Judgment M.L. Tahaliyani, J. Heard Mr. Kate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Kharge, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. 2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order dated 3.10.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.26 of 1990 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months. 3. The appellant had allegedly committed murder of Laxmibai Malekar wife of Hanumant Malekar. The deceased Laxmibai was staying with her family members at Malekar locality by the side of village Dhekalwadi, Songaon road. It is alleged that the deceased Laxmibai had extra marital relationship with the appellant Narayan. It is further alleged that during the period she had extra marital relationship with the appellant, she had also illicit relationship with one Ramchandra Nivrutti Zargad P.W.-4. The appellant did not like the relationship of P.W.-4 with the deceased and therefore, he decided to kill her. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 7.11.1989, husband of the deceased Laxmibai had gone to Baramati. The deceased Laxmibai and her daughter Bintabai had taken cattle for grazing in the absence of husband of Laxmibai. The husband of Laxmibai, who has been examined as P.W.-1, had returned from Baramati at about 8 p.m. and found that his wife Laxmibai was not at home. Inquiries from his daughter, revealed that Laxmibai had gone to her maternal aunt Suman. P.W.-1, therefore, did not bother much and went to sleep. However, since the deceased Laxmibai did not return till next morning also, he asked his daughter Bintabai to go and check at the house of Suman as to whether the deceased Laxmibai was available there. It was revealed that the deceased was not at the house of her maternal aunt. P.W.-1 therefore, got worried and started searching his wife. P.W. 1. He and his relatives had searched the deceased at various places in the adjoining villages particularly the houses of their relatives. However, she could not be traced. P.W. 1, therefore, inquired from his daughter as to by which route the deceased had gone to the house of Suman. The route through which deceased had reportedly gone to Suman's house was also searched. However, she could not be traced. P.W. 1, therefore, inquired from his daughter as to by which route the deceased had gone to the house of Suman. The route through which deceased had reportedly gone to Suman's house was also searched. The dead body of the deceased was found at the land known as 'Katban'. The police patil was informed and information was given to the Police also. The Police had visited the spot and had drawn the panchanama. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. F.I.R. was lodged at the Police Station by P.W. 13 Asstt. Sub Inspector of Baramati Taluka Police Station. The daughter of the deceased had stated that she had seen the appellant following her mother on the same route through which the deceased was going to her maternal aunt's place. It is a case of the prosecution that since the appellant did not like the relationship of the deceased with P.W. 4 Zargad, he decided to eliminate her. To achieve the said motive, he had taken the deceased at the field and had killed her. The post mortem examination of the dead body revealed that she had died due to excessive haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by her. 5. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned Trial Court framed a charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried. The prosecution had examined in all 14 witnesses in support of its case before the Trial Court. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased and the complainant. P.W. 2 Bintabai is the star witness and daughter of the deceased. P.W. -3 Ratan Gulab Malekar is one of the family members of the deceased who had stated about the conduct of the appellant and disappearance of the deceased. P.W.4 is Ramchandra Nivrutti Zargad who allegedly had illicit relationship with the deceased Laxmibai. This witness had stated in his evidence that the deceased had illicit relationship with the appellant and that she occasionally used to talk to this witness also. He had also maintained physical intimacy with the deceased. The appellant had seen this witness while talking with the deceased on many occasions. P.W. -5 Gulab Yeshwant Malekar is also one of the family members of the deceased. He had also maintained physical intimacy with the deceased. The appellant had seen this witness while talking with the deceased on many occasions. P.W. -5 Gulab Yeshwant Malekar is also one of the family members of the deceased. P.W. -6 Babasaheb Dinkar Kumbhar is the panch witness in whose presence a bicycle was recovered at the instance of the appellant. P.W. -7 Dr. Suresh Shivram Sonawane is a Medical Officer who had examined the dead body of the deceased and had opined that the deceased had died due to excessive haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. This witness had also examined the appellant on 11.11.1989. The appellant had incised wound over left arm medially, vertical in direction admeasuring 3 cm x 5 cm into muscle deep. Injuries were found to be infected and were sutured. P.W. 8 Ram Anna Dhotre is the panch witness in whose presence a knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant. The clothes of the appellant allegedly worn by him at the time of alleged assault on the deceased were also recovered in the presence of this witness at the instance of the appellant. P.W. -9 Prakash Dnyandeo Kshirsagar is a resident of Baramati and he had given evidence that P.W.1 had visited Baramati on 7.11.1989. P.W. -10 Manik Tukaram Rajgudu is the husband of maternal aunt of the deceased. P.W. -11 Nandkumar Eknath Shirke is one of the panch witnesses in whose presence panchnama of the spot was drawn. Pair of footwear, a towel and bag containing some sweetmeats (Ladu) was lying at the place of alleged offence. The panchanama of the spot was accordingly drawn. P.W. -12 Moreshwar Dnyanoba Bhujbal, is one of the Police Officers who had received intimation from brother of P.W.1 that the dead body of wife of P.W.1 was found in the field. P.W. 13 Vasant Yeshwant Ballal, is the Police Officer who took part in the investigation. P.W.14 Mahadeo Bajirao Kale is also Police Officer who had also participated in the investigation. 6. Briefly stated hereinabove is the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. From the nature of evidence described hereinabove, it can be seen that the prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 the husband and daughter of the deceased. The case in fact mainly depends on the evidence of P.W.2. From the nature of evidence described hereinabove, it can be seen that the prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 the husband and daughter of the deceased. The case in fact mainly depends on the evidence of P.W.2. However, her evidence cannot be examined in isolation. It has to be examined along with evidence of P.W.1. 7. P.W.1 had gone to Baramati on the date of incident. P.W.2 along with deceased Laxmibai had gone to jungle for grazing the cattle. P.W.2 in her evidence had stated that while they were grazing cattle, the appellant had come there on his bicycle at about 11 a.m. and he had spoken to her mother, the deceased Laxmibai. Thereafter the appellant had gone towards Baramati on his bicycle. He had come again at about 1.20 p.m. and had made some gestures addressed to the deceased. At this point of time the deceased had told her daughter P.W.2 that she would be going to her aunt Suman's place. Accordingly she left the place where the cattle were grazing. The appellant also followed the deceased. P.W.2 tried to follow them but the appellant threatened her and told her that she should not accompany them otherwise the appellant would beat her. P.W. 2 therefore, could not follow her mother. After the grazing was over, she came back to her house. Her father had returned from Baramati in the night. She had told her father that the deceased had gone to place of Suman. The deceased did not turn up till the morning and therefore, search started to trace the deceased. 8. P.W. 1 has also more or less given similar statements. P.W. 1 has also stated that he was informed by P.W. 2 that the deceased had gone to the place of Suman. P.W. 1 therefore did not bother and went to sleep. The search started when it was revealed that the deceased was not even at the house of Suman. The matter was reported to Police for the first time on 9.11.1989. 9. What needs to be critically examined in the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 is that P.W. 2 did not disclose to P.W. 1 that she had seen the appellant along with the deceased when deceased had stated to have gone to the house of Suman. The matter was reported to Police for the first time on 9.11.1989. 9. What needs to be critically examined in the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 is that P.W. 2 did not disclose to P.W. 1 that she had seen the appellant along with the deceased when deceased had stated to have gone to the house of Suman. When P.W. 2 herself had attempted to follow her mother and was prevented from doing so by the appellant, in normal course, it should have been revealed to P.W. 1 by P.W. 2 on the night of 7.11.1989 itself. P.W. 2 was 14 years old and was matured enough to understand the implications of her mother not returning to home in the night. From her evidence, it appears that she was aware of extra marital relationship of her mother with the appellant. In this background, had she seen the appellant with her mother, she would have naturally disclosed this fact to her father on the night of 7.11.1989. What is surprising is that this fact was not disclosed by P.W. 2 to her father or other family members for about two days. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 1 and other family members that they had been searching the deceased for about two days at various villages where there relatives were staying. It is after two days that P.W. 1 had inquired from P.W. 2 as to through which route the deceased had gone to house of Suman. P.W. 2 had, at this stage, disclosed that deceased was accompanied by the appellant. This does not sound to be truthful evidence. P.W. 2 was about 14 years old and she should have realized that all her family members were anxious to trace her mother. If she had not disclosed that she had last seen her mother with the appellant, in our view, she had most probably not seen her mother in the company of the appellant. It appears that the incident had not occurred in the manner stated by P.W. 2. We are of the view that there is something else behind the whole episode which is suppressed by P.W. 1 and his family members. 10. The theory of last seen has been stated through P.W. 2 at a later stage. It appears that the incident had not occurred in the manner stated by P.W. 2. We are of the view that there is something else behind the whole episode which is suppressed by P.W. 1 and his family members. 10. The theory of last seen has been stated through P.W. 2 at a later stage. In the circumstances, we have serious doubt about the evidence of both the star witnesses of the prosecution and we find it highly risky to rely upon such witnesses. 11. The learned A.P.P. has invited our attention to the evidence that the knife was found at the house of the appellant and the same was recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is stated that blood group of the deceased and the blood group of blood stains found on the knife was same. In this regard, suffice it to say that the prosecution case that the appellant had concealed his knife at his house appears to be not acceptable. It is really surprising as to why the appellant should store the knife in his own house. Even if that part of the evidence is accepted, that will not be sufficient in isolation to convict the appellant for the offence of murder. This evidence could have been additional evidence in support of the prosecution case or the evidence in the nature of corroboration had the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 been believed by the Court. Since we find it highly risky to believe the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2, the forensic evidence of this tiny quantity will not help prosecution in any manner. 12. The learned A.P.P. had also invited our attention to the case history given by the appellant to the Medical Officer when the appellant was being examined medically. In the medical history, it is stated that the appellant had disclosed that he had sustained injuries while killing the deceased Laxmibai. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the defence to the cross examination of the Medical Officer where he had admitted that the history of the case was stated by the Police in the requisition letter sent to him. As such the contention of the learned prosecutor that the history given by the appellant to the Medical Officer might be treated as extra judicial confession cannot be accepted. As such the contention of the learned prosecutor that the history given by the appellant to the Medical Officer might be treated as extra judicial confession cannot be accepted. The learned A.P.P. had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusuma Ankama Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 257), and has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 and the history given to the Medical Officer are sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would have definitely helped the learned prosecutor, had the evidence of P.W. 2 been accepted by this Court. Since we have rejected the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2, this judgment does not help the learned prosecutor in any manner. 13. For all these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the judgment and order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained. 14. Hence, we pass the following order: Appeal is allowed. Judgment and Order of the Trial Court is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bonds stand cancelled.