S.R.SATHE, J

1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.50 of 1988 whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 and 325 of I.P.C.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Prosecution witness No.6 Sakharam Ganpat Jadhav was residing at village Tural alongwith his wife Savitri and their children, including his married daughter Sulochana the wife of the present accused Dilip Raghunath Chavan. Not only that, but even accused had come to their house a day prior to the date of incident. On that day he had suggested that he would take his wife Sulochana to Sakharappa. However, the prosecution witness No.6 Sakharam had suggested that first he (accused) should seek some job and secure accommodation for residence and then take Sulochana with him.

3. On the day of incident i.e. on 2.5.1988 Sakharam returned home in the evening. When he got down from the S.T. bus he found that accused was waiting for the bus. At that time, accused asked Sakharam as to whether he would be sending Sulochana with him or not. He was in angry mood. Sakharam