks. These statements are, as such, improvements in the version .f the witness before the Court. She also states that she had stated before the police, in her first statement, that her mother-in-law concealed golden ornaments and put blame on her. These statements are, as such, improvements in the version .f the witness before the Court. She also states that she had stated before the police, in her first statement, that her mother-in-law concealed golden ornaments and put blame on her. She also alleged to have stated to the police that her father was informed about the allegation and her father came to her matrimonial home and asked her mother-in-law to search for golden ornaments at her residence itself. The attention of the witness was invited to her police statement wherein these facts do not find place. She has stated that she cannot assign any reason as to why those facts are absent in the first statement recorded by the police. The version stated by the witness before the Court is an improvement as her first statement before the police is quite cryptic and does not contain all the facts stated by her before the Court. Her whole deposition before the Court is itself an improved version. 9. So far as occurrence of incident is concerned, P.W.2 Ranu has stated in her cross-examination that she does not remember as to whether she had informed to the police that accused Munja had called her at 1.00 O'clock on the relevant day. She has stated that she cannot assign any reason as to why such fact is not there in her police statement. She states that she stated before the police that accused Munja snatched her saree and thereafter she shouted loudly. Accused Munja made her to fell down and tried to outrage her modesty. He throttled her neck. When it was brought to her notice that all these facts are not appearing in her police statement, she was unable to give any reason for the omissions. Even so far as hitting on her head with the help of brick is concerned, same is also an improvement made by the victim in the deposition made before the Court. The version of victim herself is full of improvements. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on her version stated for the first time before the Court. 10. As recorded earlier, date of incident is 19-11-2004. The First Information Report was lodged by father of the victim on the same day. However, statement of the victim is got recorded on 23-12-2004 i.e. almost after more than one month from the date of occurrence of the incident. 10. As recorded earlier, date of incident is 19-11-2004. The First Information Report was lodged by father of the victim on the same day. However, statement of the victim is got recorded on 23-12-2004 i.e. almost after more than one month from the date of occurrence of the incident. In the first statement recorded by the police, no details are given and police statement is cryptic. The investigation was completed in the matter and charge-sheet came to be presented on 30-012005. After accused were brought before the Court, charge was framed on 21-06- 2006. The prosecution tendered an application at Exhibit28 on 11-01-2008 for further investigation in the matter and for recording supplementary statement of the victim. It is stated in the application that the incident had taken place on 19-11-2004. Her detailed statement could not be recorded as her health condition was not proper. Her previous statement was recorded on 14-01-2005 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., however, recording of the statement could not be completed. Statement of the victim is incomplete and vague. She has now been discharged from the hospital and it is necessary to record her statement before her examination-in-chief as a witness before the Court. The application was opposed by the accused, however, trial Court allowed the application and permitted investigating officer to record statement of the victim. 11. It is to be noted that the victim was discharged from the hospital after about a month and on 14-01-2005, her statement was recorded at the residence of her parents. There were no attempts made by the prosecution from 2005 till 2008 to record supplementary statement of the witness. In the meantime, charge-sheet was also filed in the Court on 3101-2005 and charge was framed .on 21-062006. In these circumstances, question arises as to whether police can be permitted to further investigate into the matter with the aid of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173 of the Code provides for report of police officer on completion of investigation. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 provides thus : "173. In these circumstances, question arises as to whether police can be permitted to further investigate into the matter with the aid of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173 of the Code provides for report of police officer on completion of investigation. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 provides thus : "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." 12. After completion of investigation, police are expected to submit report to the Court without necessary delay. In the instant matter, police have submitted such report on 30-01-2005 itself. Section 193 of the Code provides that the Court of Sessions cannot take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code. The Magistrate has passed committal order in this matter on 21-07-2005. Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the procedure in respect of trials before the Court of Sessions. Section 228 provides for framing of charge. The charge is required to be framed by the Court of Sessions after taking into consideration case of the prosecution and after hearing the Prosecutor as well as the defence. If the Court fin4s that no offence is made out on the basis of record, the Court is empowered to discharge the accused by taking recourse to Section 227 of the Code. In the instant matter, charge is framed against the accused on 2106-2006. Section 173 of the Code invest powers with the Investigating Officer to inquire into the matter even after presentation of final report and the Investigating Officer is invested with the powers to submit a further report or reports regarding such investigation to the Magistrate. In a case triable by the Court of Sessions. Section 173 of the Code invest powers with the Investigating Officer to inquire into the matter even after presentation of final report and the Investigating Officer is invested with the powers to submit a further report or reports regarding such investigation to the Magistrate. In a case triable by the Court of Sessions. on completion of investigation and after presentation of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate is required to commit the case to the Court of Sessions, if the offence is triable by such Court. The stage of investigation is over once the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. Section 207 of the Code provides for supply to the accused copy of the police report and other documents. Accused is entitled to the copies of police report and other documents free of cost. The copies are required to be supplied to the accused so as to make him aware as to what is the material against him. The Magistrate, while passing an order in respect of committal of case, is required to ensure compliance of provisions of Section 207 in respect of providing copies of police report to the accused. While passing an order under Section 209. the Magistrate is expected to send to the Court of Sessions record of the case and documents and articles. if any which are required to be produced in evidence, so also notify the Public Prosecutor of commitment of case to the Court of Sessions. The stage of committal of case to the Court of Sessions is a stage after conclusion of investigation in the matter and it is not contemplated that at such a stage, there can be further investigation into the offence at the hands of police. In any case, in accordance with Section 226 of the Code, the Prosecutor opens the case by describing charge brought against the accused and explaining nature of evidence to prove guilt of the accused. Once the Prosecutor opens case by describing charge brought against the accused, it has to be assumed that trial before the Court of Sessions has commenced. In any case, in accordance with Section 226 of the Code, the Prosecutor opens the case by describing charge brought against the accused and explaining nature of evidence to prove guilt of the accused. Once the Prosecutor opens case by describing charge brought against the accused, it has to be assumed that trial before the Court of Sessions has commenced. The provision in respect of discharge of accused is contained in Section 227 of the Code wherein it has been provided that upon consideration of record of the case and documents submitted and after hearing accused and prosecution in that behalf, if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record reasons for doing so. If the Judge does not discharge the accused, charge is required to be framed after hearing the prosecution and accused. The trial before the Court of Sessions commences with opening of case by the Prosecutor and certainly the stage required to be followed after framing of charge is only recording of evidence. At the stage after framing of the charge, it was not open for the Court of Sessions to resort to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and entertain the application tendered by Investigating Officer for further investigation in the matter. The accused is entitled to know before opening of the case, as to what are the allegations he is required to face and what is the material collected by the prosecution, which can be used against him. It is not provided under the Code in respect of collection of evidence by the investigating machinery after opening of the case by the prosecution and framing of charge at the trial before the Court of Sessions. In my opinion, therefore, learned trial Judge has committed an error in permitting recording of supplementary statement of the star witness in the matter after framing of charge and certainly such statement recorded after more than three years after the incident, cannot be used against the accused. 13. As stated earlier, deposition of the victim herself before the Court is full of omissions and contradictions. The victim has stated the whole story in respect of the incident for the first time before the Court and said story in its entirety, was not stated by her while her first police statement was recorded on 23-122004. 13. As stated earlier, deposition of the victim herself before the Court is full of omissions and contradictions. The victim has stated the whole story in respect of the incident for the first time before the Court and said story in its entirety, was not stated by her while her first police statement was recorded on 23-122004. It was impermissible to refer to her police statement recorded after three and half years of the incident i.e. 18-02-2008. Thus, version of the victim cannot certainly be relied upon for drawing an inference in respect of guilt of the accused. Victim Ranu, in her cryptic statement recorded by police after about a month from the date of incident, has stated about the presence of one Bibee, Satyabhamabai and Kaveri, at the time of occurrence in the field. Bibee is examined as P.W.l by the prosecution. However, she has not supported the prosecution and is declared hostile. Other two persons, namely Satyabhamabai and Kaveri have not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, there is no evidence of eye-witness produced by the prosecution, though available. 14. P.W.3 is Bhagwan, father of victim Ranu. He stated to have lodged First Information Report on 19-11-2004 wherein he has stated that he received telephonic information from one grocery shop owner in respect of assault on his daughter. P.W.3 is resident of Moregaon, taluka Sailu, whereas his daughter's husband is resident of village Rudhi. The alleged incident has taken place at Rudhi. Therefore, the informant had no personal knowledge in respect of the incident. The prosecution has not tried to search out or has not examined the grocery shop owner, who is stated to have informed P.W.3 in respect of happening of incident. This witness has stated about the ill-treatment meted out to his daughter. P.W.3 has stated before' the police that his daughter informed him about the ill-treatment meted out to her. He also stated about the ill-treatment at the hands of her mother-in-law on account of not paying her respect by touching her feet. The witness has also stated about the incident of concealment of golden ornaments by mother-in-law of his daughter and putting blame on her (daughter), which incident is stated to have been informed by his daughter to him. So far as occurrence of incident on 19-11-2004 is concerned, the witness has stated that on the relevant day, he was in his field. So far as occurrence of incident on 19-11-2004 is concerned, the witness has stated that on the relevant day, he was in his field. His nephew came there and informed that there is telephonic call received at the residence informing that someone has assaulted his daughter in the field. Accordingly P.W.3 along with his wife, nephew and other relatives, went to Civil HospitaL Parbhani, by jeep. Father-in-law of his daughter was present in the hospital. He asked father-in-law of his daughter about the incident. He told that his daughter was working in the field along with four women. At that time, someone assaulted her and he does not know who assaulted her. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he inquired with the persons of village Rudhi by taking them in confidence. He has been informed that accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted his daughter. The witness has further stated that his daughter was shifted to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad and her father-in-law was all the while in the hospital along with her for onemonth and eight days. In the crossexamination. P.W.3 has stated that father-inlaw of his daughter had spent about Rs.l,50,OOOI- for the treatment of victim Ranu. The inconsistency in the police statement and deposition before the Court in respect of receiving information by P.W.3 in respect of occurrence of incident on 19-11-2004 has been brought on record. In his statement before the police, P.W.3 states that he received telephonic information from the grocery shop owner, whereas, in his examination-in-chief, P.W.3 has stated that he made inquiries in village Rudhi and thereafter he came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for assault. It has not been brought on record by the prosecution as to who are the persons who have disclosed information in respect of complicity of accused Nos.1 and 2 to P.W.3 i.e. father of victim. There e many improvements made by the witness which are brought on record during the cross-examination. The witness has stated that he has stated, while recording his complaint, that before marriage of his daughter, dowry amount of Rs.1, 10,000/- was settled and he paid an amount of Rs.65,000/- at the time of marriage and remaining amount was agreed to be paid after harvesting 'tur' and cotton crop. The witness has stated that he has stated, while recording his complaint, that before marriage of his daughter, dowry amount of Rs.1, 10,000/- was settled and he paid an amount of Rs.65,000/- at the time of marriage and remaining amount was agreed to be paid after harvesting 'tur' and cotton crop. He also contends that he has stated before the police that initially his daughter was treated well for two months and thereafter accused persons started ill-treating her. The disclosure made by the witness in his deposition that his daughter (Ranu) informed him in the Civil Hospital that her mother-in-law is ill-treating her by not allowing her to pay respect by touching her feet and she was extended beating by kicks whenever she tried to touch feet as a mark of respect. It is also stated by the witness that he has stated before the police in respect of incident of loss of golden ornaments. However, all these details do not find place in the complaint recorded by the police at the instance of P.W.3. All these are improvements made by the witness and all these facts are stated for the first time before the Court. It is not necessary to give all the details in respect of omissions in the statement of the witness. However, so far as incident in question is concerned, the witness has stated, while recording cross-examination, that he had informed the police while recording his complaint that he inquired with the villagers of village Rudhi by taking them in confidence and he was informed that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the persons who have assaulted his daughter. However, these material facts alleged to have been stated by the witness while recording the complaint do not find place in the First Information Report. All the details stated by the witness before the Court are deposited by him for the first time before the Court and those details do not find place either in the complaint or in the second statement recorded by the police. The supplementary statement of the witness is recorded by the police on 08-12-2004, which is, obviously an improved version and cannot be taken into account. 15. Apart from the evidence of victim and her father, the prosecution has examined Dr. Madhavan Menon, who had treated the victim at Seth Nandlal Dhool Hospital at Aurangabad. Dr. Menon is a Consultant Neuro Surgeon. 15. Apart from the evidence of victim and her father, the prosecution has examined Dr. Madhavan Menon, who had treated the victim at Seth Nandlal Dhool Hospital at Aurangabad. Dr. Menon is a Consultant Neuro Surgeon. This witness has stated about the case history recorded in medical papers. As per the case history recorded at the time of admission of patient, the injury is alleged to have been caused as a result of assault by unknown persons while working in the field. The Referral Card Exhibit-62 contains the case history wherein it has been recorded that "history of assault by somebody". The Medical Officer has proved contents of document Exhibit-62, which is a Referral Card. Thus, at the time of admission of the patient, case history, "assault by unknown persons" was given. As per MLC sheet, the patient was brought to the hospital by Bhujangrao Chatte i.e. father of the victim. In the MLC sheet, while describing injury details, it is noted that patient alleged to have been assaulted when was working in the own farm, by unknown persons. The MLC sheet bears thumb impression of the person admitting her. Similar history is recorded in the Referral card, which is issued by Civil Hospital, Parbhani. If version of P.W.3 Bhujang is to be believed, he definitely would have disclosed the reason for cause of injury at the time of admission of the patient or while giving Medico Legal history. However, while admitting the patient at Civil Hospital, Parbhani or while admitting at Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad, history of the patient was recorded as "assault by some unknown persons". The version stated by P.W.3, father of victim, in such circumstances, that accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for causing injury to his daughter, does not appear to be acceptable; and reasonable inference can be drawn that the allegations are made by parents of the victim and victim herself at a belated stage and the story put forward implicating the accused is after thought. 16. Considering totality of the evidence and on careful consideration of material collected by the prosecution and on consideration of the reasons recorded by trial Court in respect of order of conviction, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish complicity of the accused in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 17. 16. Considering totality of the evidence and on careful consideration of material collected by the prosecution and on consideration of the reasons recorded by trial Court in respect of order of conviction, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish complicity of the accused in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 17. For the reasons stated above, appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 1302-2009, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.9? I 2006 is quashed and set aside. Accused appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Accused-appellants No.1 & 2 Munja s/o. Pandurang Ronde and Bhagwan s/o. Pandurang Ronde be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. Bail bond of accused - appellant no.3 Prayagabai w/o. Pandurang Ronde stand cancelled. Fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to accused-appellants. Appeal allowed.