R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- Being aggrieved by respondents' acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad for an offence of murder, the State has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts which led to the prosecution of four respondents are as under :Deceased Anandrao was married to P.W. No.4 Kashibai. Accused No.1 Maroti, Accused No.2 Namdeo, Accused No.4 Bapurao are cousins of Kashibai and Accused No.3 Ganpat is her uncle. Kashibai had a younger sister by name Suwarnamala who died by drowning after she was married. Accused Nos.1 to 4 killed Anandrao on 5-4-1989 in the village Krishnapur by inflicting blows by an axe and sticks. Anandrao was lying in injured condition and was spotted by his relatives who took him to police out post, and then to Dr. Chinnawar, who pronounced Anandrao dead.

3. On a report by victim's cousin Madhav, an offence was registered and investigation started. In course of investigation, the police performed inquest and sent dead body for post-mortem examination. They performed panchanama of spot, recorded statements of witnesses, seized incriminating articles and arrested and charge-sheeted the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umarkhed, who committed the case to the court of Sessions at Pusad.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, to whom the case was made over, charged the four respondents of the offence' punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all thirteen witnesses. After considering the evidence of these witnesses, in the light of defence of denial taken by the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the guilt of accused was not proved and proceeded to acquit the accused. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred this appeal.

5. We have heard Advocate Sonak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate Shri. Gupta for the respondents/accused. With the help of both the learned counsel we have gone through the entire evidence in order to find out whether the learned trial judge erred in concluding that the guilt of respondents was not proved.

6. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence since there are no eyewitnesses to state that they saw four respondents or any of them assaulting the victim.

7. The circumstances on which the prosecution relied were: first that the victim's affair with deceased Suwarnamala had led to her unnatural death, after her marriage to another person. Secondly, it was the belief of the respondents/accused, close relations of Suwarnamala, and that the victim was responsible for Suwarnamala's death. Thirdly, oral disclosures made by the victim Anandrao about the cause of his death. And lastly, recovery of incriminating articles which connect the accused to the crime.

8. Though the witnesses have stated about Suwarnamala's death by drowning after her marriage, nobody categorically stated that Anandrao had any affair with Suwarnamala resulting in the respondents' harbouring a grudge about the victim. P.W. No.4 Kashibai had stated that her uncle Shiwaji suspected that her husband i.e. deceased Anandrao, had committed murder of Suwarnamala, but denied the suggestion in cross-examination about any affair between Anandrao and Suwarnamala. She admitted that she did not attend the marriage of Suwarnamala. Kashibai had contradicted portion of her statement under section 161 where she had reported to the police that her sister had told her that she would marry only Anandrao or otherwise she would commit suicide. But since the witness did not state so before the court, the portion of her statement to police, contradicted by her and which is marked as Exhibit No.80A, does not become substantive evidence. No other reason for any discord is even faintly suggested in the evidence of any prosecution witness. Thus, there is no evidence to show an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document