JUDGMENT Singh, J. --- 1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.9.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.117/2001 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 in alternate 304B and 498A of the IPC and has awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 498A of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo two years and six months RI for both the offences respectively. No separate punishment is awarded for the offence under section 304B of the IPC. 3. Succinctly stated facts leading to the present appeal are that deceased Lalita @ Lilabai married to the appellant Dambarlal on 29.4.1994. She was found dead in the well of the appellant situated on his farmland. Her dead body was fished out by the villagers. The incident was reported to the Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch by the village Chowkidar Karulal. Merg No.05/2001 under section 174 of the CrPC (Ex.P-62) was registered. The police visited the spot, called the witnesses (Ex.P-3), prepared memo of corpse (Ex.P-2), sketched spot map (ExP-13), seized a slipper, a bucket and a nylon and cotton rope found on the hedge of the well, also seized plain and blood smudged soil (Ex.P-4), sent the dead body for postmortem and obtained report ExP-6. While preparing memo of corpse Ex.P-2, several injuries on all over the body were noticed. In postmortem also, 20 lacerated wound, abrasion and contusion were observed by the doctors. Her lever and spleen were found ruptured. Therefore, the police registered FIR No. 67/2001 and investigated the case. During investigation, it revealed that relation of the appellant and his parents with the deceased were not cordial. Their behaviour with her was not good. They were demanding money and harassing her. Once her husband had taken away her gold tops for which she had castigated him. They both embroiled in dispute. On the date of incident, he went with the deceased on his well, where he beat her and pushed her into the well and left the village and had gone to Neemuch. They were demanding money and harassing her. Once her husband had taken away her gold tops for which she had castigated him. They both embroiled in dispute. On the date of incident, he went with the deceased on his well, where he beat her and pushed her into the well and left the village and had gone to Neemuch. In reply to the query raised by the police, the doctors opined that the death was homicidal. The police arrested the accused. On his instigation, recovered gold tops from a goldsmith to whom he had sold them. The police also seized invitation card of marriage of the appellant and the deceased and after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant and his parents. 4. All three accused persons were charged under section 498A, 304B in alternate 302/34 of the IPC. After the trial, parents of the appellant namely; Chandibai and Ramlal are acquitted from all the charges while the accused is convicted as stated above. 5. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and in relying upon the statements of the interested witnesses and also in discarding the defense version. The trial Court has recorded the conviction without considering the contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has overlooked anomalies existing in the prosecution evidence. The trial Court further erred in not considering the fact that there was no motive to cause death. In fact it was mere an accident, which has been given colour of the crime. For these reasons, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and he is entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Keeping in view the issues raised by the appellant, we revisited the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court to find out as to whether there is any substance in the submissions made by the appellant. 8. There is no direct evidence in this case and the case of the prosecution is totally depends on the circumstantial evidence. 9. 8. There is no direct evidence in this case and the case of the prosecution is totally depends on the circumstantial evidence. 9. It is not disputed by the appellant that on the alleged date, time and place of the incident wife of the appellant Lali Bai aka Lalita Bai died. Her dead body was found in his Well and was taken out by the Villagers. The incident was intimated to the police by village Chowkidar Karulal along with Patwari Kalu Singh. Merg No. 05/2001 under section 174 CrPC (Ex.P-62) was registered at Police Station—Jawad, District Neemuch. The police visited the spot, called the witnesses and prepared Panchanama lash (Ex.P-2). Several injuries were noticed by the panch witnesses and by the police. Body was sent for postmortem, which was performed by Dr. N. K. Goyal (PW11) and Dr. Sangita Bharti (not examined) and they submitted postmortem report Ex.P-6. Several lacerated wounds, abrasions and contusions were found on the external body and spleen and liver were found ruptured on internal examination. 10. One thing is clear from the evidence that the death of Lalibai was not natural. Now the question remains if not natural then what is the nature of the death, whether homicidal or accidental? 11. The prosecution came before the trial Court with a case that it was homicidal. Besides other evidence, this contention of the prosecution is mainly based on the opinion of Dr. Goyal (PW11), who performed autopsy. After external as well as internal examining of the body, Dr. Goyal was of the opinion that the cause of death was “hemorrhagic shock which is resultant of liver and spleen injury” but Dr. Goyal or his companion Dr. Sangita Bharti did not disclose the nature of the death in their postmortem report, which shows that at the first occasion, the doctors were in dilemma and were not sure about the nature of the death. This forced the Investigating Officer to raise a query. Following two questions were placed before the doctors : (i) whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased can be caused by fall into the well; (ii) whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased may be caused by someone else. The query was replied by Dr. This forced the Investigating Officer to raise a query. Following two questions were placed before the doctors : (i) whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased can be caused by fall into the well; (ii) whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased may be caused by someone else. The query was replied by Dr. Goyal in the following manner : (i) All the injuries found on the body of the deceased cannot be caused only by fall into the well, (ii) Possibilities cannot be ruled out that those injuries may be caused by some other person. In original, the query and its reply is as under: 1- D;k e`frdk ds 'kjhj ij vkbZ pksVsa dq,a esa fxjusa ls vk ldrh gS\ 2- D;k e`frdk ds 'kjhj ij fdlh O;fDr }kjk pksV igqapkbZ xbZ gS\ Reply:- 1- e`frdk ds 'kjhj ij vkbZ lkjh pksVs flQZ dq,a esa fxjus ls ugha vk ldrh gSA 2- ;g pksV fdlh O;fDr }kjk Hkh igqapkbZ xbZ gks ldrh gSA 12. Thus, Dr. Goyal himself was not sure that the death was homicidal. He expressed that all the injuries can not be caused only due to fall into the well and these may be a result of assault. This makes appreciation of the other evidence necessary to reach on a definite conclusion to find out as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or not. 13. Here we would like to start appreciation from crossexamination of Dr. Goyal. Relevant part of cross-examination of Dr. This makes appreciation of the other evidence necessary to reach on a definite conclusion to find out as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or not. 13. Here we would like to start appreciation from crossexamination of Dr. Goyal. Relevant part of cross-examination of Dr. Goyal in original is as under: ^^8- eSus Vhch;k gM~Mh esa tks vLFkhHkax ik;k gS og bl Ádkj ls Å¡pkbZ ij ls fxjus ls vk ldrh gSA 9- yhoj vkSj Lihyhu vFkkZr Iyhgk lkekU;r% HkqjHkqjs vax ugha gksrs gSaA ;g vax 'kjhj ds vU; vaxks dh vFkkZr vkarfjd vaxks foljk vaxks dh rqyuk esa 'kh?kz jipj vFkkZr fonh.kZ gksus okys gksrs gSaA Á'u % ?kqVuksa dks isV ls yxkdj ;fn dksbZ efgyk lkB QqV Å¡pkbZ ls fxjs rks isV ij >Vdk yxsxk vkSj yhoj rFkk frYyh Hkh QVuk lEHko gSA mRrj % ,slh fLFkfr esa yhoj rFkk frYyh jipj gks ldrs gSA 10- eSusa ilyh esa vLFkh Hkax ugha ik;k FkkA 11] 12] 13] 14------- 15- ;fn dqvka Åij pksM+k vkSj uhps Øe'k% ldjk gksrk tk jgk gks rks dq,sa esa fxjrs le; tks pksVs eSaus fjiksVZ esa crkbZ gS mlesa ls dbZ pksaVs Vdjkus dh voLFkk esa Hkh vk ldrh gSA eSus nksuksa rjg dh lEHkkouk,¡ Hkh 'kCn ds ek/;e ls O;Dr dh gSA vFkkZr ;g pksVsa fdlh O;fDr }kjk Hkh igq¡pkbZ tk ldrh gS vkSj fxjus ls Hkh vk ldrh gSA eSus nksuksa gh lEHkkouk,sa crkbZ gSaA (Emphasis supplied) 11. Sum and substance of this cross-examination is that the injuries found in the postmortem of the deceased may be a result of assault or may be caused due to accidental fall into the well. This shows that in respect of nature of death; two view were possible that it may be homicidal or may be accidental. 12. It has been admitted by the witnesses of the village as well as by the investigating officer and it also reflects from the facts mentioned in the spot map Ex.P-10 that the well in which the dead body was found is about 45-50 feet deep and its water level was very low and was not even a bucket deep. This well is conic shaped means tapering from a round base to a point or broad on the surface and narrow in the abyss. 13. This well is conic shaped means tapering from a round base to a point or broad on the surface and narrow in the abyss. 13. It is further admitted by the witnesses and this is common practice of making a well that deepest part or bottom of the hole is kept unfinished or without lining to allow perspiration of water or so that water may drip out from aquifers through the pores and cracks in the rocks and soil. It is also admitted by the witnesses and is also a fact of common knowledge that to dig a well, rocks have to be blasted and nobody cares to take out all pieces of broken rocks and they remains in the well even after lining/finishing of the well. It is also a fact of common knowledge that the walls of the well are bounded by the bricks or boulders to prevent the land slide and to prevent contamination of water and in this process, some pieces of boulders do fall into the well and nobody cares to take them out as it costs more and harms less to leave them into the well. They remain submerged but becomes visible whenever water level of the well goes down. 14. In this backdrop, when we see the injuries observed by the doctors duo in the postmortem, most of them are simple lacerated wounds or abrasions; or to be precise 9 lacerated wounds, 10 abrasions on several parts of the body and one contusion in lower limb. One can assume that if a person falls into a 45 feet deep conical well, he may collided several times with different angles, body may twist and turn in attempt to save as natural reflexes or as a reflection of collision with the walls of the well and in such entire process several parts of the body may hit with the walls and may sustain injuries like the injuries observed by the doctor duo. Even Dr. Goyal has ultimately admitted this situation in his cross-examination, therefore if there is a possibility that the injuries may cause by some external assault but at the same one cannot rules out that there is a reasonable possibility that the injuries may be caused by a repeated collision with the walls of the well. 15. Even Dr. Goyal has ultimately admitted this situation in his cross-examination, therefore if there is a possibility that the injuries may cause by some external assault but at the same one cannot rules out that there is a reasonable possibility that the injuries may be caused by a repeated collision with the walls of the well. 15. Question is raised that spleen and liver, which are internal organs cannot get ruptured by simple fall into the well until and unless some external force is used, but here it is important to note that no corresponding external injury or sign of use of force or any external impact is found in the postmortem. Dr. Goyal has admitted that if someone falls into the well and his legs bends towards abdomen during the fall, then spleen and liver, which are prone to rupture, may get ruptured. Witnesses have admitted that when the body was fished out, her legs were bent or folded towards abdomen. This fact supports the defence that there is possibility that the spleen and lever may also got ruptured due to fall into the well. 16. According to the prosecution witnesses it appeared from the bent legs of the deceased as if she was defending herself from the stones thrown from outside, but no crush or depressed injury, which is bound to come in a situation when a stone is thrown from 45 feet height; hits somebody, was found by the doctors at the time of postmortem and this rules out apprehension of the witnesses and backs the assumption that liver and spleen got ruptured due to impact of fall in the position of folded legs towards abdomen. 17. Witnesses examined by the prosecution have made a story that at the time of their visit to the well, they peeped into the well and found some boulders were lying in the bottom of the well and according to them it seemed as if someone had intentionally thrown those boulders used for binding of the walls of the well to kill the person whom he possibly had pushed into the well, but this assumption of the witnesses is negated by the evidence of the prosecution as no crush injury, which is bound to come when someone throws a heavy bolder from 45 feet height into the well on the body, found or observed in the postmortem. 18. 18. Admittedly, there was a rope and bucket found on to the well. Apprehension of the witnesses is that the well was 45 feet deep, there was almost no water and rope was only 30 feet long, therefore, it is not possible that someone, who resides in village or acquainted with the circumstances, will try to fetch water from the well when he knows that the rope is not sufficiently long to take the bucket upto the water. Witnesses have apprehended that this rope was planted sometime later to make it believe that the deceased fell into the well during her attempt to fetch water from the well, but as facts reveal that since the dead body was noticed in the well, the villagers were present there. They took out the body and kept it outside the well and guarded it till the police reached on the spot. So there was no occasion for any person to plant a rope or bucket and it is a fact of common knowledge that in villages, the villagers used to keep rope and bucket on their well for their convenience, so that they need not to carry the same, whenever they needs water. 19. It is true that at the time of the incident, there was less water into the well. No one has stated that this was a dried up well and 30 feet long rope is always short to fetch water and everybody usually using it knows that the rope will fall short to fetch water. But it is a human nature that a person tries to use the rope and bucket usually kept on well and tries hard even by bending his/her body to reach up to the water and to take it out with the help of the rope and possibility cannot be ruled out that in such attempt a person may fell down into the well. 20. In all such situations, the possibility of accidental fall cannot be ruled out. 21. Thus, the doctors are not sure that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were result of use of some external force. Dr. Gaoyal has only expressed a possibility of assault. Other evidence is also only indicative that the injuries may be a result of thrashing. But possibility of accidental death equally exists. 21. Thus, the doctors are not sure that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were result of use of some external force. Dr. Gaoyal has only expressed a possibility of assault. Other evidence is also only indicative that the injuries may be a result of thrashing. But possibility of accidental death equally exists. The entire evidence do not take us to a definite conclusion that the death was homicidal. Entire evidence of the prosecution can not rule out the possibility of accidental fall. One thing is definite that prosecution evidence is not sufficient to ascertain the fact definitely that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The evidence shows that two views are possible in the facts and circumstances of the case and certainly, as per settled legal preposition, view favourable to the accused has to be adopted or acted upon. Therefore, when we are not sure that the death of the deceased was homicidal, then no one can be held responsible for the death. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court says in State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu. [ AIR 2016 SC 3218 ], that in case where two views possible, view favourable to the accused should be adopted. Para 13 of the judgement reads thus : 13. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 23. In this regard we can also refer State of U. P v. Munni Ram and others [2011(1) MPWN 49 (SC) = 2011 SC (Supp) 573], Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka [ AIR 2009 SC 1411 ], Mohd. Azad @ Samin v. State of W. B [ AIR 2009 SC 1307 ]. 24. In Mir Nagvi Askari v. C.B.I [ AIR 2010 SC 528 ] It is held that as long as there is the slightest opportunity of two views possible, in our opinion, the one in favour of the accused must be adopted. 25. Azad @ Samin v. State of W. B [ AIR 2009 SC 1307 ]. 24. In Mir Nagvi Askari v. C.B.I [ AIR 2010 SC 528 ] It is held that as long as there is the slightest opportunity of two views possible, in our opinion, the one in favour of the accused must be adopted. 25. Earlier also in Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2009 SC 2067 ] the apex Court expressed that : 9. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava [(1992 Crl LJ 1104)], it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 26. Father and uncle of the deceased have made allegation that the accused was harassing the deceased and demanding the money as he had developed a habit to visit prostitutes. He was demanding money again and again from his wife and her parents. His father-in-law has stated that several times whenever he visited him, he had given him Rs.200, 300 or 500/-. The prosecution has tried to support this allegation by producing the evidence that once he had sold out gold tops of his wife. These sold tops were recovered from the gold smith to whom he had sold it but there is no evidence that he had sold out the ornaments of his wife to fulfill his lust towards the prostitutes. 27. Another allegation of the prosecution is that the accused was harassing his wife and repeatedly demanding money. Father of the deceased has stated that he had given Rs. 200, 300 and 500 several times to the accused whenever he used to visit him but the amount stated by the father is a negligible amount. The accused was his son-in-law and it is commonly known tradition in the Indian family that whenever a son-in-law visits his matrimonial house, the elderly people of the house particularly, parents-in-law or uncles-in-law used to offer him some money and it is considered as a token of respect and a good omen. The accused was his son-in-law and it is commonly known tradition in the Indian family that whenever a son-in-law visits his matrimonial house, the elderly people of the house particularly, parents-in-law or uncles-in-law used to offer him some money and it is considered as a token of respect and a good omen. Those negligible amount cannot be treated as demand of dowry. Here the prosecution evidence also falls short to establish the allegation. 28. The prosecution has pointed out one more thing to convenience this Court that something wrong had been done with the deceased. The witnesses have stated that they noticed some stone of wall uprooted and there was some blood scattered on the spot but there is no evidence that these were stains of blood or to be more precisely were human blood, therefore, this evidence also cannot be used to implicate the appellant. 29. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence that anyone had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. 6 years 11 months and few day have been passed after the marriage and the deceased had never complained during her considerable long marital life. Though, now her father and uncle are saying that she was complaining about the ill-treatment, demand of dowary and harassment of the accused but no action had ever been taken on this account. Therefore, one can understand the reason of making such allegation after the death of their beloved one but their statement is more of desperation than of substance and cannot be acted upon to the extent to hang someone. 30. The well, in which the dead body was found belongs to the deceased. It is situated in the middle of the land of the deceased. She used to go to the well alone to address her daily needs. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a surprise that the dead body of the deceased was found into the well. 31. On a totality of the consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the evidence as projected by the prosecution is unacceptable being fraught with improbabilities, doubts and oddities inconceivable with normal human conduct or behaviour and, thus cannot be acted upon as the basis of conviction. The testimonies of the witnesses fall short of the requirement of proof of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the witnesses fall short of the requirement of proof of the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The contrary view taken by the Court below is against the weight of the evidence on record and the exposition of law and is, therefore, set aside. The appellants is acquitted from all the charges. 32. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 33. The order of the learned trial Court in respect of disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.