JUDGMENT : The appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction in Session's Trial No. 188/2001 dated 18-7-2002 by which she is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The case of the appellant/accused in short is as under : (i) The appellant was wife of complainant. The complainant lodged report in Police Station, Ashti alleging that on the day of incident i.e. on 2072001, he along with his wife (appellant) went to the field for agriculture work. The appellant told him that she was hungry and, therefore, husband and wife reached near well. Both of them taken lunch. The complainant fetched drinking water from the well. Accused/appellant requested to fetch water for her. When he fetched water, she refused to drink saying that it was dirty. She had taken that water with her while going to answer the call of nature. She returned back and requested complainant to fetch water saying that she was having menstruation period. The complainant bent at the corner of well to fetch water. Accused was standing at the backside. She pushed complainant forcibly. He fell down in the well. Being a swimmer, he could catch iron pipe fitted in the well. Thereafter appellant/accused (wife) thrown stones saying die ( ej ). (ii) It is further alleged that one Ramdas Dhurve while grazing cattle reached near the well at about 6.00 p.m. after hearing his shouts as xxxx. He called 24 persons from nearby field and taken out the complainant from well. He was taken to the hospital. Thereafter complainant lodged report, Exhibit 17. Crime was registered against the accused vide printed First Information Report, Exhibit 18 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. PSI Talvi investigated the crime, went to the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama, recorded statements of witnesses and after complete investigation filed the charge-sheet before the Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. (iii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 10. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined only three witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. After hearing prosecution and defence, learned trial Court convicted the accused. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri R.M. Daga for the appellant. He has pointed out cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined only three witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. After hearing prosecution and defence, learned trial Court convicted the accused. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri R.M. Daga for the appellant. He has pointed out cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. Learned Advocate has submitted that the complainant wanted divorce from the appellant. He was ill-treating her, beating her. On the day of incident, she was beaten by the complainant and removed her ornaments. She became unconscious in the field. When she regained consciousness, nobody was there. She went to Manikwada and lodged report. She was admitted in the hospital by police, therefore, complainant lodged false report and implicated her. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Daga has submitted that testimony of P.W. 1 not supported by medical evidence. There is no corroboration to the testimony of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 was having good relations with P.W.1, therefore, his evidence is not reliable. Moreover, there is material contradiction in their evidence. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he shouted as xxxx whereas P.W.2 has stated that he heard shout as xxxx. Learned Advocate Shri Daga has submitted that other material witnesses not examined by the prosecution. Admission of Investigating Officer, P.W.3 shows that appellant/accused had lodged report previous to the report of the complainant. Except P.W. 1, there is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused pushed the complainant in well. All the material evidence not taken into consideration by the trial Court and wrongly convicted her. At last, learned Advocate Shri Daga submitted that impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.M. Joshi for the State/respondent. He has submitted that evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient. There is no reason to disbelieve evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 was not knowing about the report lodged by his wife/appellant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly supported the impugned judgment. 6. Perused the evidence. From evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that one day before the incident, he brought his wife from her parent's house. His cross-examination shows that there was dispute between P.W.1 and his wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 17-4-2001. After the marriage, within a short period, incident took place on 20-7-2001. 6. Perused the evidence. From evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that one day before the incident, he brought his wife from her parent's house. His cross-examination shows that there was dispute between P.W.1 and his wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 17-4-2001. After the marriage, within a short period, incident took place on 20-7-2001. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that a meeting was called and matter was settled in that meeting and he brought accused along with him. The incident took place on the next day. 7. This evidence of complainant itself shows that there is material substance in the defence of accused/appellant that before the incident, she had been to her parent's house. As per her report, on the day of incident, she was beaten by P.W.1. P.W.1, her brother-in-law and mother-in-law beat her in the field. She was unconscious. When she regained consciousness, nobody was there. She went to Manikwada and lodged report. 8. Evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by any other evidence. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he was pushed by the appellant/accused in the well. He fell down and was there in the well for about whole day. It is pertinent to note that his evidence shows that there was an iron pipe fitted to the electric motor pump. He has stated that he caught that pipe. It is pertinent to note that he could have come upward with the help of iron pipe. P.W. 1 has stated that he shouted as xxxx whereas P.W. 2 who has stated that he heard voice as xxxx. Therefore, there is no corroboration to version of P.W.1. 9. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that he has cordial relations with his wife till last. If it was so, then there was no reason for the appellant to push her husband in well. There is material omission brought in his evidence in cross-examination. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he was fetching water for the appellant. When he bent towards the well, that time, accused pushed him. It is pertinent to note that no bucket with rope was found on the spot of incident. 10. P.W.3, Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that he did not see bucket with rope near the well. He has stated that bucket was not there. When he bent towards the well, that time, accused pushed him. It is pertinent to note that no bucket with rope was found on the spot of incident. 10. P.W.3, Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that he did not see bucket with rope near the well. He has stated that bucket was not there. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 that he was fetching water with the help of bucket and rope is not reliable. If it was so, then bucket should have been in the well or by the side of well. 11. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, he was in the well throughout the day. In the evening at about 6.00 p.m., he shouted as xxxx (rush to him), that time, P.W. 2 came near the well, called other nearby persons and taken him out of the well. P.W. 2 Ramdas Dhurve has stated that he heard shouting from the well that xxxx (I fell down in the well and save me). P.W. 2 has stated that he called Sahebrao Parteki, Prabhakar Rayakwar and Shamrao Kosre who were in nearby fields. He with the help of those persons taken out P.W.1 from the well. It is pertinent to note that except P.W. 2 other persons, namely, Sahebrao Parteki, Prabhakar Rayakwar and Shamrao Kosre not examined by the prosecution. P.W. 2 is the friend of P.W.1, therefore, it is natural on his part to support P.W. 1. P.W. 2 also stated that there was no bucket lying near the well. Cross-examination of P.W. 2 shows that cultivators were working in the nearby field of the complainant, therefore, it was natural for them to hear the shouting of complainant, but nobody is examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has suppressed the material fact by not examining nearby cultivators. 12. It is specifically stated by the appellant/wife of complainant in her statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that “on earlier day of incident, she was brought by her husband from her parent's house. She was asked whether money was brought and when she replied in the negative, she was beaten by her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law in the field on the relevant day of incident. Her husband demanded golden ornaments from her. She told him that golden ornaments would be given in the house and requested him to reach to the house. She was asked whether money was brought and when she replied in the negative, she was beaten by her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law in the field on the relevant day of incident. Her husband demanded golden ornaments from her. She told him that golden ornaments would be given in the house and requested him to reach to the house. In the meanwhile, accused struck her by means of brick piece, therefore, she fell on the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter, accused taken her all golden ornaments. After about 15 minutes, she regained consciousness. Nobody was found near her in the field. She then reached to Manikwada where from she was taken to Dhawasa. She then reached to Police Station, Jalalkheda and lodged the report. On the next day, police had taken her to the hospital of Jalalkheda and thereafter police of Ashti Police Station reached there.” 13. Defence of accused appears to be probably proved by the appellant/ accused. Admission of complainant shows that one day before the incident, he brought his wife from her parent's house. It appears that there was dispute between husband and wife. He has admitted that meeting was called and thereafter he brought his wife/appellant. Therefore, it is clear that there was some dispute between husband and wife. It supports the defence of accused that she was beaten. Her ornaments were removed. P.W. 3 PSI Talvi has admitted in his cross-examination that he learnt that accused lodged report against her husband Vasanta in Police Station. He also stated that she was sent for medical examination. Offence was registered against the complainant. This itself shows that there was injury on the person of the accused. In the arrest panchanama also, injury was found on her wrist. Arrest panchanama is proved by the prosecution at Exhibit 21. All these evidence shows that probable defence is proved by the accused/appellant that she was beaten by complainant/husband, therefore, she lodged report against him. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer Shri Talvi that her report was earlier before the report of P.W.1. She was also given medical treatment in the Government Hospital. Thereafter he arrested her on the report of P.W.1. Report of complainant is counterblast to her report. 14. Evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any other evidence. Evidence of P.W. 2 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. She was also given medical treatment in the Government Hospital. Thereafter he arrested her on the report of P.W.1. Report of complainant is counterblast to her report. 14. Evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any other evidence. Evidence of P.W. 2 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he heard shout of P.W. 1 that xxxx (I fell down in the well, save me). This evidence shows that complainant might have accidentally fell in the well. Evidence on record shows that probable defence is proved by the appellant. Learned trial Court not considered probable defence and wrongly convicted the accused/appellant. Therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence following order. (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment in Session's Trial No. 188/2001 dated 18-7-2002 passed by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to appellant/accused after appeal period. (v) Bail bond of accused/appellant stands cancelled. (vi) R & P be sent back to the trial Court.