JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 411 dated 30.10.2009 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar under Section 143, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution story in brief was that Chandresh daughter of complainant-Laxmi Chand was married to Chandu @ Chandraprakash in the year 2002. Chandresh had been murdered by her husband Chandraprakash, mother-in-law Sushila Devi, brother-in-laws Vishnu Prasad, Banti and Gopal Lal, sister-in-law Saroj and Basanti Lal, Ravi Kumar and Devi Shankar on 29.10.2009. The accused were raising demand of dowry from Chandresh. Anita sister of Chandresh was also married in the same family. On the basis of the statement of complainant-Laxmi Chand formal FIR was registered. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against co-accused of the appellant and proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant. Thereafter, supplementary challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302, 120-B IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after close of prosecution evidence, prayed that she was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellant examined one witness in her defence. 6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 27.06.2018 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Family members of the deceased had participated in the funeral of the deceased. Statement of prosecution witness-Anita was liable to be disbelieved as she had made material improvements in her statement. Son of the deceased appeared in the witness-box in defence and has deposed that the appellant had not committed the crime. 8. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that from the testimony of PW-2-Anita it is evident that the appellant in connivance with other accused had committed the murder of deceased-Chandresh. 9. Present case relates to murder of Chandresh. Deceased has died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. As per the postmortem examination report (Ex-P24) cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia. Ex. P24 was proved by PW-12 Dr. Mangilal. 9. Present case relates to murder of Chandresh. Deceased has died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. As per the postmortem examination report (Ex-P24) cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia. Ex. P24 was proved by PW-12 Dr. Mangilal. Thus, it is evident that the death of the deceased was not under natural circumstances but she had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. 10. Deceased-Chandresh was married to accused-Chandu @ Chandraprakash. Anita sister of the deceased was married to Jagdish (brother of accused-Chandu @ Chandraprakash). Thus, prosecution witness-Anita was also residing in the same house. Hence, the statement of prosecution witness-Anita is relevant for deciding this case because her presence at the spot is natural. 11. Prosecution witness-Anita while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2 has deposed that Chandresh was her sister and was married to Chandu @ Chandraprakash and out of their wedlock, two sons were born to them. Behaviour of Chandraprakash was not good towards her sister Chandresh and he used to give beatings to her. The reason for giving beatings by Chandraprakash to Chandresh was Saroj, as Chandraprakash was having illicit relation with appellant-Saroj Bai. Appellant-Saroj Bai had also threatened them that she would not allow them to live in the matrimonial home. On 29.10.2009, she had prepared meals alongwith her sister. Chandraprakash started abusing and she told her sister not to pay any attention to his abuses. Then she went upstairs and at that time Chandraprakash was quarreling with Chandresh. Sushila Devi, Chandraprakash, Saroj, Gopal and Vishnu Prasad were also present in the house at that time. At that time also the quarrel was taking place on account of relationship with Saroj. When she came downstairs she saw that in the room Chandraprakash, Saroj, Vishnu Prasad, Gopal and Sushila had caught hold of Chandresh. She enquired from them as to what they were doing and they had killed her sister. Vishnu Prasad and Saroj gave beatings to her and caught hold of her from her hair. She lost her consciousness. Thereafter, her father and brother came to their house. On an earlier occasion also Saroj had tried to slit the neck of Chandresh. At that time Rajesh had tried to intervene and had suffered injury on her fingers. Vishnu Prasad and Saroj gave beatings to her and caught hold of her from her hair. She lost her consciousness. Thereafter, her father and brother came to their house. On an earlier occasion also Saroj had tried to slit the neck of Chandresh. At that time Rajesh had tried to intervene and had suffered injury on her fingers. On another occasion Chandraprakash, Saroj, Sushila Devi, Vishnu Prasad and Gopal had thrown Chandresh from the roof and she had suffered a fracture on her foot. Chandraprakash had given beatings to Chandresh a day prior to the occurrence and the reason behind this was Saroj. 12. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1, Mahaveer brother of the deceased while appearing in the witness-box as PW-3 and Vishnu Prasad Yadav brother of the deceased while appearing in the witness-box as PW-4 have corroborated the statement of PW-2. 13. PW-16-Renu has deposed that about 8 months back she had returned home at about 5.00 p.m. from her tuition. Her sister Shalini had also returned from her tuition. When they returned home they saw that sister-in-law-Anita was in anger. When they reached upstairs and while they were helping their mother, she heard noise from the ground floor and saw that their sister-in-law Anita was going downstairs. On seeing her she also went downstairs along with her sister. At that time Sushila Devi, Chandraprakash, Vishnu Prasad, Dinesh, Bhawani Shankar and Mohan Lal ran inside the house. All of them broke open the door and took out Chandresh from the room. Then, Chandraprakash took Chandresh to the hospital and the other family members followed them to the hospital. On phone she came to know that Chandresh had died. Anita returned home from the hospital and became unconscious. Then, police came to the spot. In-fact, her sister-in-law Saroj was a nice good-natured lady and Chandresh and Anita were not having cordial relation with her as they were jealous of her. 14. PW-15 Shalini has corroborated the statement of PW-16. 15. Remaining witnesses have been examined by the prosecution with regard to the investigation conducted in the case. 16. DW-1 Yash (Son of the deceased) has deposed that on the day of occurrence his mother had fought with his maternal aunt-Anita. 14. PW-15 Shalini has corroborated the statement of PW-16. 15. Remaining witnesses have been examined by the prosecution with regard to the investigation conducted in the case. 16. DW-1 Yash (Son of the deceased) has deposed that on the day of occurrence his mother had fought with his maternal aunt-Anita. Her mother was saying that they would go together to Chipa Barod, whereas, his aunt was saying that she would go prior to her as her husband was earning member, whereas, her (his mother) husband was not earning anything. Then his mother went inside the room in anger and closed the door. Then he knocked at the door and his aunt Anita came to the spot. His aunt also knocked at the door. Many persons gathered there. Then the door was broken and his father brought out his mother in his arms and took her to the hospital. Police also reached the spot. His maternal grandparents and his maternal uncle/aunt also came to their house. Later police arrested the accused. 17. Accused-Chandraprakash was arrested on 10.11.2009. During interrogation, he made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered the pillow used by him to murder his wife Chandresh and also rope with which he had hung the dead body. On the basis of his said statement, accused-Chandraprakash got recovered pillow and rope from his house and memo of Ex. P-27 was prepared in this regard. 18. Thus, in the present case from the medical evidence, it is evident that the deceased has died an unnatural death as her cause of death was 'axphyxia'. The star witness of the prosecution can be said to be PW-2 Anita. Presence of Anita at the spot is natural, being her matrimonial home. PW-2 has attributed illicit relationship between accused Chandraprakash and appellant Saroj. Chandraprakash is son of Ramswaroop. Appellant-Saroj Bai is married to Ramgopal, cousin brother of accused-Chandraprakash. PW-2 has deposed that Chandraprakash used to fight with the deceased. PW-2 has further stated that a day before the incident also Chandraprakash had beaten Chandresh under the influence of liquor. Thus, from the testimony of PW-2 it can be inferred that there were some dispute between the accused Chandraprakash and his wife Chandresh (since deceased). PW-2 has deposed that Chandraprakash used to fight with the deceased. PW-2 has further stated that a day before the incident also Chandraprakash had beaten Chandresh under the influence of liquor. Thus, from the testimony of PW-2 it can be inferred that there were some dispute between the accused Chandraprakash and his wife Chandresh (since deceased). Although, PW-2 has deposed that when she came downstairs she saw that Chandraprakash, Saroj, Vishnu Prasad, Gopal and Sushila Devi had caught hold of her sister but from this it cannot be inferred that all the said accused had committed the murder of Chandresh. PW-2 had not seen all the accused committing the murder of Chandresh. Since, there was a dispute between accused-Chandraprakash and Chandresh, we are of the considered opinion that accused-Chandraprakash can be said to be guilty of committing murder of his wife Chandresh. It is possible that when PW-2 came downstairs at that time, the other accused also might have come to the spot after Chandresh had been murdered by accused-Chandu @ Chandraprakash. Since appellant is also from the same family, her presence at this spot after the incident is also natural. 19. Although PW-2 has stated that on previous occasions also appellant and accused Chandraprakash had thrown Chandresh from the roof but there is no corroborative medical evidence on record in this regard. Moreover, there is nothing on record that any criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant at that time. 20. There is nothing on record to lead to the inference that all the accused had conspired together to commit the murder of Chandresh. Rather from the evidence on record, it transpires that on account of some differences between the accused-Chandu @Chandraprakash and his wife, accused-Chandraprakash committed the murder of his wife and Chandresh died due to asphyxia. 21. Thus, in the present case, possibility that appellant-Saroj might has been falsely involved in this case due to her relationship with PW-2, cannot be ruled out. 22. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Appellant-Saroj Bai is acquitted of the charges framed against her and the impugned judgment/order of the trial Court dated 27.06.2018 are set aside. 23. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely appellant-Saroj Bai is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 22. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Appellant-Saroj Bai is acquitted of the charges framed against her and the impugned judgment/order of the trial Court dated 27.06.2018 are set aside. 23. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely appellant-Saroj Bai is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.