Judgment P.V. Hardas, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2010 has been filed by the appellant/original accused No. 1, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, by judgment dated 18/05/2010, in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2007. Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2010 has been filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondent No. 1/original accused No. 1 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 406 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 5/original accused Nos. 2 to 5 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Since both these appeals arise from the same judgment of the trial court, these appeals are being decided by this judgment. Facts, as are necessary for the decision of these appeals, may be stated thus:- PW 19 - PSI Prakash Bendre, who was attached to the Badlapur Police Station and was on duty from 9 p.m. of 17/1/2007 to 8.30 a.m. of 18/1/2007, received information on telephone on 18/1/2007 at 7.45 a.m. from the Dhanvantari Hospital about admission of Kalpana in the hospital, who was brought to the hospital dead. On receipt of the said information, PW 19 - PSI Bendre proceeded to the Dhanvantari Hospital along with police constables. He contacted the Medical Officer, who pointed out the dead body of deceased Kalpana, which had been kept in the accident ward. In the presence of panchas, an inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Kalpana was drawn at Exh. 46. The dead body was thereafter referred for postmortem examination. PW 19 - PSI Bendre thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident, which was in Arjun Sagar Complex at Badlapur. The scene of the incident was a flat and the mother-in-law of deceased Kalpana had pointed out the room where Kalpana had slept. A scene of the incident panchanama was accordingly drawn at Exh. 157. The pillow covers were seized and deposited in the police station. PW 19 - PSI Bendre thereafter proceeded to the police station and at the request of the Medical Officer, the photographer was called, who had taken photographs of the dead body. The Medical Officer had opined that death of deceased Kalpana was unnatural death. 157. The pillow covers were seized and deposited in the police station. PW 19 - PSI Bendre thereafter proceeded to the police station and at the request of the Medical Officer, the photographer was called, who had taken photographs of the dead body. The Medical Officer had opined that death of deceased Kalpana was unnatural death. The viscera and clothes of deceased along with the advance death certificate were collected. PW 2 - PI Shrikant Kolekar lodged his report at the police station at Exh. 39. An offence was registered on the basis of the said report and the investigation was thereafter handed over to PI Bhikan Tadvi. PW 21 - PI Bhikan Tadvi, who was working as Police Inspector (Crime) and was attached to the Police Station Badlapur, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 7 of 2007. He had received the papers from PW 19 - PSI Bendre and thereafter arrested the appellant/original accused No. 1. The mobile phone belonging to the appellant was also seized. The appellant was referred to the medical hospital for medical examination and for drawing of his blood samples. On 20/1/2007, statements of witnesses were recorded. Bajrang Puri gave a letter to the Investigating Officer at Exh. 50. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on 23/1/2007, the seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition at Exh. 195. The two pillow covers were referred to the C.A. under requisition at Exh. 196. On 24/1/2007, supplementary statement of Bajrang Puri was recorded. Original accused Nos. 2 to 5 were added as accused in the said crime and Sections 498-A, 304-B and 406 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. came to be added. Attempt was made to arrest accused Nos. 2 to 5, but their whereabouts were not known. On 24/1/2007, PW 21 -- PI Tadvi handed over the investigation to Police Inspector PW 22 - Sambhaji Jagtap. PW 22 - PI Sambhaji Jagtap, who was attached to Police Station Badlapur as a Senior PI was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 7 of 2007 on 18/1/2007. PW 22 - PI Jagtap recorded the statements of witnesses on 25/1/2007. Bajrang Puri had given the description of the articles which had been given in marriage at Exh. 51. On 29/1/2007 the clothes of deceased were referred to the C.A. under requisition at Exh. 199. PW 22 - PI Jagtap recorded the statements of witnesses on 25/1/2007. Bajrang Puri had given the description of the articles which had been given in marriage at Exh. 51. On 29/1/2007 the clothes of deceased were referred to the C.A. under requisition at Exh. 199. The viscera was referred to the J.J. Hospital along with requisition at Exh. 200. A letter was issued to the Canara Bank and certain information was obtained from the Canara Bank in respect of the account of Saraswati Bahuuddeshiya Manila Mandal. A letter was also issued to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for collecting information about the said society. On 8/2/2007, information was also sought from the Dombivli Nargrik Sahakari Bank in respect of the account of Saraswati Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Mandal. Information was also sought from the Janata Sahakari Bank Limited in respect of the account of the society. Supplementary statement of Bajrang Puri was recorded and information was sought from the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank Ltd. in respect of the account of Tulsidas Jadhav. Information was also sought from the other banks in respect of the account of Tulsidas Jadhav. Attempt was made for tracing the whereabouts of the other accused, but the attempt was futile. Further to the investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was submitted. On 27/4/2007, Original Accused Nos. 2 to 5 had surrendered in the police station. PW 2 - PSI Shrikant Kolekar, who was attached to the Police Station Badlapur, had seized the clothes of deceased under seizure memo at Exh. 37. PW 2 - PSI Kolekar thereafter had gone to the scene of the incident and had asked the father and uncle of deceased to lodge a complaint, but they had refused to lodge a complaint. He had thereafter lodged his complaint at Exh. 39. Kalpana was initially examined by PW 1 - Dr. Ajit Atkar on 18/1/2007 at about 6.30 to 6.45 a.m. One person had come to the hospital who had requested PW 1 - Dr. Atkar to accompany him to his house to see a patient The said person (appellant) had disclosed that the patient had suffered a fit. Dr. Atkar had informed him that he could not come to the house and that the patient should be brought to the hospital, if necessary by an ambulance. Atkar to accompany him to his house to see a patient The said person (appellant) had disclosed that the patient had suffered a fit. Dr. Atkar had informed him that he could not come to the house and that the patient should be brought to the hospital, if necessary by an ambulance. Kalpana was accordingly brought to the hospital at about 7.30 a.m. and was accompanied by 5 to 6 other persons. Kalpana was taken in the casualty room and was examined by PW 1 - Dr. Atkar, who found that Kalpana was dead. He had noticed that the hands and legs of Kalpana had become stiff. Thereafter he had called PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar, who had also examined Kalpana and declared her dead. PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar had issued the certificate at Exh. 41. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Kalpana was performed by PW 20 - Dr. Tejaswini Gosavi. PW 20 - Dr. Tejaswini Gosavi along with Dr. Dhode, noticed the following external injuries: (i) Evidence of faint ligature marks situated at thyroid and below thyroid cartilage encircles complete neck, reddish faint measuring 30 c.m. x 1 c.m. and 28 c.m. x 1 c.m. most prominent on anterior and lateral part of neck, on cut section - neck muscles anterior and lateral shows gross contusion at the level of ligature mark. Contusions seen in the para laryngeal and neck vessels. Gross contusions and hemorrhages seen in neck structures tissues and muscles are reddish and edematous. Internal mucosa of larynx and trachea contused. No fracture of hyoid bone. (ii) Small contusions on both palms thener part 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. size. She opined that the injuries were ante mortem and on internal examination, noticed brain substance congested with engorged cerebral vessels. On examination of larynx, trachea and bronchi supralaryngeal and para-tracheal muscles showed congestion and hemorrhages (Reddish edematous). Both lungs congested with hemorrhagic patches scattered in lung parenchyma. On cut section frothy blood came out. On examination of heart, it was found that it was normal in size, shape, position wt. 350 grams. Valves and coronary vessels were normal, myocardium was congested. Stomach was normal and semi digested food material unidentifiable about 200 cc with no peculiar smell found. Mucosa normal. Small and large intestine were partly loaded. On cut section frothy blood came out. On examination of heart, it was found that it was normal in size, shape, position wt. 350 grams. Valves and coronary vessels were normal, myocardium was congested. Stomach was normal and semi digested food material unidentifiable about 200 cc with no peculiar smell found. Mucosa normal. Small and large intestine were partly loaded. Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested, bladder was empty, uterus normal in size, shape and normal, cavity was empty, both ovaries were normal. She opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The advance death certificate was issued at Exh. 167. According to PW 20 - Dr. Gosavi, deceased had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The postmortem report is at Exh. 166. 2. On the case being committed to Court of Sessions, trial court, vide Exh. 20 framed charge against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 498A read with Section 34, 304(B) read with Section 34 and 406 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of false implication. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 23 witnesses. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant/Original Accused No. 1 as aforestated, while acquitting the other accused. The State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2010 questioning their acquittal, while the appellant/original accused No. 1 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2010 questioning his conviction. 3. We have heard Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the appellant and on behalf of the respondents in the State appeal and the learned APP and in order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. Prosecution has examined PW 1 - Dr. Ajit Atkar, who deposes that he was working as a Resident Medical Officer in the Dhanvantari Hospital of Dr. Paritekar. According to him, on 18/1/2007, at about 6.30 or 6.45 a.m. the appellant had come to the hospital requesting PW 1 - Dr. Atkar to accompany him to his house for examining a patient. According to the appellant, the patient had suffered a fit. PW 1 - Dr. Paritekar. According to him, on 18/1/2007, at about 6.30 or 6.45 a.m. the appellant had come to the hospital requesting PW 1 - Dr. Atkar to accompany him to his house for examining a patient. According to the appellant, the patient had suffered a fit. PW 1 - Dr. Atkar informed the appellant that he could not come to the residence of the appellant and the patient should be brought to the hospital, if necessary in an ambulance. The appellant thereafter behaved in an arrogant manner and, therefore, PW 1 -- Dr. Atkar allowed that person to talk with PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar. PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar also informed the appellant that the patient should be brought to the hospital. The appellant thereafter left the hospital and thereafter had brought Kalpana to the hospital at about 7.30 a.m. Kalpana was accompanied by other 5 to 6 persons, amongst them was accused No. 2, who was acquainted with PW 1 - Dr. Atkar. Kalpana was taken in the casualty room and was examined by PW 1 - Dr. Atkar, who noticed that Kalpana was dead. He had observed that the hands and legs of Kalpana had become stiff. He had thereafter requested PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar to examine Kalpana and PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar, on examining Kalpana, had also declared her dead. In cross-examination, he has admitted that after complete examination, which was done by him and Dr. Paritekar, the woman was declared dead. He has admitted as correct that initially when the appellant had come to the hospital, the appellant had come in a hurried manner and was insisting Dr. Atkar to accompany him to his house as a woman was to be examined. Dr. Atkar was confronted with portion marked "A" from his previous statement that on his refusal to accompany the appellant, the appellant had stated that, "he would see him". PW 1 - Dr. Atkar has admitted the contents of portion marked "A". 5. Prosecution has examined PW 3 - Dr. Pramod Paritekar, who deposes that he was doing medical practice at Badlapur since last 20 to 22 years and was running a hospital, known as "Dhanvantari Hospital". He has deposed that PW 1 - Dr. Atkar was working as an Assistant Doctor in the hospital. PW 3 - Dr. 5. Prosecution has examined PW 3 - Dr. Pramod Paritekar, who deposes that he was doing medical practice at Badlapur since last 20 to 22 years and was running a hospital, known as "Dhanvantari Hospital". He has deposed that PW 1 - Dr. Atkar was working as an Assistant Doctor in the hospital. PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar further deposes that on 18/1/2007 at about 7 a.m. PW 1 - Dr. Atkar had informed him on phone that one person had come to the hospital, who was insisting that Dr. Atkar should accompany him at his residence. Dr. Paritekar has further admitted that Dr. Atkar had informed him that the person was stating that the patient had suffered a fit just now. Dr. Paritekar further deposes that Dr. Atkar had informed him that Dr. Atkar had told the said person that he would not accompany him. Thereafter Dr. Paritekar also told the said person to bring the patient to the hospital. The appellant, who had come to the hospital, thereafter disconnected the telephone in anger and left the hospital. PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar further deposes that thereafter he was informed by Dr. Atkar that the person had brought the patient, who was dead. Dr. Atkar, therefore, requested Dr. Paritekar to examine the said patient. Dr. Paritekar, therefore, examined Kalpana and noticed that her body had become stiff and rigor mortis had commenced. He, therefore, asked Dr. Atkar to inform the police station and had also informed accused No. 2 that Kalpana had died about 5 to 6 hours previous to the examination. He states that he had sent two letters to the police station and after receipt of the letters, the police had come to the hospital and had prepared the panchanama of the dead body. He had accordingly issued a certificate at Exh. 41. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the dead body was in his hospital till 9.30 or 10 a.m. He has admitted that the panchanama was not drawn in his presence. He has further admitted that before he had informed accused No. 2, he had examined the dead body. An omission was elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that Dr. Atkar had informed him that the appellant had informed that Kalpana had suffered a fit just now. Omission was also elicited that the appellant had kept the phone in anger. An omission was elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that Dr. Atkar had informed him that the appellant had informed that Kalpana had suffered a fit just now. Omission was also elicited that the appellant had kept the phone in anger. He has admitted as correct that Dr. Atkar had initially called him on phone at 7 a.m. and thereafter, after about 1 hour. 6. Prosecution has examined PW 2 - PSI Shrikant Kolekar, who deposes about receipt of a letter from Dr. Paritekar of the Dhanvantari Hospital. He further deposes that A.F. No. 3/2007 was registered in the police station and thereafter PSI Bendre had gone to the hospital and had drawn the inquest panchanama and had referred the dead body for postmortem examination. He then deposes about seizure of the clothes of deceased and thereafter about lodging of his report at Exh. 39. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his report that he had asked the father and uncle of deceased to lodge a report, but they had refused. He has admitted that he had not personally seen the dead body of deceased. 7. Prosecution has examined PW 6 - Dr. Kailash Pawar, who deposes that he had received a telephone call at about 6.30 a.m. from one Nitin Chavan, who had asked him to go to the house of the appellant as the son of the appellant was asleep and was not awake. PW 6 - Dr. Pawar had expressed his inability to go and thereafter Nitin Chavan again telephoned him and told him that the family members of Dilip were crying and, therefore, PW 6 - Dr. Pawar should go to the house of the appellant. After some time, one Aniket Patki had come along with a vehicle and PW 6 - Dr. Pawar had gone to the house of the appellant. On reaching the residence of the appellant, he was informed that the patient was taken to the Dhanvantari Hospital. He had thereafter gone to the Dhanvantari Hospital where he was informed by Dr. Atkar about death of Kalpana. According to Dr. Pawar, PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar had come to the hospital while he was present. Dr. Pawar waited in the hospital and thereafter had gone to his own hospital. 8. He had thereafter gone to the Dhanvantari Hospital where he was informed by Dr. Atkar about death of Kalpana. According to Dr. Pawar, PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar had come to the hospital while he was present. Dr. Pawar waited in the hospital and thereafter had gone to his own hospital. 8. Prosecution has examined PW 5 - Ankush Shinde, a panch to the inquest panchanama, who was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, he has admitted as true that the police had seen the dead body by turning it on both sides. He has admitted that he was unable to tell as to whether or not the panch Nilima Patki had checked the private part of the dead body. He was also unable to state whether there were marks on both sides of the neck and on the skin near both thumbs of the hands and whether they had turned into bluish-black colour. He has, however, admitted that in his presence a panchanama was drawn which was signed by him. He has then stated that portion marked "A" from the panchanama was not correct. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused he has admitted as true that when the panchanama was read over to him, portion marked "A" in the panchanama had not been scribed. Portion marked "A" in the panchanama is to the effect that the skin near the thumbs of both the hands was bluish-black in colour and on the neck there were indistinct marks. 9. Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that though Kalpana was examined by PW 1 - Dr. Atkar and PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar, these two witnesses do not refer to any external injuries sustained by deceased Kalpana and consequently there is variance qua the evidence of these witnesses, the inquest panchanama as well as the evidence of the Medical Officer, who has performed the postmortem examination. The learned APP has supported the findings arrived at by the trial court. 10. PW 1 - Dr. Atkar and PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar had examined deceased Kalpana as they had noticed that she was brought dead in the hospital. These doctors were not examining deceased Kalpana from the point of view of the injuries sustained by deceased Kalpana. The learned APP has supported the findings arrived at by the trial court. 10. PW 1 - Dr. Atkar and PW 3 - Dr. Paritekar had examined deceased Kalpana as they had noticed that she was brought dead in the hospital. These doctors were not examining deceased Kalpana from the point of view of the injuries sustained by deceased Kalpana. Failure, therefore, to refer to any injuries by these two Medical Officers would not mean that deceased Kalpana had not sustained the injuries which were noticed by PW 20 - Dr. Gosavi. Both, Dr. Atkar and Dr. Paritekar had examined Kalpana to ascertain if Kalpana was alive and had not examined Kalpana from the point of view of determining either if she had sustained any injuries or the cause of death. It is true that in the inquest panchanama, portion marked "A" appears to have been written in cramped handwriting. This would not mean that the said portion had been inserted in the inquest panchanama after the panch witnesses had signed the same. PW 5 - Ankush did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile and, therefore, an admission given by him in the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant that portion marked "A" was not part of the inquest panchanama when he had signed it, would be of no value or assistance to the appellant. PW 19 - PSI Bendre has denied the suggestion that at the instance of the uncle of deceased and at the instance of PI Tadvi, portion marked "A" in the inquest panchanama at Exh. 46 was scribed subsequently. PW 19 - PSI Bendre has admitted that when he had drawn the inquest panchanama, he had not noticed any "fresh" injury or any mark on the dead body. We thus find that the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is not convincing to hold that Kalpana had not sustained the injuries which were noticed by the Medical Officer, who had performed the postmortem examination. 11. PW 20-Dr. Gosavi, who had conducted the postmortem examination has opined that deceased had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The post report is at Exh. 166. 11. PW 20-Dr. Gosavi, who had conducted the postmortem examination has opined that deceased had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The post report is at Exh. 166. In cross-examination, she has admitted as true that as per rule, if there was any difference in the description of the injuries found by the doctor who performed the postmortem and the injuries mentioned in the inquest report, she used to ask for another inquest report to be prepared by the Executive Magistrate. She has then admitted as correct that inquest report at Exh. 46 does not mention that the tongue of the deceased was between lower and upper teeth. According to Dr. Gosavi it take about 3 days for a bluish colour mark to appear on the body and about 8 days to appear as blackish in colour. She has admitted as true that so far as injuries are concerned, there is difference between her findings and the injuries mentioned in the inquest panchanama. She has also admitted as correct that the report of the Histo Pathology was received from the J.J. Hospital, which is at Exh. 187. She has agreed that in the report, there was no mention about examination of brain material and spleen. Dr. Gosavi clarified that the report regarding brain and spleen had not been received. She has admitted that there was no possibility of the findings regarding cause of death being affected even if that findings were recorded in respect of the examination of brain and spleen. She has also agreed as correct that it was possible that in case of status epilepsy sudden death of a person may occur. She has also agreed as correct that it is possible that in the status epilepsy the tongue may come between upper and lower teeth. She has denied the suggestion that the multiple organs congestion, which she has referred in her comments at Exh. 170, could be possible in the case of natural death or death because of disease. She has agreed that injury to the carotid arteries and fracture of larynx and tracheal rings are common in cases of strangulation. She has also agreed that fracture to the hyoid bone is common in case of throttling. She has admitted that there was no fracture of larynx and tracheal rings. She has agreed that injury to the carotid arteries and fracture of larynx and tracheal rings are common in cases of strangulation. She has also agreed that fracture to the hyoid bone is common in case of throttling. She has admitted that there was no fracture of larynx and tracheal rings. She has admitted as correct that she had not mentioned in her report that there was any injury to the carotid arteries. She has admitted that there was no fracture of the hyoid bone. She has also admitted that she had not noticed considerable marks of violence on the body of the deceased. She has admitted that if blackish and bluish colour injury marks found on the palms of the deceased, they would have occurred three days prior to the death. She has then admitted in cross-examination that injury No. 1 cannot be caused by hands. She has admitted that her earlier opinion at Exh. 168 was not correct. According to her the article which was used for causing injury No. 1 i.e. ligature mark may be of the width of 1 c.m. 12. Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in the light of the infirmities which had been elicited in the cross-examination of the Medical Officer, it is extremely doubtful if deceased Kalpana had died due to strangulation and the possibility of Kalpana dying on account of epileptic fit could not be ruled out. 13. The Medical Officer has clearly opined that deceased Kalpana could not have died either a natural death or due to disease. She has clearly concluded that Kalpana had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The so called infirmities, which has been pointed out in the cross-examination of the Medical Officer do not in any manner affect the evidence of the Medical Officer. 14. Mr. Mohite, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that there is no evidence that the appellant was present at about the time when the offence was committed and in the absence of such evidence, the conviction of the appellant is not justified. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Sharad s/o. Kondiba Walke vs. State of Maharashtra (2010 ALL MR (Cri) 899) and on the judgment of Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra ((2009) 2 SCC 588). Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Sharad s/o. Kondiba Walke vs. State of Maharashtra (2010 ALL MR (Cri) 899) and on the judgment of Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra ((2009) 2 SCC 588). In Sharad s/o. Kondiba Walke (Supra), deceased Chhaya had sustained 100% burns and the probable cause of death was neurogenic shock due to injury to vital organs due to burns. Since there was no evidence in respect of presence of the appellant nor was there any evidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused, accused was acquitted. In Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh (Supra), the Supreme Court found that though deceased Sofiya had died in the room which was exclusively occupied by her and her husband, there was no evidence to show circumstantially that the accused was present in the room at the time of the occurrence. 15. In the present case, deceased Kalpana had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. Deceased Kalpana, obviously, could not have committed suicide in the light of the manner of her death. The appellant was present as at 6.30 a.m. as the appellant had gone to the hospital, where PW 1 - Dr. Atkar was working and had asked Dr. Atkar to accompany him home for examining the patient. Ultimately, Kalpana was brought to the hospital at about 7.30 a.m. Deceased Kalpana had died during the night and this is evident as there was on set of rigor mortis as well as the contents of her stomach revealed that the stomach contained semi digested food material and small and large intestines were partially loaded. The appellant had given a suggestion to PW 23 - Dy. S.P. Mahadev Rankhambe that it transpired in the investigation that on the day of the incident, the appellant had gone to Ahmednagar. The appellant in his statement under Section 313, does not claim that he was not present in the house at the time of the incident. Because of the contents of the stomach and the fact that deceased was brought to the hospital early in the morning, it is apparent that deceased had died during the night. The appellant in his statement under Section 313, does not claim that he was not present in the house at the time of the incident. Because of the contents of the stomach and the fact that deceased was brought to the hospital early in the morning, it is apparent that deceased had died during the night. The presence of the appellant in the hospital is established at 6.30 a.m. In such circumstances, therefore, it was for the appellant to explain if he was not present in the house as to how is it that he was present in the morning at 6.30 a.m. The appellant has taken a bald defence of denial and has denied also taking Kalpana to the hospital. The appellant claims that he has been falsely implicated by the relatives of deceased Kalpana. We thus find that in the light of the fact that the presence of the appellant is established at 6.30 a.m. in the morning, the appellant was present much prior to 6.30 a.m. and, therefore, ratio of the judgments cited above, in our opinion, would be inapplicable to the facts of the present case. It would be extremely difficult and in fact impossible for the prosecution to secure witnesses to depose about the presence of the accused well passed mid-night. In fact, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW 7 - Bajrang, father of deceased Kalpana, that on the night of 17/1/2010 the appellant and deceased Kalpana had gone for dinner to the house of one Laxman, nephew of the accused. It is further elicited that on the same night at about 12 mid-night, Kalpana had informed this fact to the nephew of PW 7 - Bajrang. PW 7 - Bajrang has also admitted as true in the cross-examination that Kalpana had inquired from the nephew of Bajrang whether any help could be given to a friend of accused No. 1/appellant, who had sustained burns. Thus the presence of the accused/appellant in the night of 17/1/2007 is established in the cross-examination itself, coupled with the presence of the accused/appellant on 18/1/2007 at 6.30 a.m. in the hospital of PW 1 - Dr. Atkar. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the prosecution has not been able to establish any motive for the appellant to commit murder of his wife. Atkar. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the prosecution has not been able to establish any motive for the appellant to commit murder of his wife. It is true that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence motive is an important circumstance. Failure to prove motive may not always necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case as it would depend upon the nature and quality of the evidence which is available. In the present case the prosecution had alleged that deceased Kalpana was subjected to cruelty on account of demand for money and, therefore, that could be the motive for the appellant to commit the crime. The trial court, however, has acquitted the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the I.P.C. The appellant and deceased Kalpana were husband and wife, who possibly had retired to their room for the night. As to what went on between them during night would be difficult to be established by the prosecution. Suffice it to state that there is other overwhelming evidence, as discussed above, which establishes the offence beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, failure of the prosecution to prove motive as a circumstance would pale into insignificance. 17. It is true that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely and the circumstances so proved should be of a conclusive nature having a definite tendency of implicating 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 the present case, the prosecution has proved the circumstances, adverted to above, and those circumstances have a definite tendency of implicating the appellant. As pointed out by us above, the possibility of deceased committing suicide or dying accidentally or on account of any disease is completely ruled out. The circumstances, therefore, exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. As also pointed out by us above, the presence of the appellant is established in the morning at 6.30 a.m. in the hospital. PW 1 - Dr. Atkar has identified him as the same person who had come for calling Dr. Atkar. There is no worthwhile cross-examination for refuting the identification of the appellant by PW 1 - Dr. As also pointed out by us above, the presence of the appellant is established in the morning at 6.30 a.m. in the hospital. PW 1 - Dr. Atkar has identified him as the same person who had come for calling Dr. Atkar. There is no worthwhile cross-examination for refuting the identification of the appellant by PW 1 - Dr. Atkar. The circumstances so established, therefore, point inexorably to the guilt of the appellant. In other words, apart from the appellant, no one else could have committed the crime. If deceased Kalpana was suffering from epilepsy, we find it extremely curious that the relatives of the deceased were not questioned about the so called epilepsy with which the deceased was suffering. Even the appellant in his 313 statement does not claim that deceased Kalpana had suffered an epileptic fit. Additionally we find that the appellant has taken a false defence and has not offered any explanation as to how deceased Kalpana had sustained the injuries noticed by PW 20 - Dr. Gosavi. In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had committed murder of his wife Kalpana. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, is sans merit and deserves to be dismissed. 18. Prosecution has filed Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2010 challenging the acquittal of the accused. Prosecution has examined PW 7 - Bajrang Puri, father of deceased Kalpana, PW 11 - Komal, sister of deceased Kalpana and PW 12 - Anjana, friend of deceased Kalpana. The evidence of these witnesses is that the accused were demanding money from the parents of Kalpana and on account of demand of money, the accused were ill-treated Kalpana. Prosecution has also examined PW 17-Tulsidas from whom Bajran Puri had taken a hand loan of Rs. 6 lacs in order to pay the said amount to the accused. The said amount was demanded by Bajran sometime in November or December 2006 and was to be paid by cheques in the account of Mahila Mandal. The defence of the accused was that they had received three cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each which were given in the name of Mahila Mandal towards the membership fees of the relatives of PW 7 - Bajran Puri, father of deceased Kalpana. The defence of the accused was that they had received three cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each which were given in the name of Mahila Mandal towards the membership fees of the relatives of PW 7 - Bajran Puri, father of deceased Kalpana. PW 7 - Bajran Puri has denied that his wife Anita was the Vice President of the Mahila Mandal. The defence of the accused was that the Mahila Mandal was going to open a D.Ed. College for which permission was required to be obtained from Bhopal and it was necessary to show fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 8 lacs of any nationalised bank. The said amount was to be raised by PW 7 - Bajran Puri and accused No. 2. The defence of the accused is that, therefore, Bajran Puri and accused No. 2 had taken Rs. 6 lacs as donation from Tulsidas Jadhav and accordingly the cheques were given payable to the account of Mahila Mandal. Prosecution has also examined the bank officials and has tendered documents to show the statement of account and the deposit of the cheques. 19. The trial court at paragraph 45 of the judgment has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the witnesses regarding subjecting deceased Kalpana to cruelty was extremely vague as there were no details about the ill-treatment. PW 7 - Bajran Puri has admitted that deceased used to come to his house on every alternate date and was attending her duty till her death. The articles in the marriage had been given by him as per his own desire. Even on the night prior to her death, the deceased had not made any complaint about any ill-treatment being meted out to her. Tulsidas Jadhav in his cross-examination has admitted that in June 2006 he had gone to Bhopal with a proposal for opening a D.Ed. College through the Mahila Mandal. The aforesaid admission is portion marked "A" in his previous statement. Even PW 23 - Dy. S.P. Rankhambe admits that in his investigation it had transpired that Tulsidas Jadhav had gone to Bhopal with a proposal for opening a D.Ed. College by the Mahila Mandal. He has admitted to have correctly recorded portion marked "A" in the statement of Tulsidas Jadhav. Omissions in the first statement of Bajrang Puri in respect of the demand for money, according to the trial court proves fatal to the prosecution case. College by the Mahila Mandal. He has admitted to have correctly recorded portion marked "A" in the statement of Tulsidas Jadhav. Omissions in the first statement of Bajrang Puri in respect of the demand for money, according to the trial court proves fatal to the prosecution case. The trial court, therefore, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence under Section 498-A beyond reasonable doubt. In respect of the charge for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C., the trial court found that there was no evidence that soon before her death, deceased Kalpana was subjected to cruelty on account of demand for dowry. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the I.P.C., the trial court came to the conclusion that these articles were gifted by PW 7 - Bajran Puri and since the family of the appellant and the other accused were residing jointly, the articles were kept in the house. The trial court found that there was no evidence that the accused had converted these articles to their own use and in fact the articles were produced before the Investigating Officer and were handed over to him. The trial court, therefore, found that the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. had not been proved by the prosecution. 20. With the assistance of the learned APP we have perused the findings as well as the relevant evidence in respect of the offences with which the accused were charged but were acquitted. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning if the trial court to warrant any interference in an appeal against acquittal. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2010 deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2010 is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant/original accused Nos. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2010 is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.