JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal the appellants take exception to judgment and order dated 30th July, 2005 passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.504 of 2001 convicting the appellants/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. One Thousand each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the second count, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.Five Hundred each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on third count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Hundred each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the fourth count. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under : Deceased Savita married accused No.2 Sanjay on 10.05.1999 and went to her matrimonial house after the marriage. Accused No.1 Motiram accused No.3 Laxmibai and accused No.4 Leelabai, the father, mother and sister respectively of her husband were residing along with the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of settlement of marriage the accused had demanded amount of Rs. Sixty Thousand as dowry. The father of the deceased paid Rs.Thirty Two Thousand, fifteen days before the marriage. After the marriage the accused used to harass and illtreat the deceased on the ground that they had received much less amount towards dowry at the time of marriage. The deceased used to inform the members of her family about the alleged harassment on the part of the accused as and when she came to the house of her parents. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused purchased plot at Tarsa and started construction of new house and as such they were in need of money and hence, they continued illtreatment and harassment of deceased. Accused No.4, though married, was staying with her parents and brother. All the accused hatched a plan on the intervening night of 04.05.2001 and 05.07.2001 and caused death of Sarita by strangulation by means of nylon rope. Accused No.4, though married, was staying with her parents and brother. All the accused hatched a plan on the intervening night of 04.05.2001 and 05.07.2001 and caused death of Sarita by strangulation by means of nylon rope. The family members of deceased were informed about the death and they came to the house of the accused and saw dead body of Savita in the verandah of the house. They saw ligature mark on the neck of Savita and also saw black marks on her thigh and knee. Since Savita was not ill and her death had occurred all of a sudden her mother Girijabai P.W. 3 lodged report Exh.19 at Kanhan Police Station requesting the police to make necessary inquiry. On the basis of the said report Merg was registered and inquiry was conducted by P.S.I. Y.S. Deshmukh. He visited the place of incident and performed spot panchnama Exh.23 and inquest panchnama Exh.24 in the presence of panchas and sent dead body for post mortem examination. Post Mortem on the dead body of Savita was conducted by Dr.Manju Rathi P.W. 9. 4. On 06.07.2001 Yadaorao P.W. 2 father of deceased lodged report Exh.16 against all the accused. Pursuant to the said report offences under Section 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused. The investigation was taken up. Clothes and ornaments on the person of deceased were seized. Dr. Rathi who conducted postmortem examination opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia by strangulation. In course of investigation statements of several persons were recorded. The accused were arrested on 06.07.2001. At the instance of accused No.4 Leelabai nylon rope used in the crime was recovered pursuant to the memorandum recorded at Exh.42. The nylon rope was seized under the seizure panchnama Exh.43. The nylon rope was also sent to medical officer for opinion, who opined that ligature marks on the neck of the deceased could have been due to strangulation by means of said rope. The Muddemal seized was sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis. After completion of the investigation police filed chargesheet against all the accused under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Muddemal seized was sent to Chemical Analyser for analysis. After completion of the investigation police filed chargesheet against all the accused under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences under Section 302 and 304B of the Penal Code being exclusively triable by the Court of Session the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Session. In Sessions Trial No. 504 of 2001 charge was framed against all the accused under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial. Their defence was that Savita was not happy as the construction of the house at Tarsa was stopped by the accused and further she did not conceive and as such under mental pressure she might have decided to commit suicide. Accused No.4 claimed that Savita committed suicide as she had no issue. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that all the offences were proved against the accused and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 5. Mr. Manohar learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ accused submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime and the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offences for which they have been convicted by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that the medical evidence clearly suggests that the death of Sarita could be either homicidal or suicidal and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to establish conclusively that the death of deceased Savita was homicidal. He further submitted that the only circumstance that dead body of Savita was found in verandah is not sufficient to connect the accused with the offences for which they have been convicted. The learned counsel further submitted that the demand of dowry by the accused has not been proved and the prosecution witnesses have given different versions regarding demand of dowry which renders the same doubtful. He further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for commission of the crime which ought to have been proved since the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for commission of the crime which ought to have been proved since the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence on record clearly suggests that suicide by Savita was probable since she was short tempered and she did not have any issue. He further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution itself suggests that the rope, allegedly seized at the instance of accused No.4 and the rope which was identified by Dr. Rathi P.W. 9 was not one and the same, which clearly creates doubt about recovery of the rope at the instance of accused No.4. He further submitted that the investigation is casual and the evidence led by the prosecution is insufficient to implicate the accused in the crime. The learned counsel further submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record that during the intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001 accused Nos. 1 to 3 were present in the house. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no reference of demand of dowry in the report Exh. 16 filed by father of the deceased. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the tests laid down by the Apex Court in a case based on circumstantial evidence are not satisfied and as such all the accused are entitled to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions : 1) Ramesh Kumar V. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 945 . 2) Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1990 SC 79 . 6. Per contra Mrs. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the medical evidence clearly suggests that death of Savita was homicidal and Savita died on account of strangulation. She further submitted that recovery of rope at the instance of accused No.4 is a clinching circumstance which clearly connects the accused, more particularly accused No.4, with commission of the crime. She further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record that Savita committed suicide and as such the defence of the accused is an afterthought. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is cogent and reliable evidence regarding demand of dowry, tendered by the prosecution through P. W. Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. She further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record that Savita committed suicide and as such the defence of the accused is an afterthought. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is cogent and reliable evidence regarding demand of dowry, tendered by the prosecution through P. W. Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that admittedly all the accused were staying in the house along with deceased Savita and as such their conduct in not reporting her death to police clearly proves their complicity in the commission of crime. According to the learned A.P.P. there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the defence of suicide by Savita and as such heavy burden lies upon the accused to establish as to in what manner Savita met her death, which has not been discharged by the accused which clearly establishes their complicity in the commission of the crime. In support of her submission Mrs. Joshi relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2006)10 SCC 681 . 7. In rejoinder, Mr. Manohar submitted that failure to give explanation for all incriminating circumstances by the accused can be used as an additional circumstance against the accused. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of the submission : (i) Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 2193 (ii) Ajay Singh v. State of Maharahstra 2007 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and the judgments relied upon by them. 9. Before analyzing the evidence, we would first like to deal with the medical evidence tendered by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, death of Savita was homicidal and she was strangulated by the accused during the intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001. In order to prove the homicidal death of Savita the prosecution examined P.W. 9 Dr. Manju Rathi who was attached to Rural Hospital, Kamptee in the year 2001. She deposed that on 06.07.2001 she conducted post mortem on the dead body of Savita Sanjay Bhongade, which was brought to the hospital. She found one ligature mark on the neck of deceased Savita which was antemortem. The cause of death was asphyxia which could be due to strangulation. She deposed that on 06.07.2001 she conducted post mortem on the dead body of Savita Sanjay Bhongade, which was brought to the hospital. She found one ligature mark on the neck of deceased Savita which was antemortem. The cause of death was asphyxia which could be due to strangulation. She identified her signature on post mortem report Exh.51 and confirmed its contents as correct. She also stated that she had prepared query report at the request of Kanhan Police. She identified signature on the report Exh.52. She also identified rope which was shown to her which she had examined. In cross-examination she denied that there was no requisition letter sent by police for examination of rope and for conducting post mortem. She admitted that body was in decomposed state and whole skin of the body was erupted. She stated that the width of the ligature mark was 2 cm. She admitted that whenever ligature mark is used in strangulation or hanging its force is applied on skin and the skin is inverted 2/3 of the width of ligature depending upon the force and that if that much force is applied then only asphyxia appears. She further stated that the diameter of the ligature was of 5 cm. and it was not necessary that if the ligature of such width was used then mark found on the body would be of 4 cm in width but ligature may be of 3 cm. or 4 cm in diameter or width. She candidly admitted that she did not carryout post mortem in respect of hanging matters. She admitted that in case of hanging the rope enters in the skin of the neck because of weight of the body and in such cases back portion of the rope looses which is because of pressure of front side and in such circumstances there may not be ligature mark on the posterior side. She admitted that she had not noticed ligature mark on the back side or posterior side of the neck. She admitted that if a person is strangulated from front side only having the rope on both sides in the hands of assailant without taking it around the neck then mark will be on frontal side and it will not extend up to ear pinna. She admitted that if a person is strangulated from front side only having the rope on both sides in the hands of assailant without taking it around the neck then mark will be on frontal side and it will not extend up to ear pinna. She admitted that if the strangulation is by ligature around the neck by knot then there will be ligature mark around the neck. She admitted that she did not notice both the above strangulations in the present matter. She admitted that ligature mark as found in the present case could be of hanging. She also admitted that in the post mortem report, earlier, hanging was written while giving opinion, but subsequently she found that it was strangulation and therefore, the strangulation was written. She admitted that in hanging and strangulation symptoms are same but the marks are different and that hanging also includes strangulation and strangulation could be by different means. She denied that she had scored the word ‘hanging’ in post mortem report and subsequently written the word ‘strangulation’ on the say of police. 10. Close scrutiny of the above evidence discloses that the death of Savita could have been either on account of strangulation or hanging. The evidence also discloses that the body was in a decomposed state and whole skin of the body was erupted. The post mortem was admittedly carried out on 06.07.2001 at 12.00 noon and the dead body was received in the hospital on 05.07.2001 at 7.45 p.m. The case of the prosecution that Savita met homicidal death on intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001 is difficult to be believed since in case the death was caused during the intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001 the body would not have been in decomposed state on 06.07.2001. Moreover, the evidence also does not rule out the possibility of death being caused on account of hanging. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to establish comprehensively that Savita died homicidal death during the intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001. We find that the evidence of Dr. Manju Rathi is far from satisfaction and no attempts have been made either by the prosecution to find out the real cause of death of Savita. Another important aspect which needs to be mentioned is that there is absolutely no evidence led by the prosecution to prove the exact time of death. We find that the evidence of Dr. Manju Rathi is far from satisfaction and no attempts have been made either by the prosecution to find out the real cause of death of Savita. Another important aspect which needs to be mentioned is that there is absolutely no evidence led by the prosecution to prove the exact time of death. This was necessary, more particularly having regard to the fact that the charge against the accused was deceased Savita was done to death on the intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001. We find that in number of matters the prosecution does not take care to get all the relevant details from the medical experts regarding cause and time of death which assumes importance to fix the complicity of the accused in the crime. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not bothered to ask the relevant questions to Dr. Rathi to find out the exact cause of death and time of death of Savita. It is settled law that even the prosecution or the defence does not ask the medical expert all the questions which are relevant for deciding the cause and time of death, the Judge presiding over the trial is expected to discharge his duty. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the death of Savita was homicidal. 11. No doubt, even if the death of Savita was not homicidal the accused would be liable for punishment under Section 304B if the ingredients of the said section are established, even if it is established that the deceased had committed suicide. Section 304B reads thus : “304B : Dowry Death : (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation – For the purpose of this subsection, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). Explanation – For the purpose of this subsection, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 12. Next question which arises for consideration whether the offence under Section 304B is made out by the prosecution against the accused? Even if the defence of the accused that deceased committed suicide is accepted the prosecution is obliged to prove that it was a dowry death in terms of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In order to find out whether the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 304B are made out against the accused the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 will have to be analyzed. 13. The prosecution has examined Yadeorao Dhangare (P.W.2) father of the deceased, Girijabai Dhangare (P.W.3) mother of the deceased, Sunita Khergade (P.W.5) sister of the deceased, Punjabrao Khergade (P.W. 6) husband of Sunita. P.W. 2 Yadeorao lodged report Exh.16 at Police Station, Kanhan. He deposed that deceased Savita married Sanjay on 10.05.1999 and after the marriage she was residing with accused No.1 to 4. Initially before the marriage demand of Rs.60,000/was made by way of dowry by accused No.1 but he expressed his inability to pay the said amount and it was agreed to pay Rs.32,000/which was paid fifteen days prior to the date of marriage. He further deposed that his daughter told his wife that Leelabai used to illtreat her. Thereafter the deceased along with her husband went to attend marriage at Gondia on 19.04.2001 and on way back they came to their house. At that time since he was ill and was admitted in the hospital at Kamptee. At the hospital deceased reported to him that her husband and his parents used to illtreat her and tell her that an amount of Rs.Twenty Five Thousand which was to be given in dowry was not given. He promised to sort out the issue. Thereafter on 05.07.2001 they received a telephonic message that his daughter had expired. Accordingly all of them went to Kanhan at the house of the accused and saw dead body of Savita. They saw that tongue had came out of her mouth and her lips were blackish. He promised to sort out the issue. Thereafter on 05.07.2001 they received a telephonic message that his daughter had expired. Accordingly all of them went to Kanhan at the house of the accused and saw dead body of Savita. They saw that tongue had came out of her mouth and her lips were blackish. They also observed some injury marks on her neck and black marks on her leg and thigh. Panchnama was drawn up. The witness further deposed that since the amount was not paid Savita was killed by the accused. They thereafter performed her last rites. He lodged report Exh.16. He identified his signature on report Exh.16 as well as printed F.I.R. Exh.17 and confirmed their contents as correct. In cross-examination he admitted that initially his wife had lodged report and at that time his statement was recorded by the police. He deposed that he gave report on the next day which was written by the police. He further deposed that his daughter did not report to him about the illtreatment. He admitted that during lifetime of Savita no report was lodged against the accused. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not illtreated by the accused. The witness denied the suggestion put on behalf of accused No.4 that deceased Savita was nervous and used to remain under tension and since she did not deliver child she committed suicide and that is why the report was not lodged immediately. 14. Smt. Girijabai, P.W.3 deposed on similar line about the illtreatment. She identified report Exh.19 lodged on 05.07.2001 at Police Station, Kanhan. In cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos. 1 to 3 she stated that she had told the police that Savita was tortured by the accused for the dowry and that she might have been killed for dowry. The witness was confronted with the statement made before the police wherein she had not stated so. She denied suggestion that Savita had committed suicide and therefore, no report was lodged soon after her death. In cross-examination on behalf of accused No.4 she stated that she had told the police that at the time of settlement of marriage the accused demanded Rs.60,000/but it was settled at Rs.32,000/however, she could not assign any reason for not recording this fact in her report. She admitted suggestion that since Savita did not conceive she was given treatment at Prabhat Hospital, Kamptee. She admitted suggestion that since Savita did not conceive she was given treatment at Prabhat Hospital, Kamptee. She denied the suggestion that Savita was behaving indifferently because she did not conceive. 15. P.W. 5 Sunita, sister of the deceased, deposed that accused used to quarrel with the deceased and told her that Rs.32,000/was given in marriage and she should bring remaining amount since the amount of Rs.60,000/was demanded at the time of marriage. She also deposed that on 05.07.2001 she along with her husband went to the house of the accused and she saw dead body of Savita and she saw that tongue of Savita came out of her mouth and it was black and also seen blackish mark on her neck. In cross-examination on behalf of accused No.4 she denied the suggestion that since Savita did not conceive she was mentally disturbed and therefore, she committed suicide. Evidence of P.W. 6 Punjabrao Khergade, discloses that his wife Sunita had reported to him about the illtreatment received by the deceased. He categorically stated that Savita has not told him anything. 16. Close scrutiny of the evidence of above four witnesses discloses that the prosecution has not been able to establish by cogent evidence that deceased Savita was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. In order to attract Section 304B it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Since the prosecution has failed to establish by cogent evidence that deceased Savita was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry, in our considered opinion ingredients of Section 304B of the Penal Code have not been established by the prosecution. 17. No doubt, the death of Savita in the matrimonial house was in suspicious circumstances but in the absence of any evidence that there was any illtreatment of Savita in connection with dowry, even if the death of Savita is held to be suicidal, still ingredients of Section 304B are not attracted. Mere death of Savita in suspicious circumstances in the matrimonial house, without establishing any cruelty on account of dowry, would not attract Section 304B of the Penal Code. 18. There is one aspect which requires to be dealt with. Mere death of Savita in suspicious circumstances in the matrimonial house, without establishing any cruelty on account of dowry, would not attract Section 304B of the Penal Code. 18. There is one aspect which requires to be dealt with. The prosecution has relied upon recovery of rope at the instance of the accused No.4 pursuant to memorandum statement Exh.42 and seizure of the rope pursuant to seizure panchnama Exh.43. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has not chosen to examine any panch witness to prove recovery and seizure of rope, which, according to the prosecution, was done in presence of the panchas. It is only the Investigating Officer P.W. 8 Yadaorao Deshmukh who deposed about discovery of rope from the house of the accused and its seizure pursuant to memorandum of statement Exh.42 and seizure panchnama Exh.42. His evidence does not disclose that the rope was seized pursuant to the statement made by accused No.4 Leelabai from a particular place in the house of the accused. Moreover, in terms of seizure panchnama Exh.42 rope which was seized was 40 inches in length and ½ inch in diameter. P.W. 9 Dr. Manju Rathi to whom the Investigating Officer claimed to have referred the rope for her opinion, has relied upon the Medico Legal Certificate Exh.52 dated 16.07.2001 in which length of the rope has been shown to be 102 cm. with diameter of 5 cm. The doctor has identified the rope which was sent to her, which is admittedly having diameter of 5 cm. There is absolutely no explanation for this discrepancy. Therefore, nonexamination of panch witnesses and the discrepancy in description of the rope creates serious doubt about the discovery and seizure of the rope at the instance of accused No.4. 19. We would like to deal with another aspect. In terms of memorandum Exh.42 (though not proved by the prosecution). It was accused No.4 alone who has committed murder by strangulating deceased Savita. We fail to understand as to how the prosecution could rope in all the accused if it was the case of prosecution itself that it was accused No.4 who committed murder of Savita. 20. In terms of memorandum Exh.42 (though not proved by the prosecution). It was accused No.4 alone who has committed murder by strangulating deceased Savita. We fail to understand as to how the prosecution could rope in all the accused if it was the case of prosecution itself that it was accused No.4 who committed murder of Savita. 20. It is pertinent to note that Investigating Officer Yadeorao Deshmukh (P.W.8) admitted in his cross-examination that during the course of investigation he has visited C.P. Foundry where accused No.2 was working as Security Guard and upon verification of documents he came to know that Sanjay was on duty during the night of the incident. Therefore, we fail to understand as to how accused No.2 could have been roped in for commission of murder of his wife which, according to the prosecution itself, was committed during the intervening night of 04.07.2001 and 05.07.2001. No doubt, the prosecution evidence, more particularly that of P.W. 1, which discloses that the dead body of Savita was shown by accused No.4 in the morning of 05.07.2001, raises strong suspicion against accused No.4 Leelabai but in absence of cogent evidence that the death of Savita was homicidal it is extremely difficult to sustain conviction of Leelabai for all the offences for which she has been convicted by the learned trial Court. In so far as accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to establish their complicity in commission of offences under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 201 of the Penal Code. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A it is settled law that harassment of a woman must be in connection with dowry. The prosecution has not been able to establish any harassment to Savita on account of dowry. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 498A is also not made out against the accused. We would also like to mention that the Investigating Officer has not deposed as to the details of the investigation carried out by him and what were the materials on the basis of which he filed the charge sheet against all the accused. This was absolutely necessary since the case rests on circumstantial evidence. 21. We would also like to mention that the Investigating Officer has not deposed as to the details of the investigation carried out by him and what were the materials on the basis of which he filed the charge sheet against all the accused. This was absolutely necessary since the case rests on circumstantial evidence. 21. We shall now deal with the authority in the case of Trimukh Kirkan (supra) relied upon by Mrs.Joshi in support of her submission that since the death has taken place in the house of the accused, they being occupants of the house, are bound to offer explanation for unnatural death of Savita. In the case of Trimukh a Division Bench of Aurangabad Bench of this Court set aside acquittal of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and convicted him for causing murder of his wife Revata. It was the case of the appellant himself that his wife had died due to snakebite and the place of incident was shown by the appellant himself. The post mortem conducted on the dead body of Revata disclosed that she had died due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck. In the said case there was evidence on behalf of the prosecution that there was demand for dowry by the appellant from the parents of the deceased. In this factual background, the Apex Court, placing reliance upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the appellant was bound to offer explanation for death of his wife which was homicidal. In the present case, we have already held that the prosecution has not been able to conclusively prove that the death of Savita was homicidal and the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence of cruelty to Savita by the accused on account of demand of dowry. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh would be of no assistance to the prosecution. 22. Thus, upon reappreciation of the entire evidence we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code against the appellants/ accused, therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted of all the said offences. 23. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. 23. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2005, passed by 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicting and sentencing the appellants / accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code is quashed and set aside and the appellants/ accused are acquitted of all the offences for which they were charged. Bail bonds of appellant Nos.1 and 3 who are on bail, shall stand cancelled. Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 are ordered to be set at liberty if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants / accused shall be refunded to them.