JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the Judgment of conviction awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 2012, dated 13.11.2014, by which he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution/complainant, in short, is as under: The deceased along with his wife namely Maya was residing near Lakadgunj over bridge, Murtizapur. The complainant lost her first husband. She married with the deceased/ husband for the second time. She has two daughters namely Chhakuli and Shalini. The deceased along with his family and parents were residing jointly. The accused is relative of deceased. He was always visiting to the house of the deceased. The accused and the deceased both were addicted to liquor. 3. On 5th August, 2012, the deceased went outside for bringing liquor. He returned back at about 9.00 a.m. He told his wife/complainant that he wanted to go to the house of the accused to get the amount back which was given by him to the accused. Later, he told her that he has drunk liquor excessively and therefore, he will go in the evening. 4. In the evening, at about 5.30 p.m. deceased Sonu went to the house of the accused. His wife/complainant was knowing that the accused is a quarrelsome person and therefore, she suspected that there would be some quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Therefore, she sent her daughter Chhakuli after 510 minutes towards the house of appellant Suresh. After sometime, Chhakuli returned back and informed to the complainant that her father was lying there and blood was oozing (“papa vaha pade hai aur unka bahut khoon ja raha hai”). The complainant immediately rushed to the spot of incident. She found her husband lying in a pool of blood. He had injuries on his face, nose etc. On the complainant asking her husband/deceased, he replied that he was beaten by accused Suresh. Then she asked him by what means he was beaten. He replied that the accused beat him by stone. The complainant called auto and took the deceased to the Government hospital, Akola. Doctor examined the deceased and declared him brought dead. On the complainant asking her husband/deceased, he replied that he was beaten by accused Suresh. Then she asked him by what means he was beaten. He replied that the accused beat him by stone. The complainant called auto and took the deceased to the Government hospital, Akola. Doctor examined the deceased and declared him brought dead. Complainant lodged the report in the Police Station, Murtizapur about the incident. 5. After report, investigation machinery was put in motion. The Investigating Officer started investigation. He went to the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama, seizure panchanama, inquest panchanama etc. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused. He was referred to the Medical Officer. The Investigating Officer seized the clothes of the deceased, stone and the clothes of accused and their blood samples etc. The Investigating Officer sent all the seized properties to the Chemical Analyser for examination as per the letter at Exh.44. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses. It was revealed during the investigation that the accused committed murder of deceased Sonu. 6. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur. The offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Akola. 7. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola framed charge at Exh.2. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The defence of the appellant/accused appears to be of total denial and false implication due to enmity. 9. Prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the material incriminating evidence against him. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated above. 11. Being aggrieved by the Judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 12. None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. A.M. Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. 11. Being aggrieved by the Judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 12. None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. A.M. Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. He has pointed out to us the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court and submitted that the evidence of complainant is supported by other circumstantial evidence. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that the deceased went to the house of the accused to demand money, which was advanced by him earlier. The complainant was well aware that there would be some quarrel. Therefore, she sent her daughter. Daughter returned within a short time and informed to the complainant that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. The complainant immediately went to the spot of incident and on her asking, the deceased stated to her that the accused beat him by stone. 13. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, learned A.P.P. has submitted that oral dying declaration given by the deceased to PW1 Complainant is sufficient to convict the accused. The learned A.P.P. has further submitted that blood was found on the clothes of the accused. He has also pointed out the evidence of daughter of the deceased and submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction awarded by the trial Court is perfectly legal and correct, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Whether death of Sonu is homicidal is to be seen. To prove homicidal death, prosecution has examined Medical Officer Dr. Bele (PW-7), who has conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sonu Chavan on 6.8.2012. He found the following injuries: (I) Crushed lacerated wound involving upper lip, right and left nostrils of size 5.5 cm. 2.3 cm. x bone deep. The surface of wound at edges and margins are red and crushed along with underline maxilla and nasal bone appears broken into pieces and broken pieces of bone can be seen through wound. (II) Contused abrasion of reddish brown colour over chin of size 3 x 1 cm. (III) Laceration of size 4 x 2cm x muscle deep over zygoma. (IV) Lacerated wound over left leg on medical aspect of size 2.5 x 1.3 cm x bone deep. (II) Contused abrasion of reddish brown colour over chin of size 3 x 1 cm. (III) Laceration of size 4 x 2cm x muscle deep over zygoma. (IV) Lacerated wound over left leg on medical aspect of size 2.5 x 1.3 cm x bone deep. (V) Diffused contusion seen over chest on right side intraclavicular and supra maxillary region extending towards interior fold of axilla towards right side of size 13 x 6.3 cm. (VI) Nail scratch mark seen over left shoulder joint and intraclavicular region multiple. (VII) Spindle shape incised penetrating stab wound over right leg, lower 1/3rd aspect, anterior of size 3.2 x 1.5 cm x cavity deep. (VIII) Fracture of nasal bone maxilla zygomatic arch confirmed on dissection. All the injuries were ante mortem. 15. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Mr. Bele, cause of death as per his opinion was hemorrhagic shock due to laceration of liver and associated cranio cerebral injury. Accordingly, he prepared the Post Mortem report (Exh.36). He has further stated that the injuries which he found on the dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Such injuries were possible if any person was assaulted by stone. Therefore, it is clear that death of Sonu Chavan was homicidal death. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in case of cerebral injury to a person, it may cause instant death or he may become unconscious. 16. The learned trial Court relied on the evidence of Maya Sonu Chavan (PW-1) and her daughter Chhakuli @ Shalini Sonu Chavan (PW4). The learned trial Court relied on the oral dying declaration given by the deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) and also relied on the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the incident. 17. Now it is a well settled law that the Court can convict the accused only on the basis of the dying declaration provided that the dying declaration should be of such a nature which should inspire the confidence of the Court. Now, in the catena of decisions, it is held that there is no particular format to record the dying declaration. The dying declaration may be oral or may be in writing. The dying declaration, as stated by the complainant, is sufficient to convict the accused and whether there is any other evidence to support/corroborate the dying declaration. 18. Now, in the catena of decisions, it is held that there is no particular format to record the dying declaration. The dying declaration may be oral or may be in writing. The dying declaration, as stated by the complainant, is sufficient to convict the accused and whether there is any other evidence to support/corroborate the dying declaration. 18. Now we have to see whether the oral dying declaration given by Maya Chavan (PW1) and the circumstantial evidence relied on by the Court are sufficient to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that, at the time of incident, at about 5.30 p.m., her husband Sonu Chavan had gone to the house of the accused to demand money which was advanced to him. She has further stated that she immediately sent her daughter Chhakuli (PW-4) to see as to whether there was any quarrel. Chhakuli followed her father/deceased and returned back within a short time. Chhakuli narrated to Maya Chavan (PW-1) that deceased Sonu was lying in front of the house of Mangala. Maya Chauvan (PW-1) along with Chhakuli and her father-in-law went to the spot of incident. At that time, Meena Mohan Waghmare (PW-5) and Deokabai were also present. 20. Maya Chauhan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that her husband was lying in a pool of blood. When she asked him as to what happened, the deceased told her that accused Suresh beat him by stone. 21. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has further stated in her evidence that she immediately took her husband to the Government Hospital, Murtizapur. The Medical Officer advised her to take her husband to the General Hospital at A kola. She took her husband to the General Hospital, A kola. The Medical Officer declared him brought dead. 22. Chhakuli @ Shalini Sonu Chavan (PW-4) is the daughter of the deceased and Maya Chavan (PW-1). It is to be seen as to whether the evidence adduced by Maya Chavan (PW-1) and Chhakuli (PW-4) is sufficient and reliable. 23. Now it is well settled law that an oral dying declaration can be relied on to convict the accused. It is a piece of evidence which can be relied on as like other substantive evidence. It is to be seen as to whether the evidence adduced by Maya Chavan (PW-1) and Chhakuli (PW-4) is sufficient and reliable. 23. Now it is well settled law that an oral dying declaration can be relied on to convict the accused. It is a piece of evidence which can be relied on as like other substantive evidence. If it is found that it is a reliable evidence then the Court can convict the accused only on the basis of the dying declaration. In the landmark Judgment of Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “In order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities, referred to above or from such other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case.” 24. In the present case, the dying declaration given by the deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) appears to be not reliable because evidence of PW1 is not supported by any other evidence. PW-5 has stated that deceased has not stated anything. As per medical evidence he must be unconscious or dead. There should be satisfaction of the Court that the deceased was in a fit state of mind when he disclosed the incident. PW-5 has stated that deceased has not stated anything. As per medical evidence he must be unconscious or dead. There should be satisfaction of the Court that the deceased was in a fit state of mind when he disclosed the incident. The dying declaration is the last statement of the person about the cause of his death. As per Section 32 of the Evidence Act the statement made by the deceased about his cause of death or the circumstances which leads to the death is admissible. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710 has observed as under: “The Juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such a declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth....... The situation in which a man is on death bed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with ….....A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite......When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a Magistrate is absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a Magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording.” 26. The principle behind the dying declaration is that the person who is on a death bed will not speak lie. Therefore, it can be relied on by the Court as like other evidence and only on the basis of the dying declaration, the accused can be convicted provided that the dying declaration should inspire confidence of the Court. 27. The principle behind the dying declaration is that the person who is on a death bed will not speak lie. Therefore, it can be relied on by the Court as like other evidence and only on the basis of the dying declaration, the accused can be convicted provided that the dying declaration should inspire confidence of the Court. 27. With the above said observation of Hon’ble Apex Court, we have to see whether the dying declaration given by the deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) before the trial Court is sufficient to hold that the accused has committed murder of deceased Suresh. As per the evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1) when she reached to the spot of incident, the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. On her asking, her husband/ deceased replied that the accused beat him by stone. Immediately she took her husband to the Medical Officer, Murtizapur, who advised her to take the deceased immediately to the General Hospital at A kola. 28. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that she immediately took her husband to the General hospital, A kola and the doctor/Medical Officer declared him brought dead. In such a situation, whether the deceased was in a mentally fit condition to disclose about the cause of death is to be seen. Maya Chavan (PW-1) and Chhakuli (P.W-4) are the interested witnesses because Maya Chavan (PW-1) is wife and Chhakuli (PW-4) is the daughter of the deceased. There is no law preventing or barring the Court from relying on the relatives of the deceased. The relatives of the deceased can be relied on, but their evidence is to be scrutinized very carefully. 29. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that when she asked her husband, he told that the accused beat him by stone. This evidence is not supported or corroborated by any other evidence. Chhakuli (PW-4) has stated in her evidence that she along with her mother Maya Chavan (PW-1) went to the spot of incident. Her mother asked the deceased as to how the incident took place. Her father replied that accused beat him by stone. Her evidence is not reliable because in her cross-examination she has admitted that Maya Chavan (PW-1) tutored her. She was given instructions as to how to depose in the Court and what should be deposed before the Court. Her mother asked the deceased as to how the incident took place. Her father replied that accused beat him by stone. Her evidence is not reliable because in her cross-examination she has admitted that Maya Chavan (PW-1) tutored her. She was given instructions as to how to depose in the Court and what should be deposed before the Court. This admission in the cross-examination of Chhakuli (PW-4) clearly shows that she was tutored by Maya Chavan. 30. As per the evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1), Meena Waghmare (PW-5) was also present with her. Evidence of Meena (PW-5) shows that Maya Chavan had not asked anything to the deceased. She has not supported to the prosecution. She has specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that there was no talk between Maya and deceased Sonu. Though this witness has not supported to the prosecution, the evidence of hostile witness cannot be thrown away. The material evidence can be taken into consideration. 31. It is to be seen from the medical evidence also as to whether deceased Sonu was in a position or in a fit mental condition to state anything before Maya Chavan (PW-1). As per the evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1), she had taken the deceased to the Medical hospital, Murtizapur. The Medical Officer was present there. He instructed her to take the deceased immediately to the General Hospital, A kola. 32. When the Medical Officer was present, it was for the prosecution to examine him to show as to whether the deceased was conscious and was in a position to give statement. Had it been a fact that the deceased was conscious and was in a fit mental condition then, as per the general procedure, the Medical Officer ought to have informed the police and to record the dying declaration through the Executive Magistrate. It is not done in the present case. Therefore, it supports the defence that the deceased was not conscious when Maya reached to the spot of incident and thereafter, when she took the deceased to the hospital. 33. The defence is proved by effective cross-examination by the side of the accused. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the material admissions brought on record by the side of the defence. Medical Officer Dr. 33. The defence is proved by effective cross-examination by the side of the accused. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the material admissions brought on record by the side of the defence. Medical Officer Dr. Ramhari Parbat Bele (PW-7) has stated in his evidence that he conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found about eight injuries. In his examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that the cause of death as per his opinion was “hemorrhagic shock due to laceration of liver and associated cranio cerebral injury.” There is no doubt that the deceased died homicidal death. As per the admission in the cross-examination of Dr. Bele, it is clear that the deceased died immediately on the spot. He has admitted in his cross-examination that, in case of cerebral injury to a person, it may cause instant death or he may become unconscious. 34. As per the evidence of Dr. Bele, deceased sustained haemorrhagic shock due to laceration of liver and associated cranio cerebral injury. In his cross-examination, Dr. Bele has specifically stated that, in case of cerebral injury to a person, he may die instantly or become unconscious. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased must have died instantly or he must have become unconscious. Therefore, the evidence adduced by Maya Chavan (PW-1) that her husband stated to her that the accused beat him by stone is not reliable. 35. Evidence of PW-1 is falsified by the evidence of Dr. Bele. As per his evidence, the deceased sustained hemorrhagic shock due to laceration of liver and associated cranio cerebral injury and in such a case, the deceased must have died instantly or he was unconscious. Therefore, the dying declaration which creates doubt cannot be relied on as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 173 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “though there is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration but the Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary and in that event, there is no impediment in basing conviction on it, without corroboration. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. Likewise, where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any declaration the evidence with regard to it is rejected. ” 36. In the present case, the oral dying declaration given by the deceased to Maya Chavan (PW-1) is suspicious, without any corroboration and therefore, cannot be relied on to convict the accused. 37. The learned trial Court relied on the circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court has observed that the deceased went to the house of the accused to demand money. Chhakuli (PW-4) followed him and found him lying on the road in a pool of blood. PW1 with Chhakuli went to spot and asked the deceased then he replied that accused beat him by stone. The learned trial Court has observed that these are the circumstances. 38. It is pertinent to note that the accused was not found on the spot of incident, near the spot of incident or at his house. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was lying in front of the house of Mangala on a public road. Prosecution has not examined Mangala or any other person who are residing nearby the spot of incident. It is pertinent to note that the incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. Therefore, it was an evening time. The people must have been there or nearby the spot of incident. Therefore, it was the duty of the prosecution to examine any of the witnesses residing nearby the spot of incident. But not a single witness from the spot of incident is examined by the prosecution. 39. The circumstances relied on by the trial Court are not sufficient to convict the accused. Now it is a settled and established law that the circumstances should be of such a nature that they should point towards the guilt of the accused and none else as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . Now it is a settled and established law that the circumstances should be of such a nature that they should point towards the guilt of the accused and none else as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . In the present case, not a single circumstance is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the accused is the author of the crime and none else. 40. Evidence of Maya Chavan (PW-1) is not supported/corroborated by any other evidence. Evidence of Chhakuli (PW-4) clearly shows that she has stated before the Court as per instructions of Maya Chavan (PW-1). Meena Waghmare (PW5) specifically stated that Maya Chavan (PW-1) did not enquire with the deceased in her presence. Raju Bhimrao Chavan (PW-6), the father-in-law of Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated that Maya Chavan (PW-1) asked in his presence to the deceased and the deceased had told that the accused beat him by stone. This evidence is falsified by his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, it is brought on record as a material omission. Therefore, it is clear that it is nothing but improvement. Moreover, Raju Chavan (PW-6) was prosecuted on the report of the accused and therefore, there was enmity between them. 41. The Chemical Analyser’s reports are on record at Exh. Nos. 47 to 51. The C.A. Reports show that human blood was found on the clothes of the deceased, the accused and the stone. Blood group of accused and deceased are not determined. It is pertinent to note that the material admissions are brought on record in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has stated in the cross-examination that he seized three bottles of blood of deceased, whereas he sent only two bottles to the C.A. He has not explained in his evidence as to what he has done with the third bottle. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the blood might have been smeared on the clothes and stone and therefore, the evidence of C.A. Report is doubtful. 42. The evidence to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code must be carefully scrutinized and the Court should insist for an unimpeachable evidence. In the present case, the Court relied on the dying declaration given to Maya Chavan (PW-1). 42. The evidence to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code must be carefully scrutinized and the Court should insist for an unimpeachable evidence. In the present case, the Court relied on the dying declaration given to Maya Chavan (PW-1). First of all, it was an oral dying declaration. It appears that the deceased was not in a fit mental condition to give the dying declaration. If it was so, then as per the practice, the dying declaration should have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The dying declaration was not recorded either by the Executive Magistrate or the Medical Officer or police. 43. The oral dying declaration given to Maya Chavan (PW-1) is not reliable because of the admission given by Meena Waghmare (PW-5). She has specifically stated that Maya Chavan (PW-1) did not ask anything to the deceased in her presence. The evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Bele clearly shows that the deceased sustained celebral injury. As per his evidence in the cross-examination, if any person sustains such type of injury then he must die instantly or must become unconscious. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased must have died instantly or he was unconscious. 44. Prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer of Murtizapur. If the deceased was really in conscious condition, then he would have recorded some observations in the record of hospital. As per evidence of Maya Chavan (PW1), the Medical Officer, Murtizapur directed her to take the deceased immediately to the General Hospital, A kola. This it self shows that the deceased was in a serious condition or he might have died. Maya Chavan (PW-1) has stated that immediately she took her husband to the General Hospital, A kola. The Medical Officer at A kola Government Hospital declared him brought dead. All this evidence clearly show that the oral dying declaration relied on by the trial Court as stated by Maya Chavan (PW-1) is doubtful; therefore, accused cannot be convicted on the basis of oral dying declaration. 45. The circumstantial evidence which is also relied on by the trial Court is not sufficient to convict the accused. There is no other circumstance. The only circumstance that the deceased went to the house of the accused to demand money is the circumstance taken into consideration by the trial Court. 45. The circumstantial evidence which is also relied on by the trial Court is not sufficient to convict the accused. There is no other circumstance. The only circumstance that the deceased went to the house of the accused to demand money is the circumstance taken into consideration by the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that nobody saw the accused at his house near the spot of incident or on the spot of incident. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be said to be a circumstance to be taken into consideration to convict the accused. 46. The trial Court miserably failed to consider the material evidence brought on record during the course of cross-examination. The effective cross-examination is made by the side of the accused to all the witnesses and material admissions are brought on record, but all those admissions are not considered by the trial Court. Now it is well settled law that, while delivering the Judgment, the Court has to see or scrutinize the whole evidence which is brought on record. The Court cannot see a particular part of evidence and neglect the other part of evidence. The evidence in isolation is not to be read. The Court has to read the evidence as a whole and not in isolation. It appears from the Judgment of the trial Court that the material evidence which is beneficial to the accused is not taken into consideration. The material evidence of doctor itself shows that the deceased died instantly or he was unconscious when Maya Chavan (PW-1) reached to the spot of incident. There is no other material circumstance to point out towards the guilt of the accused. 47. Prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The learned trial Court has not considered the evidence properly and therefore, the impugned Judgment of conviction is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we allow the appeal as prayed for and pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. Accused Suresh Mahadeo Deshmukh is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused is in jail. He be set at liberty if not required in any other case or crime. The seized property being worthless be destroyed after lapse of the appeal period. The appeal is allowed. Accused Suresh Mahadeo Deshmukh is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused is in jail. He be set at liberty if not required in any other case or crime. The seized property being worthless be destroyed after lapse of the appeal period. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court.