JUDGMENT : M. G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Both the appellants assailed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 29/2015. Both the appellants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 404 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under : (1) Accused No. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, vide section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and each of them are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousands only); in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Six months. (2) Accused No. 1 and 2 are further convicted for the offence punishable under section 404 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, vide section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and each of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousands only); in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Three months. (3) Accused No. 1 and 2 are further convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, vide section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and each of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousands only); in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Three months. 2. The case of the prosecution against the appellants can be summarized as under. (i) Kapurchand Sawalakhe was residing at Bapera, Taluka Mohadi. His first wife left him before 3035 years back. Thereafter he married with Vithabai. Vithabai delivered two daughters and one son (appellant – Nandakishor). His son Nandakishor was residing along with his wife at Eklari in the house of his father. Kapurchand and Vithabai were also residing with Nandakishor. Two months before the incident, Kapurchand was suffering from paralysis. Both appellants viz. Nandakishor and Mona were always quarreling with Kapurchand and his wife Vithabai, therefore, they went to Bapera and started residing with his son Kheman. (ii) On 15-4-2015, Vithabai came to Eklari to the house of Nandakishor to take some household articles. Two months before the incident, Kapurchand was suffering from paralysis. Both appellants viz. Nandakishor and Mona were always quarreling with Kapurchand and his wife Vithabai, therefore, they went to Bapera and started residing with his son Kheman. (ii) On 15-4-2015, Vithabai came to Eklari to the house of Nandakishor to take some household articles. He was informed by one Arjun Kamane that Vithabai kept some articles at his house, at about 11.00 a.m., he requested her to come for lunch. She went to the house of Nandakishor but did not return. He informed Kapurchand that there might be quarrel between Nandakishor and deceased. Kapurchand suspected something would happen, therefore, he went to Police Outpost, Warthi at about 7.00 p.m. He along with police went to the house of appellants. Both appellants were present. Kapurchand enquired about Vithabai. Both appellants told them that Vithabai went to Village Tarsa. Complainant suspected about foul play, therefore, he requested police and police patil of village to search the house of appellants. One divan (box bed) was in the kitchen room of the appellants. It was locked. After opening the lock, dead body of Vithabai was found. Golden ornaments of Vithabai were found missing. Kapurchand asked his son Nandakishor as to how dead body was found in the divan (box bed), then Nandakishor told them that there was quarrel between them. He killed deceased Vithabai and kept her dead body in divan (box bed). Kapurchand lodged report in Police Station, Bhandara. Crime was registered vide Exhibit 53. (iii) API Shri Verma investigated crime, after complete investigation, filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara which in turn committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. (iv) Charge was framed at Exhibit 19. Same was readover and explained to both the accused/appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, both the appellants came to be convicted as stated above. 3. Heard Shri Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. 4. Conviction of appellants based on circumstantial evidence. Perused the evidence on record. Complainant Kapurchand died during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court. His brother Zumanlal Sawalakhe (P.W. 4) has stated in his evidence that Kapurchand was residing at Bapera. 4. Conviction of appellants based on circumstantial evidence. Perused the evidence on record. Complainant Kapurchand died during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court. His brother Zumanlal Sawalakhe (P.W. 4) has stated in his evidence that Kapurchand was residing at Bapera. At about 6.00 p.m. Kapurchand came to house and requested him to accompany him. He along with Kapurchand went to Warthi. They went to Warthi Police Station. They suspected murder of Vithabai. Therefore, they requested police to accompany them to Eklari. 5. Police Constable Panchbudhe came along with them to Eklari. Door was closed from inside. Door was knocked, but it was not opened. At last, Nandakishor opened the door from inside. Both accused were present. Both accused/appellants questioned him as to how he came there. He told that Kapurchand suspected murder of Vithabai. Appellants told them that they have not committed such act. Appellants told them that Vithabai had been to house in the morning, however, she had gone to Revral Village and will return late in the evening on next day. Police Constable Panchbudhe searched the house. Dead body of Vithabai was found in divan (box bed). He along with Kapurchand went to Police Station, Bhandara. Kapurchand lodged report, Exhibit 53. 6. P.W. 5 Arjun Kamane has stated in his evidence that on 15-4-2015, Vithabai came from Village Bapera. She came to his house at Eklari. She purchased ration from Fair Price Shop. After collecting ration, she came to his house and kept it in his house. She told him that she was going to the house of her son Nandakishor. She went to the house of appellants at about 10.30 a.m. to bring some articles. Vithabai did not return to his house. He waited for Vithabai for lunch up to 1.15 p.m. Thereafter he sent his son Shubham to the house of Nandakishor for enquiry. Nandakishor told his son that Vithabai did not visit his house. In the meantime, Kapurchand telephoned him to make enquiry about Vithabai. Thereafter he informed Kapurchand that Vithabai did not return back to his house from the house of appellants. In the evening, he came to know that dead body of Vithabai was found in divan (box bed). 7. P.W. 6 Santosh Balpande has stated that he was informed by Sarpanch Rameshwar that wife of Kapurchand was murdered. He went to the house of appellants. Both appellants were present. In the evening, he came to know that dead body of Vithabai was found in divan (box bed). 7. P.W. 6 Santosh Balpande has stated that he was informed by Sarpanch Rameshwar that wife of Kapurchand was murdered. He went to the house of appellants. Both appellants were present. He asked them if anything was wrong, he told them that Kapurchand was suspecting appellants about the murder of Vithabai. Both the appellants denied to commit any murder. In his presence, house of appellants was checked. They searched divan (bed box). It was locked from one side. Police Constable Panchbudhe took out rafter from one side after lifting mattress. He found Vithabai concealed in divan. He questioned accused about the dead body of Vithabai, then accused told that he was annoyed and as such, killed her by means of wooden rafter. He shown them wooden plank/rafter. 8. P.W. 7 Vasant Chamat has stated that on 15-4-2015 at about 10.00 a.m., deceased Vithabai had been to his shop to purchase grains. In the evening, he came to know that Vithabai was murdered. P.W. 1 Shilpa Gajbhiye proved the spot panchanama, Exhibit 42, seizure panchanama vide Exhibit 43. Wooden rafter was stained with blood. 9. P.W. 2 Manish Kamble has stated that when accused Nandakishor was in police custody, he confessed to show concealed ornaments and burnt clothes. They went to Eklari to the house of Nandakishor. Accused shown golden ornaments which were kept in almirah. Those were seized by the police vide Exhibit 46/1. 10. Medical Officer Dr. Dinesh Kuthe (P.W. 11) has stated in his evidence that on 16-4-2015, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Vithabai. As per his opinion, death was due to head injury and asphyxia due to throttling. Accordingly, he issued report, Exhibit 85. He has stated that he received one letter along with wooden rafter. As per his opinion, injuries found on the dead body can be caused by the said rafter. 11. As per the evidence of Medical Officer and postmortem report, Exhibit 85, it is clear that death of deceased was homicidal. As per opinion of the Medical Officer Dr. Kuthe, cause of death was due to head injury and throttling. From the evidence of P.W. 4 and First Information Report, Exhibit 53, it is clear that there was strained relations between appellant Nandakishor and deceased. As per opinion of the Medical Officer Dr. Kuthe, cause of death was due to head injury and throttling. From the evidence of P.W. 4 and First Information Report, Exhibit 53, it is clear that there was strained relations between appellant Nandakishor and deceased. On the day of incident, deceased visited to the house of appellant. There was struggle between deceased and appellant. Appellant was also examined by Medical Officer Dr. Yogesh Nakade (P.W. 12). He found four injuries on the person of appellant Nandakishor. Accordingly, he issued certificate, Exhibit 91. This itself shows that there was struggle between the appellant Nandakishor and deceased. During the struggle, Nandakishor sustained injuries. Appellant gave blow of rafter on the head of deceased and concealed the dead body in divan (box bed). 12. Nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that appellants were present in the house. Dead body was found in the divan (box bed) of the appellants. As per the confession statement of appellant Nandakishor, he discovered golden ornaments from the almirah of his house. Appellant Nandakishor gave extra judicial confession to P.W. 6 Santosh Balpande. P.W. 6 Santosh has stated in his evidence that he searched the house of appellant with the help of Police Constable Panchbudhe. He found dead body of Vithabai in divan (box bed). He asked appellant Nandakishor, then he told that he was annoyed, as such, killed her by means of wooden rafter. 13. Circumstantial evidence are proved against appellant Nandakishor. P.W. 6 Santosh has stated in his evidence that he searched the house of appellant with the help of Police Constable Panchbudhe. He found dead body of Vithabai in divan (box bed). He asked appellant Nandakishor, then he told that he was annoyed, as such, killed her by means of wooden rafter. 13. Circumstantial evidence are proved against appellant Nandakishor. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 1 = (1984) 4 SCC 116 has laid down five guiding principles (panchsheels) as under : (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 14. Following are the material circumstances proved against appellant Nandakishor : (1) Appellant Nandakishor not explained as to how dead body of his mother Vithabai was found at the time of search by the witnesses and Police Constable Panchbudhe. (2) Extra judicial confession stated by P.W. 6 shows that appellant Nandakishor committed murder of deceased by wooden rafter. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer. As per his evidence, cause of death of Vithabai was head injury and throttling. (3) Medical Officer Kuthe examined wooden rafter which was seized from the house of accused, found blood stains on it. As per his opinion, head injury and throttling can be possible by that wooden rafter. (4) As per C.A. report, wooden rafter, Exhibit 101 was stained with human blood. (5) As per the evidence of P.W. 5 Arjun, deceased Vithabai came to his house at about 10.30 a.m. She kept some articles at his house and went to the house of her son Nandakishor. (4) As per C.A. report, wooden rafter, Exhibit 101 was stained with human blood. (5) As per the evidence of P.W. 5 Arjun, deceased Vithabai came to his house at about 10.30 a.m. She kept some articles at his house and went to the house of her son Nandakishor. She did not return till 1.15 p.m. He sent his son to the house of Nandakishor. Then Nandakishor told him that Vithabai did not visit his house. He informed her husband. Thereafter her husband along with police came to the house of Nandakishor and during search, dead body of deceased was found. (6) Appellant Nandakishor removed all golden ornaments of deceased and concealed in the almirah. (7) As per his confessional statement, Exhibit 46, golden ornaments were recovered. (8) Appellant not given explanation as to how dead body of Vithabai was found in divan (box bed) of his house. (9) Appellant Nandakishor not explained injuries on his person. P.W. 12 Dr. Nakade proved injuries on his person as per MLC, Exhibit 91. P.W. 12 Dr. Nakade found following injuries. (i) Abrasion Lt. Mallour Prominence, 3 x 0.5 cm., age of injury within 12 hours. Caused by hard and small and rough object. (ii) Abrasion Right hand, size 2 x 1 cm, age of the injury within 12 hours, Caused by hard and small and rough object. (iii) Abrasion Right hand, size 2 x 1 cm, age of the injury within 12 hours, Caused by hard and small and rough object. (iv) Abrasion left forearm, size 2 x 2 cm, age of the injury within 12 hours, Caused by hard and small and rough object. (10) Injuries on the person of appellant Nandakishor show that there was struggle between deceased and appellant at the time of incident. All these strong circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly show that appellant Nandakishor and none else has committed murder of his mother Vithabai and, therefore, he is rightly convicted by the trial Court. Hence, appeal filed by Nandakishor is liable to be dismissed. 15. There is no specific evidence against the wife of Nandakishor. Appellant Mona was in the house along with her husband Nandakishor. There is no specific evidence against Mona that she has committed murder of deceased Vithabai. Extra judicial confession of Nandakishor shows that he himself beat deceased by wooden rafter. 15. There is no specific evidence against the wife of Nandakishor. Appellant Mona was in the house along with her husband Nandakishor. There is no specific evidence against Mona that she has committed murder of deceased Vithabai. Extra judicial confession of Nandakishor shows that he himself beat deceased by wooden rafter. None of the witnesses have stated against the appellant Mona about her participation. But it is clear from the evidence on record that Mona was present along with her husband Nandakishor. She helped him to conceal the dead body. Therefore, she is liable for conviction only for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 593/2017 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 396/2017 is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction of appellant Sau. Mona w/o Nandkishor Sawalakhe for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 404 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. She is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 404 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Insofar as conviction of appellant Sau. Mona w/o Nandkishor Sawalakhe for the offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is maintained. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Insofar as the order with regard to payment of fine is concerned, the same is maintained. (iv) Appellant Sau. Mona w/o Nandkishor Sawalakhe is already on bail. Her bail bond stands discharged. Appeal dismissed.