JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Appellant has assailed the Judgment of conviction in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2005, by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is as under: Sister of complainant namely Sangita was married to appellant two years prior to the incident. She was residing with her husband/appellant at Kamargaon. From the beginning, appellant was assaulting her and directing her to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents. Complainant paid Rs.3,000/-. Thereafter also, appellant continued his ill-treatment. At the time of Holi, complainant went to the house of his sister/deceased. Appellant threw hot cooked vegetable on her person. Complainant took his sister to Police Station and lodged report. She was taken by the complainant to his residence. After four months, appellant went to fetch her. Appellant gave assurance to treat her properly. Therefore, complainant sent his sister with him. 3. Appellant again started demanding Rs.7,000/-. Deceased informed her brother on telephone. Complainant was about to go after Diwali to the house of deceased. But, on 12.11.2004, complainant received message about death of his sister Sangita. Complainant along with relatives went to the house of appellant. They found deceased hanging in the well. Complainant lodged report. Crime No.85 of 2004 was registered against the appellant. Police reached to the spot of incident. Dead body was taken out from the well. Inquest panchanama, spot panchanama etc. were prepared by Investigating Officer. Dead body was sent for post motem. After complete investigation, charge sheet was submitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja. As usual, case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Dead body was taken out from the well. Inquest panchanama, spot panchanama etc. were prepared by Investigating Officer. Dead body was sent for post motem. After complete investigation, charge sheet was submitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja. As usual, case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant at Exh.4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the appellant appears to be of total denial and false implication. It appears that defence was of accidental or suicidal death. 5. Learned trial Court recorded evidence of the following witnesses: (a). Narendra Bhaurao Admane (PW1) (Exh.12). (b). Sudhakar Bhikaji Thakre (PW2) (Exh.16). (c). Sau. Sumitra w/o. Dnyaneshwar Adkane (PW3) (Exh.17). (d). Keshao Kadam Devidas Kadam (PW4) (Exh.18). (e). Sham Tulshiram Tumsare (PW5) (Exh.20). (f). Gajanan Jagannath Falke (PW6) (Exh.23). (g). Raju Gulab Gawai (PW7) (Exh.26) (h). Bhagwansing Bapuji Susatkar (PW8) (Exh.28). (i). Madhao Nagnathrao Dhopare (PW9) (Exh.39). 6. Statement of appellant was recorded u/s.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied material incriminating evidence against him. After hearing prosecution and defence, learned trial Court has convicted the appellant as stated above. 7. Heard Mr.A.M.Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that there is no ocular evidence. Medical evidence stated by Dr.Madhao Nagnathrao Dhopare (PW9) shows that death was due to cardio respiratory arrest with asphyxia with hanging. He has pointed out cross-examination of Medical Officer and submitted that it was a case of suicide and not murder. There is no other evidence to show that appellant beat the deceased, killed her and hanged her dead body in the well. 8. Heard Mr.J.Y.Ghurde, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. He has submitted that deceased was in the company of the appellant. It was for the appellant to show as to how deceased died. But, there is no explanation. Prosecution has proved guilt of the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Except the complainant, his sister Sau. Sumitra w/o. Dnyaneshwar Adkane (PW-3). There is no evidence to show that there was any ill-treatment by the appellant. 10. Prosecution has proved guilt of the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Except the complainant, his sister Sau. Sumitra w/o. Dnyaneshwar Adkane (PW-3). There is no evidence to show that there was any ill-treatment by the appellant. 10. Evidence of Narendra Bhaurao Admane (PW-1) shows that there was ill-treatment by the appellant. He has stated that appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/-. He was not having money. Therefore, he demanded money from his sister Sau.Sumitra (PW-3) and given to the appellant. At the time of Holi, he had been to the house of appellant. Appellant quarreled with his sister and threw cooked food on her person. Therefore, report was lodged. He took his sister to his house. After four months, appellant came to fetch her. Meeting was called. In the meeting, appellant assured to give proper treatment to the deceased. On his assurance, deceased was sent with the appellant. Again, appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/-. He was beating deceased. Deceased informed him. He had decided to go to the house of appellant after Diwali. But, on the day of Laxmi pujan, he received message about death of his sister. Thereafter, he along with Keshav Kadam (PW-4) and Sau. Sumitra Adkane (PW-3) went to the house of appellant. He saw dead body of appellant in the well. Dead body was hanging with rope and one end of rope was tied to one tree/bush. 11. Sudhakar Thakre (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that he know appellant and his wife. Accused was addicted to liquor and used to beat his wife under the influence of liquor. He came to know that deceased was hanging in well. He went near the well and saw dead body of deceased hanging. He informed Narendra Admane (PW-1) about the incident. 12. Sau. Sumitra Adkane (PW-3), sister of deceased has stated that, after the marriage, appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/-. She had given Rs.3,000/-. Appellant was illtreating and beating the deceased. She received message about her death on the day of Laxmi Pujan. She went to Kamargaon and saw dead body in the well. Accused killed her by strangulation. 13. Keshao Kadam (PW-4) has stated that Narenda Admane (PW-1) came to him and informed about death of his daughter. Therefore, they went to Kamargaon. Appellant was illtreating and beating the deceased. She received message about her death on the day of Laxmi Pujan. She went to Kamargaon and saw dead body in the well. Accused killed her by strangulation. 13. Keshao Kadam (PW-4) has stated that Narenda Admane (PW-1) came to him and informed about death of his daughter. Therefore, they went to Kamargaon. He saw deceased Sangita was hanging in the well. He stated that the appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/- and on that count, was ill-treating her. Narendra (PW1) paid Rs.3,000/- to the appellant. 14. Sham Tulshiram Tumsare (PW5) has stated in his evidence that spot panchanama (Exh.21) and inquest panchanama (Exh.22) were prepared in his presence. 15. Gajanan Jagannath Falke (PW6) has stated about seizure panchanama of ornaments of deceased and her clothes vide Exh. Nos. 24 and 25. 16. Raju Gulab Gawai (PW7) has stated about spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and seizure panchanama. 17. PSI Bhagwansing Bapuji Susatkar (PW8) has stated about investigation. He has stated that, before the incident, deceased had lodged report. Crime was registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Medical Officer Madhao Nagnathrao Dhopare (PW9) has stated in his evidence that, on 12.11.2004, he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sangita. He found the following injuries : (a). abrasion over left knee and over medial aspect of right leg of size 2 cm x 2 cm. b. ligature marks of size breadth approximate 1 ½ half inch and length 15 inches. 19. As per his opinion, cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest with asphyxia due to hanging. Accordingly, he issued Post Mortem Report Exh.40. 20. Though Narenda Admane (PW1) and Sau Sumitra Adkane (PW3) have stated in their evidence that appellant was always beating her on account of demand of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.3,000/- was paid by them, even thereafter he continued to beat deceased. Though they have stated that, on the day of incident, appellant beat his wife, killed her and made a show of hanging, but there is no evidence to show that appellant committed murder of his wife. 21. Though they have stated that, on the day of incident, appellant beat his wife, killed her and made a show of hanging, but there is no evidence to show that appellant committed murder of his wife. 21. As per the admission of both these witnesses i.e. Narenda Admane (PW-1) and Sau Sumitra Adkane (PW-3) in their cross-examination, it is clear that deceased had delivered twins, but the male child died after seven days and the female child died after eight months. Therefore, deceased was very nervous. She had lost her mental status. 22. From the evidence of all the witnesses, it is apparent that nobody have stated in evidence that appellant was lastly in the company of deceased. Defence of the appellant seems that deceased herself committed suicide because she lost her mental balance due to death of both children. Probable defence appears to be supported by evidence of Narenda (PW-1) and Sau. Sumitra (PW-3). Brother and sister of deceased have admitted in their cross-examination that both twins/children of deceased died and therefore, she was very nervous. She had lost her mental balance. 23. Evidence of Medical Officer Madhao Dhopare (PW9) shows that only two injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. One injury was on the left knee and another was ligature mark on the neck. As per his cross-examination, injury no.1 was a simple injury. It could be caused while getting down in the well with the help of rope. As per his admission, he found marks of dried saliva over right cheek. He did not find any other injury on the dead body. He did not find any nail marks on any part of dead body. There was no blood stain on her nails. There was no fracture in thorax. Generally in hanging cases, there can be saliva. Except ligature marks around neck, there was no ligature mark on other part of body of deceased. 24. Evidence of Medical Officer clearly shows that it was death due to hanging. Medical Officer has not found other injuries. The allegation of Narenda (PW-1) and Sau. Sumitra (PW-3) that deceased was beaten, killed by appellant and hanged in the well is not reliable. If appellant would have beaten and killed the deceased, then, in such circumstances, there should have been struggle and more injuries would have been found on the dead body. Medical Officer has not found other injuries. The allegation of Narenda (PW-1) and Sau. Sumitra (PW-3) that deceased was beaten, killed by appellant and hanged in the well is not reliable. If appellant would have beaten and killed the deceased, then, in such circumstances, there should have been struggle and more injuries would have been found on the dead body. No more injuries were found on the dead body. No evidence to show that accused also sustained any injury. Probability cannot be ruled out that deceased lost her mental balance due to death of her both children as admitted by Narenda (PW-1) and Sau. Sumitra (PW-3). Due to loss of mental balance, deceased might have committed suicide by hanging. There is no evidence to show that appellant was lastly in the company of deceased. Learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. Evidence of Narenda (PW-1) and Sau. Sumitra (PW-3) clearly shows that appellant was demanding Rs.10,000/- and he was beating deceased. Sau. Sumitra (PW-3) gave Rs.3000/-. Even thereafter, appellant continued to beat and ill-treat the deceased. Except this evidence, there is no other evidence by the side of prosecution. From the perusal of cross-examination of Narendra (PW-1), it is clear that when his sister lodged report against appellant, thereafter, he had taken her to his residence. After four months, appellant came to him. Meeting was called. Appellant gave assurance to give proper treatment. On his assurance, deceased was sent with the appellant. Again, he started beating and ill-treating the deceased for demand of Rs.7000/- more. This particular evidence is supported by Sau. Sumitra (PW-3) and Keshao Kadam (PW-4). There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. 26. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has proved guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction in respect of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is maintained as it is. Appellant was in jail from the time of arrest. He has undergone sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime or case. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court. Fees of the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant is quantified at Rs.5,000/-.