JUDGMENT : The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 8/1999, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the original papers. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows :- The deceased Vanita was the daughter of one Gurunath Suryawanshi, resident of village Chitta, Tahsil Baswakalyan, District Bider, State of Karnataka. She was given in marriage to appellant prior to six years of the date of incident. The deceased has left behind two daughters. There used to be quarrels between the deceased and the mother of the appellant on petty counts. Due to such quarrels, the deceased was insisting that her husband should live separate from his parents. Due to the dispute in the past, the deceased had returned to the house of parents. The parents of the appellant had visited the house of Gurunath and they had somehow brought the deceased to the matrimonial house. Though the promise was given that there will be not be ill-treatment to the deceased, quarrels again started between the deceased and the mother of the appellant. 3. The incident took place on 14-2-1999 prior to 9.00 a.m. The quarrel started between the deceased and the mother of the appellant. Initially the appellant and his father were not at home and they returned when quarrel was going on. As the deceased started talking with arrogance with the parents of the appellant, they requested the appellant to do something and they said that they would like to live separate from him. The appellant became angry and then he took a pickaxe, hoe and gave three blows on the head of the deceased. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries and she collapsed in the room. The appellant then picked up the daughter aged about one year and he tried to throw the daughter also, but she was somehow rescued. The incident was witnessed by one Vishwanath Kale, who was present in the house of appellant as he was called there to clean she-buffalo. Neighbours also gathered there. The appellant then picked up the daughter aged about one year and he tried to throw the daughter also, but she was somehow rescued. The incident was witnessed by one Vishwanath Kale, who was present in the house of appellant as he was called there to clean she-buffalo. Neighbours also gathered there. One Sitaram Jadhav, resident of the same village was passing by the side of the house of parents of appellant as he had come to temple of Lord Vithal, which is situated by the side of the house of the parents of appellant. He also witnessed the incident. Vanita was shifted to the hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries. 4. As nobody came forward to give report, after learning about the incident, report was given by one Police Officer and the crime was registered. During investigation, the statements of the relatives of the parent's side of the deceased, statements of some neighbours of the appellant and the statements of persons like Sitaram Jadhav and Vishwanath Kale came to be recorded. Appellant came to be arrested. As there were blood stains on his clothes, the clothes were taken over. While in police custody, the appellant gave statement to Investigating Officer that he had kept the weapon in concealed condition in the house. The floor of the room, where the dead body was lying, was already cleaned by the parents of the appellant by using cow dung. The earth mixed with blood was thrown away from the spot. The Investigating Officer recovered the weapon on the basis of statement given by the appellant and the said earth mixed with blood also came to be recovered. There were faint stains of blood on some gunny bags, which were kept in the room and so few gunny bags were taken over. There were faint blood stains on the floor, though attempt was made to clean the floor. That earth mixed with blood was also collected. These articles were sent to C.A. Office. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed for offence of murder against the appellant and for offence punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code against his parents. 5. The Trial Court has acquitted the parents of the appellant, but the appellant is convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence. The Trial Court has believed Sitaram Jadav (PW No. 9). 5. The Trial Court has acquitted the parents of the appellant, but the appellant is convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence. The Trial Court has believed Sitaram Jadav (PW No. 9). Most of the witnesses including father of the deceased turned hostile. 6. In the present proceedings, by filing an application, a request was made to give permission to compound the offence. It was made clear that the offence is not compoundable and so the advocate of the appellant was asked to argue on merits. The application filed for permission to compound the offence is signed by the parents of the deceased. 7. The record shows that defence was taken by the accused that the deceased accidentally fell in the room when she was attempting to do something near the roof of the room. In view of this defence, this Court holds that the evidence of spot panchanama and the evidence regarding the cause of death need to be considered together. The record like inquest panchanama, which is at Exh. 11, is admitted by the defence. Dr. Bhise is examined for proving the P.M. report. The evidence of Dr. Bhise shows that he noticed that there were atleast 3 injuries on the dead body. There were two C.L.W. over scalp at parietal aspect near sagital line and at frontal aspect of right side. These injuries had caused the fracture of frontal bone. There was stitch wound over the left side of forehead. There was depressed fracture of parietal bone and frontal bone left side also. The death took place due to intracranial, subdural haemorahage. The weapon recovered by police, the hoe, was shown to doctor and doctor has given evidence that such weapon can cause the injuries which were found on the dead body. The P.M. report at Exh. 23 is consistent with this substantive evidence. 8. In the cross examination, suggestions were given to doctor (PW No. 5) that the aforesaid injuries can be caused, if a person falls from the height of 7 to 8 fts. on a stony surface. These suggestions are admitted. However, there was no suggestion that all the four injuries can be caused in a single fall. There was no suggestion that such injuries can be caused if a person falls on plain earth surface. 9. Panch witness Dnyanoba Jadhav (PW No. 3) is examined to prove the spot panchanama. on a stony surface. These suggestions are admitted. However, there was no suggestion that all the four injuries can be caused in a single fall. There was no suggestion that such injuries can be caused if a person falls on plain earth surface. 9. Panch witness Dnyanoba Jadhav (PW No. 3) is examined to prove the spot panchanama. The Investigating Officer (PW No. 11) has also given evidence on the spot panchanama. The evidence of spot panchanama shows that the height of the room where the injury was sustained was hardly 7 to 8 feet. There was no arrangement on the beams of the roof for keeping anything or drying etc. There was no reason for deceased to climb up to the roof. If the contents of the spot panchanama are considered, it shows that there were faint stains of blood on the floor, though attempt was made to wipe out the blood by using cow dung. The police collected earth sample mixed with blood from this place. There were blood stains on few gunny bags which were kept in the room. These gunny bags were also taken over and they were sent to C.A. Office. The map of spot of offence is at Exh. 39 and it is proved in the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW No. 11). 10. The appellant never gave report to the police after incident that the deceased had a fall in the room from the roof and she had sustained injuries. If the nature of the injuries is considered which show that there were depressed fractures of frontal bone left, frontal bone right and parietal bone, it can be said that such three injuries which were found on 3 sides of skull cannot cause in a single fall. The floor of the room was not having stony surface. In view of these circumstances, the defence taken during the cross examination for the appellant that the deceased sustained injuries due to simple fall from the roof cannot be believed. No such reasonable probability is created by the accused. Further, there is also direct evidence to show that some incident did take place at the relevant time. This evidence is sufficient to infer that physical force was used, blows of some weapon were given on the head of the deceased and death took place due to giving of such blows. No such reasonable probability is created by the accused. Further, there is also direct evidence to show that some incident did take place at the relevant time. This evidence is sufficient to infer that physical force was used, blows of some weapon were given on the head of the deceased and death took place due to giving of such blows. So, this Court holds that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Vanita died homicidal death. 11. Gurunath (PW No. 4), father of the deceased, has turned hostile, Sunita (PW No. 7), neighbour has turned hostile and important witness Vishwanath Kale (PW No. 8), who was present in the premises of the house of appellant, has also turned hostile. Though the relevant portions from their previous statements are proved in the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW No. 11), this Court is avoiding to discuss the contradictions proved by the prosecution. Prabhakar (PW No. 6), the police officer, has given evidence to prove the report given by him on 15-1-1999 and the report is proved as Exh. 55. After learning about the incident from neighbours, who did not come forward to give report, this report was given by Prabhakar. Such report cannot be ignored altogether in view of the aforesaid circumstances, as it is on the basis of the disclosures immediately made by the witnesses. 12. Sitaram Jadhav (PW No. 9) has given evidence that on that day, he had gone to the temple of Lord Vithal, which is situated by the side of house of appellant. He has deposed that he was returning to the field from the front side of the house of the appellant at about 9-00 a.m. and at that time, he witnessed the incident. He has deposed that he noticed that the parents of the appellant were giving abuses to appellant, by saying that he was not keeping his wife, the deceased, under control and she was behaving in arrogant manner. He has given evidence that he saw that the appellant gave blow of hoe on left side of the head of the deceased and then she collapsed. This assault was made inside of one room of the house. The two rooms of the house are situated at the distance of 20-25 fts. from the road by which this witness was passing. This assault was made inside of one room of the house. The two rooms of the house are situated at the distance of 20-25 fts. from the road by which this witness was passing. He has deposed that appellant then lifted the kid with anger to throw, but his father and others prevented him from doing anything against that kid. He has given evidence that mother in law of the deceased tied stripes on the wound and then auto-rickshaw was called for shifting the deceased to hospital. 13. The defence has examined one witness to create a probability that Sitram Jadhav (PW No. 9) is on enemical terms with the family of appellant. In the cross examination of PW No. 9, it is suggested that his sister was given in marriage to one Prakash and the sister has been missing for many years. This suggestion is admitted. It is suggested to PW No. 9 that Prakash has married with the nice of the accused No. 2 and so the relations are strained. This suggestion is denied. There appears no force in defence taken that they were on enemical terms and due to strained relations, PW No. 9 gave evidence against the appellant. By chance he had gone to that side. The circumstance that police were required to give report needs to be kept in mind. 14. The circumstance, which creates doubt about the aforesaid direct evidence, is the map, which is at Exh. 39. If the distance shown in the map and the location of the doors of the two rooms in the map are considered, it is difficult to believe that the person who was passing by the road could see as to what was happening in the room, where the incident took place. The circumstance that as per medical evidence 3 injuries were sustained and probably 3 blows were given is also not consistent with his version. However, the entire evidence of Sitaram Jadhav cannot be discarded due to these circumstances. There is clear probability that he was passing by that side and he stopped there after hearing the noise of the quarrel and he witnessed some part of the incident. Further, there is more evidence against the present appellant, which is circumstantial in nature. However, the entire evidence of Sitaram Jadhav cannot be discarded due to these circumstances. There is clear probability that he was passing by that side and he stopped there after hearing the noise of the quarrel and he witnessed some part of the incident. Further, there is more evidence against the present appellant, which is circumstantial in nature. So this Court holds that the evidence of Sitaram Jadhav can be considered as circumstantial evidence to show that the appellant was there, quarrel had taken place and during quarrel injury was inflicted to the deceased. The Trial Court has believed this witness. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the finding given by the Trial Court that he was passing by that side at the relevant time and this Court holds that atleast to aforesaid extent this witness can be believed. 15. Govind Dixit (PW No. 2) is examined to prove the statement given by appellant under section 27 of Evidence Act. This witness is declared hostile, but he has admitted his signatures appearing on the memorandum of statement, the panchanama and also on the articles taken over during panchanama. Investigating Officer (PW No. 11) has given evidence on the memorandum of statement and also on the panchanama of seizure of weapon and earth sample mixed with blood. The document at Exh. 18 is duly proved. The evidence of Investigating Officer shows that the weapon hoe and earth mixed with blood came to be recovered on the basis of statement given by appellant to PW No. 11. The evidence of PW No. 11 is consistent with Exh. 18 and also with the seizure panchanama. These articles were sent to C.A. Office. Investigating Officer has given evidence that the clothes of appellant were taken over under the panchanama at Exh. 16. Though, it can be said that even in case of accidental fall, there would have been blood on the clothes of the appellant as the appellant had shifted the deceased to hospital, the other evidence cannot be ignored. 16. Mane (PW NO. 10), the carrier constable, is examined to prove that the aforesaid articles were deposited by him in C.A. Office. The office copy of the covering letter is at Exh. 31 and the relevant C.A. reports are at Exhs. 42 to 44. 16. Mane (PW NO. 10), the carrier constable, is examined to prove that the aforesaid articles were deposited by him in C.A. Office. The office copy of the covering letter is at Exh. 31 and the relevant C.A. reports are at Exhs. 42 to 44. The evidence of Investigating Officer shows that the blood samples were also taken over and the clothes of the deceased were also sent to C.A. Office. The C.A. reports show that blood of group "B" was detected on the weapon and also on the earth sample which was taken over on the basis of statement given under section 27 of Evidence Act by the appellant. The blood of same group was detected on the clothes of the deceased and the C.A. report of blood of deceased at Exh. 43 shows that she was having blood of "B" group. Exh. 44 shows that accused is having blood of "O" group. Blood of the same group, "B" was detected in the earth which was taken over from the spot. These circumstances are consistent with the case of prosecution. There is no explanation as to how the blood of "B" group was present on the hoe, which was away from the spot and which was in concealed condition. 17. The aforesaid evidence shows that there is no force in the defence taken by the appellant that the deceased sustained injuries in accidental fall from roof. The evidence is sufficient to prove that it is the appellant/accused, who inflicted the aforesaid injuries to the deceased. It can be said that the appellant is fortunate as it becomes difficult to bring down the case to one punishable under section 304-II of Indian Penal Code when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and when there is such medical evidence. The State has not challenged this decision. 17-A. Following reported cases were cited for the appellant :- (i) 2000 Cri.L.J. 1566 Bombay High Court, Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (ii) 1992 Cri.L.J. 523 (1) (S.C.) Chandan Lal and ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, (iii) (2006) 12 SCC 306 , Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky vs. State of Punjab, (iv) (2004) 10 SCC 632 , Shankarlal vs. State of Rajasthan, (v) (2009) 9 SCC 719 Jarnail Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab and (vi) AIR 2009 SC 22 , Manoj and anr. vs. State of M.P.. 18. vs. State of Rajasthan, (iii) (2006) 12 SCC 306 , Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky vs. State of Punjab, (iv) (2004) 10 SCC 632 , Shankarlal vs. State of Rajasthan, (v) (2009) 9 SCC 719 Jarnail Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab and (vi) AIR 2009 SC 22 , Manoj and anr. vs. State of M.P.. 18. It was submitted that when two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused should be accepted. There cannot be doubt about this proposition. However, the appellant has not created any reasonable probability in respect of his defence that it was accidental fall. So the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Vikramjit Singh cited supra cannot help the appellant. On the basis of observations made by the Bombay High Court in case of Tulshiram cited supra, it was submitted that when the articles recovered are not sealed immediately, no evidentiary value can be given to such articles. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. In this case, there is not a single circumstance due to which the police machinery needs to be doubted. Everything was within the knowledge of the appellant and section 106 of Evidence Act also can be used against him. The evidence regarding the recovery of weapon is convincing in nature and so this case is of no help to the appellant. In the case of Shankarlal cited supra, the Apex Court has discussed the propriety of conviction when the evidence of sole eye witness is not reliable and when it is inconsistent with the other facts. The facts of each and every case are always different and this Court has come to the conclusion that even if, it is presumed that PW No. 9 had no opportunity to see the actual assault, his evidence can be used as circumstantial evidence and also to show that the incident was taking place when he was present in the vicinity and he could notice subsequent conduct also. The case of Jarnail Singh is also on the point of appreciation of evidence of identification of deceased. For the same reasons, there is no need to discuss the observations made by the Apex Court in the Jarnail Singh's case. 19. For giving permission to compound the offence, reliance was placed on the case of Manoj cited supra. The case of Jarnail Singh is also on the point of appreciation of evidence of identification of deceased. For the same reasons, there is no need to discuss the observations made by the Apex Court in the Jarnail Singh's case. 19. For giving permission to compound the offence, reliance was placed on the case of Manoj cited supra. In this case, there was charge for offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code and the Trial Court had convicted the accused for offence under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. On the day of incident, the offence under section 324 was compoundable and so this case cannot help the appellant. The case of Chandanlal cited supra was cited for taking lenient view. In this case, when there was the conviction under section 304-II of Indian Penal Code, the accused was sentenced to period undergone. The period for which the accused was behind bars in that case cannot be ascertained from the facts mentioned in the reported case. 20. In the present case, though compounding cannot be allowed, this Court holds that somewhat more lenient view can be taken and sentence can be reduced. The appellant is required to take care of his two daughters, which are left behind by the deceased. Relevant facts and circumstances of this case are already discussed and they show the background of the incident. So, this Court holds that if the sentence is further reduced, to the period of three years, it will be just and proper sentence. So the following order. ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The judgment and order of conviction for offence under section 304-II of Indian Penal Code is maintainable, but the sentence is reduced as follows. (i) The appellant/accused to suffer R.I. for three years and he is to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand), in default of payment of fine, he is to suffer R.I. for two months. He is entitled to set off for the period he has already undergone. (ii) He is to surrender his bail bonds. 3. In view of decision in appeal, criminal application for compounding the case is disposed of accordingly.