JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J.: 1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2007 Original Accused No.1., who stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections : a. 302 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for life.; b. 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for three months., and c. 201 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in lieu thereof, Simple Imprisonment for three months., and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2007 Original Accused No.3., who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which, further Simple Imprisonment for three months, by the learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Chandrapur, vide Judgment dated 31st March, 2007 in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2003, by this appeal, question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Judgment of the Trial Court, they are being decided by this common judgment. Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of these appeals, may be stated thus:- 2. PW 14 Sarangadhar Nawalkar, Police Sub- Inspector, who was attached to City Police Station, Chandrapur, on 8th April, 2003, recorded the oral report of PW 10 Sunil Bais at Exh.174 in connection with death of the wife of the appellant - Amarsingh. Based on the said report, accidental death was registered vide Exh.190. Upon registration of accidental death, PW 14 PSI Nawalkar went to the scene of the incident, namely the house of the appellants in Bazar Ward, Chandrapur. On reaching the spot of incident, PW 14 PSI Nawalkar found the dead body of Kiran Bais. Accordingly, in the presence of Panchas, an Inquest Panchanama at Exh. 112 and then Scene of the Incident Panchanama Exh.110. were drawn. The dead body was referred for autopsy under a requisition at Exh.176. The printed proforma is at Exh. 191. 3. On the same night, PW 3-Munnibai Rathod, mother of deceased Kiran, came to the Police Station and lodged her oral report against the accused at Exh. 146. 112 and then Scene of the Incident Panchanama Exh.110. were drawn. The dead body was referred for autopsy under a requisition at Exh.176. The printed proforma is at Exh. 191. 3. On the same night, PW 3-Munnibai Rathod, mother of deceased Kiran, came to the Police Station and lodged her oral report against the accused at Exh. 146. On the basis of said report of PW 3 Munnibai, Crime No. 61/03 for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The printed First Information Report is at Exh.192. The accused were arrested under Arrest Panchanamas at Exhs.193 to 198. Statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter investigation was handed over to PW 13 PSI Omprakash Kokate. 4. PW 13 PSI Kokate, who was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.61/03 wrote a letter Exh. 185. to the Medical Officer making a query as to whether death of deceased was possible by use of a saree as a ligature. The saree and the electric wire were also forwarded to the Medical Officer. The opinion of the Medical Officer expressing that the ligature mark could be caused due to saree is at Exh.179. The original Accused No.7 Amarsingh Thakur was absconding. Therefore, upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against other accused. 5. Post-mortem on the dead body of Kiran was performed by PW 11 Dr. Raju Shende who noticed a ligature mark on the neck just above the thyroid cartilage extending upwards, backwards and oblique. The ligature mark measured 20 cm x 1 cm. Both the nostrils and mouth were found to have bleeding discharge. The fingers of the dead body turned bluish. On internal examination, the said medical witness found parchment-like subcutaneous tissues, patichial haemorrhages to intima of the carotid artery and congestion of all the internal organs. PW 11 Dr. Shende, therefore, opined that the injuries were antemortem and were sufficient to cause death in normal circumstances. He has further opined that Kiran died of asphyxia due to pressure on the neck. The Postmortem Report is at Exh.177. Dr. Shende states that as per his opinion at Exh. 178, he opined that the wire produced before him could not be the cause for the ligature mark. He has further opined that Kiran died of asphyxia due to pressure on the neck. The Postmortem Report is at Exh.177. Dr. Shende states that as per his opinion at Exh. 178, he opined that the wire produced before him could not be the cause for the ligature mark. The said medical witness further opined at Exh.179 that the saree could have been used for the ligature mark. 6. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court, vide Exh.45, framed charge against the appellants and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, and 498-A, 304, 201 all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants and other accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined fourteen witnesses, while the defence of the accused is of denial. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as afore stated, however, acquitted the other accused. 8. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 9. To prove the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, prosecution has examined PW 3 Munnibai, mother of deceased Kiran, who states that Kiran was married to appellant on 15th May, 2002 at Narkhed. Kiran is alleged to have died on 8th April, 2003, i.e., within less than a year of her marriage. Munnibai further states that PW 6 Sanjaysingh Bais was one of the mediators in the settlement of the marriage. Munnibai deposes that at the time of marriage, cash of Rs. 41,000/-, a golden chain, a golden ring, and a wrist watch were given to the appellant. She had presented golden ear rings and a nose ring to her daughter Kiran. A Sofa-set, cooler, cot, dressing table and an almirah were also presented to the appellant. Munnibai further states that after the marriage, in the beginning, Kiran was treated well; but thereafter Kiran informed her that the accused were demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of goods for the shop. A Sofa-set, cooler, cot, dressing table and an almirah were also presented to the appellant. Munnibai further states that after the marriage, in the beginning, Kiran was treated well; but thereafter Kiran informed her that the accused were demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of goods for the shop. She states that the appellant had accompanied Kiran to her house and he stayed there for about four days. When Kiran had thereafter visited her house on the eve of Diwali, that time also, she had disclosed that the accused used to ill-treat, and were asking her to bring an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Kiran was, however, reached to the house of the appellant about twelve days prior to the incident. Munnibai states that when she accompanied Kiran to her house, Accused No.3 Aruna, i.e., Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2007, did not allow Kiran to enter the house, and enquired from her as to whether she had brought the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. At the said time, appellant Aruna abused and pushed Kiran. Munnibai states that she was also abused and pushed by accused no.3. Accused No.3 also eqnquired from Munnibai as to whether she brought Rs.50,000/-. Munnibai further states that two days thereafter, namely on eighth, she received a message from Accused No.1 about death of Kiran. Munnibai, therefore, went to Chandrapur and visited the house of the appellant. She found a ligature mark on the neck of Kiran. She further states that on the next day, she lodged a report in connection with the incident. In cross-examination, omission has been duly elicited and proved that Munnibai had not stated that the accused no.3 enquired from Kiran about Rs.50,000/-, and had asked her to enter the house only if she had brought the said amount. Omission has also been elicited and proved that Munnibai had not stated in her report that appellant Aruna had asked Munnibai whether an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was brought by her. 10. PW 5 Rameshsingh Shikarwar, brother of PW 3 Munnibai, also states about Kiran disclosing to him that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was being demanded by the accused and accused nos. 1 to 3 were ill-treating her. Rameshsingh further states that twelve days prior to the incident, he had met accused nos. 1 and 5 in the market at Narkhed where accused no.1 had demanded Rs. 1 to 3 were ill-treating her. Rameshsingh further states that twelve days prior to the incident, he had met accused nos. 1 and 5 in the market at Narkhed where accused no.1 had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of goods for his shop. He states that on his return to home, Kiran had disclosed him that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the accused and she was ill-treated. In cross-examination, PW 5 Rameshsingh has admitted that the list of the articles given in the marriage of Kiran was prepared. He has admitted that the said list is available with him. He has further admitted to have not given that list to the police. In further cross-examination, omissions have been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement to the police that :- a. There was a demand of Rs.50,000/- at the time of settlement of the marriage. b. It was decided to give a motor cycle, sofa etc. c. He had given Rs.40,000/-. d. Kiran had informed him over telephone that the accused were demanding Rs. 50,000/-. e. About twelve days prior to the incident, Kiran had disclosed him that the accused were demanding Rs. 50,000/-. PW 5 - Rameshsingh has further admitted that the amount paid as a dowry, price of motor cycle and the amount for purchasing other articles was not withdrawn from the Bank. He has admitted that he has an account in the Bank. 11. Prosecution has also examined PW 6 - Sanjaysingh Bais, the mediator in the settlement of marriage between deceased Kiran and the appellant Amarsingh. He states that the marriage was settled and before marriage, Faldan ceremony took place at Chandrapur. The appellant was given a cash of Rs. 41,000/- by PW 5 Rameshsingh. In cross-examination, PW 6 Sanjaysingh has admitted as correct that appellant Aruna had never demanded anything before settlement of marriage. Omission has been duly proved that he has not stated in his previous statement that at the time of Faldan ceremony, appellant/original accused no.1 was presented with a cash of Rs.41,000/-. 12. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly urged before us that the evidence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is extremely fragile and does not establish the same against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 12. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, has rightly urged before us that the evidence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is extremely fragile and does not establish the same against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that deceased Kiran was illtreated by the appellants over the failure to pay Rs. 50,000/-. 13. Learned APP has supported the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. 14. As the evidence of PW 3 Munnibai contains vital omissions regarding demand of Rs.50,000/-, the alleged demand by appellant Aruna from PW 3 - Munnibai just two days prior to the incident assumes significance. The entire evidence has been elicited as omission and, therefore, according to us, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW 3 Munnibai. Similar is the evidence of PW 5 Rameshsingh in whose cross-examination, omissions on vital aspect of demand of money have been elicited. Evidence of PW 6 Sanjaysingh does not advance the case of the prosecution any further and an omission has also been elicited that he had not stated that cash of Rs. 41,000/- was presented to accused no.1 at the time of settlement of the marriage. We, therefore, find that the evidence of the prosecution is extremely fragile in support of the charge for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no satisfactory evidence which would establish the offence against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellants, therefore, in our opinion, would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Since the appellant Aruna/original accused no.3, i.e., appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2007 has been convicted only for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, her appeal will have to be allowed and the conviction and sentence of appellant Aruna will have to be set aside. 15. In so far as the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, prosecution has examined PW 7 Gangabai Nandurkar, a maid servant, who was employed by the accused. She states that on the day of the incident, when she went to the house of the accused at 8.00 a.m., accused nos. 1 to 6 were at the home. She states that on the day of the incident, when she went to the house of the accused at 8.00 a.m., accused nos. 1 to 6 were at the home. She further states that she, however, did not see deceased Kiran in the house, and appellant Aruna asked her to clean the utensils and then go back to her home. Gangabai states that after cleaning the utensils, when she was going to another place for performing her work, she learnt about the death of Kiran. She, therefore, came back to the house of the accused. In cross-examination, PW 7 Gangabai has admitted that she was stating for the first time that accused nos. 2 to 4 and 6 were at home. She has denied the suggestion that accused no.1 was not at home on the day of incident. She could not state as to why it was not recorded in her statement that the accused no.1 was present in the house. 16. PW 8 Mahendrasingh Bais, a neighbour and cousin of the accused, states that about ten to twelve days prior to the incident, Kiran had come to his house where the construction work of the house was in progress. Kiran had told him that she had not taken her meals since last four-five days and that no one from her house was talking with her. Mahendrasingh states that he persuaded Kiran that he would speak to the accused about this. He brought snacks and gave the same to Kiran. On the next day, Kiran went to the house of her parents. In respect of the incident, PW 8 Mahendrasingh states that he was present at the construction site and was watering the new construction. He further states that he saw accused no.1 in his house at about 7.00 a.m. He, however, did not see Kiran inside the house. He then states that he left the spot, and at about 1.00 noon, he received a message about the death of Kiran. He, therefore, visited the house of the accused. On way, he met one Vishwakarma who took Mahendrasingh to the dispensary of one Dr. Bhaskarwar. Dr. Bhaskarwar told Mahendrasingh to inform the police about the death of Kiran. Mahendrasingh states that he accordingly sent his nephew PW 10 Sunil Bais to the Police Station. He, therefore, visited the house of the accused. On way, he met one Vishwakarma who took Mahendrasingh to the dispensary of one Dr. Bhaskarwar. Dr. Bhaskarwar told Mahendrasingh to inform the police about the death of Kiran. Mahendrasingh states that he accordingly sent his nephew PW 10 Sunil Bais to the Police Station. In cross-examination, it has been elicited that he used to supervise the construction work and used to water the new construction everyday between 7.00 a.m., and 7.30 a.m. He admits that when he visited the house of the accused on the day of the incident at about 3.30 p.m., he saw the dead body of Kiran. 17. PW 9 - Savita Bais states that she is the neighbour of the accused and deceased Kiran used to visit her house frequently. Kiran used to tell Savita that accused no.1 was not talking and behaving with her properly. According to PW 9 Savita, on 8th April, 2003, when she was at home, one Nitin came and informed her that Kiran died. When Savita, accompanied by her brother-in-law PW 10 - Sunil, went to the house of the accused, she saw accused nos. 1 and 3 appellants. and original accused no.4 at home. On questioning the appellant Aruna as to what happened, Aruna feigned ignorance about any happening. Savita states that on asking Aruna as to where Kiran was, Aruna told her that Kiran was in her bedroom on the second floor of the house. Savita states that she accordingly asked her brother-in-law and accused no.1 to bring Kiran on the ground floor. Accordingly, Kiran was brought to the ground floor and kept on a mat. She states that she waited there for some time and thereafter went back to her house. In cross-examination, PW 9 Savita has admitted that her statement was recorded after about twenty days of the incident. Omission has been duly proved that she had not stated in her previous statement that Kiran used to inform her that accused no.1 was not talking or behaving with her properly. Omission has also been elicited in respect of presence of original accused no. 4 in the house. 18. PW 10 Sunil Bais, cousin of accused no.1, states that at about 1.00 a.m., he learnt about the death of Kiran and, therefore, he went to the house of the appellant along with his sister-in-law PW 9 Savita. Omission has also been elicited in respect of presence of original accused no. 4 in the house. 18. PW 10 Sunil Bais, cousin of accused no.1, states that at about 1.00 a.m., he learnt about the death of Kiran and, therefore, he went to the house of the appellant along with his sister-in-law PW 9 Savita. On asking the appellant as to what had happened, the appellant Amarsingh told him about the death of Kiran. He states that as he along with appellant Amarsingh and his sister-in-law Savita visited the room of the accused on the second floor, they found the body of Kiran lying on a cot. Sunil further states that thereafter appellant Aruna asked him and accused no.1 Amarsingh to bring the dead body on the ground floor. Sunil states that he and Amarsingh, therefore, brought the body of Kiran on the ground floor and kept it on a mat. He further states that father of Amarsingh asked him to lodge a report at the Police Station and accordingly he lodged his report at Exh.174. He has admitted that Amarsingh had given a written report for lodging it at the Police Station and he accordingly handed it over to PSI Nawalkar. He states that thereafter his oral report had been scribed. He has admitted as correct that accused Amarsingh was residing happily with his wife. 19. Prosecution has also examined PW 12 Dr. Prafulla Bhaskarwar, who states that Accused No.2 Narendra is his friend since his school days. He states that on 8th April, 2003, Accused No.1 Amarsingh came to his dispensary at about 11.00 a.m., and informed him that as his wife was not keeping well, PW 12 Dr. Bhaskarwar should immediately examine her. Accordingly, PW 12 Dr. Bhaskarwar went to the house of the accused, and he was taken to a room on the first floor of the house. He noticed the wife of accused no. 1 Kiran lying on a cot. He examined and found her dead. He accordingly told accused no.1 and his mother, and advised them to inform the police. 20. PW 11 Dr. Raju Shende in his cross-examination has admitted as true that in the present case a definite opinion about the death of Kiran whether suicidal or homicidal - could not be given. He examined and found her dead. He accordingly told accused no.1 and his mother, and advised them to inform the police. 20. PW 11 Dr. Raju Shende in his cross-examination has admitted as true that in the present case a definite opinion about the death of Kiran whether suicidal or homicidal - could not be given. He has further agreed as true that the ligature mark found on the neck of Kiran may be due to hanging with the help of a saree. The said medical witness has also admitted that in the present case, Kiran might have met a suicidal death. 21. In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should have a definite tendency of incriminating the accused. The circumstances so proved should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, and should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances should be capable of drawing an inference that it is the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime. 22. In the present case, deceased Kiran did not meet a natural death. As per the opinion of PW 11 Dr. Raju Shende, Kiran died of asphyxia due to pressure on her neck. The ligature mark on the neck of Kiran measures 20 cm x 1 cm. According to PW 11 Dr. Shende, the ligature mark could have been caused by a saree. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the ligature mark could be caused in case of homicidal death or suicidal death. Kiran was found dead in the room occupied by her on the first/second floor of the house. The room was shared by Kiran along with her husband accused no.1. Presence of accused no.1 in the house has been formally established. Accused No.1 has not offered any explanation, whatsoever, as to where he was when the incident occurred. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of presence of the appellant/accused no.1 at the time of the incident, therefore, clearly establishes the presence of the accused no.1 Amarsingh in the house. Amarsingh in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not state as to in which condition he found Kiran, when, initially, he went to the room. Amarsingh in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not state as to in which condition he found Kiran, when, initially, he went to the room. The other accused have been acquitted by the Trial Court of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as deceased Kiran was found in the room which was used by deceased and Accused No.1 Amarsingh. Broken pieces of bangles were found inside the room, but we are not inclined to attach any importance to the said finding. 23. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellants, has urged before us that in the light of the evidence of PW 11 Dr. Shende, the possibility that deceased might have committed suicide cannot be excluded from consideration. The learned APP has repelled the aforesaid submission, and has urged before us for dismissal of the appeals. 24. It is, no doubt, true that PW 11 Dr. Shende has expressed that the ligature mark could be caused either in homicidal death or in suicidal death. We have, therefore, to examine the evidence of the prosecution whether there is a possibility of Kiran committing suicide. The scene of the offence Panchanama indicates that a ceiling fan in the centre of the room dangles. Below the ceiling fan, no platform or a stool was found, so that the victim could have perched on it to tie a saree to the ceiling fan to end her life by hanging. Astonishingly, the saree was not tied to the ceiling fan and the dead body of Kiran was seen lying on the cot. Appellant Amarsingh in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code also does not claim that deceased Kiran committed suicide. Appellant Amarsingh was present in the house and does not explain as to how the dead body of Kiran was placed on the cot of the bedroom. Had deceased Kiran, indeed, committed suicide, there would have been some evidence, namely a small platform or a stool would have been noticed at the time of Panchanama of the room. In fact, curiously, it is not the case of any of the accused that Kiran was found hanging from the ceiling fan and her dead body was taken down and then it was placed on the cot. In fact, curiously, it is not the case of any of the accused that Kiran was found hanging from the ceiling fan and her dead body was taken down and then it was placed on the cot. In such circumstances, when there is absolutely no evidence that deceased Kiran committed suicide, her death is established to be a homicidal death. The ligature marks on the neck of Kiran could only have been sustained by her either because of suicidal hanging or in a homicidal death. Since act of suicide stands eliminated, death of Kiran is explainable as a homicidal death. With the finding of Kiran's dead body on the cot, Kiran had obviously not met a natural death. PW 11 Dr. Shende has clearly opined that the ligature mark was caused by the saree which was seized at the behest of the appellant. 25. The conduct of the appellant - Amarsingh assumes great importance. Knowing that his wife was not responding to his calls, he goes to the dispensary of PW 12 Dr. Bhaskarwar and asks him to come to his house for examining Kiran. The appellant does not take immediate steps for shifting Kiran to a hospital, but waits for the arrival of PW 12 Dr. Bhaskarwar. The appellant then hands over a written report to PW 10 Sunil. In fact, in the report at Exh.174, PW 10 Sunil stated that on visiting the bedroom of appellant Amarsingh, Kiran was seen lying on the cot. The false defence set up by the accused, therefore, provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances already established by the prosecution. The Trial Court has acquitted the other accused of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and in the absence of any State appeal, we refrain from making any observations in respect of the case against the acquitted accused. Suffice it to state that acquittal of the other accused would not axiomatically entitle the appellant to acquittal, particularly in the face of such overwhelming evidence against him. According to us, therefore, the prosecution has proved the offences against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be confirmed. 26. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2007 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant/Original Accused No. 3 Sau. According to us, therefore, the prosecution has proved the offences against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be confirmed. 26. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2007 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant/Original Accused No. 3 Sau. Aruna is hereby quashed and set aside and she is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to her. Her bail bonds stand cancelled. 27. Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2007 is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant/original Accused No.1 Amarsingh for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Fine if paid by the appellant in respect of that offence be refunded to him. The appeal stands dismissed in so far as it challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant / original accused no.1 Amarsingh for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby confirmed. 28. As the appellant Amarsingh is in jail, a copy of this judgment be sent to him through the Superintendent of Jail, for appellant's information.