PER F.I. REBELLO, J.:

The Appellants, father and son are in Appeal against the judgment and order dated 31st December, 2005 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2005. The charge as framed against both the Appellants was that on 1st November, 2004 they committed murder of Ranjana, wife of Appellant No.1 and daughter in law of Appellant No.2 in furtherance of their common intention. A charge was also framed for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, both read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. They have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Panel Code read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine the concerned accused are to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the accused have also been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in the event of failure to pay fine to undergo imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

. The record shows that the accused were arrested on 2nd November, 2004 and were released on 31st December, 2004. During the pendency of the Appeal the bail application of Accused No.1 Satyajeet Patil was rejected. The Accused No.2 was released on bail on the same terms as during the trial on furnishing bond.

2. At the time of the hearing on behalf of the Appellants their learned Counsel submits that the case is purely based on circumstantial evidence. The cause of death is suicide and not homicidal. The learned Sessions Judge did not correctly address himself to the evidence on record more importantly the medical evidence. The evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Suhas Sharadchandra Sane, who had conducted the Post Mortem coupled with medical commentaries would clearly indicate that it was a case of hanging and not strangulation. Even otherwise the prosecution has not established considering this is a case of circumstantial evidence the chain of events showing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt nor established common intention. In so far as the findings under Section 498A are concerned, there is no merit whatsoever as there is no evidence and consequently the finding and consequent conviction and sentence on that count will also have to be set aside.

3. On behalf of the State, the learned A.P.P., submits that though this is a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances which unequivocally points to the guilt of the Appellants and common intention. In these circumstances it is submitted that the findings of the learned Sessions Court ought to be confirmed. In so far as Section 498-A, the prosecution has been able to establish demand for money as dowry. Hence the conviction on that count also should be confirmed.

4. The Appellant No.1 before us is a Doctor. Appellant No.2 is a teacher. The prosecution in support of their case have examined 12 witnesses including the I.O. The Appellant No.1 has examined himself as a defence witness. In his evidence it is his case that the deceased Ranjana died on account of hanging by committing suicide and at the relevant time of the incident neither he nor his father were at home.

. There are no eye witnesses who have seen Ranjana in a hanging position or being brought down from the hanging position. The evidence of D.W.1 i.e. Appellant No.1 discloses that the mother/wife of the Appellants Nos.1/2 was at home on that date and one Ekanath Dhanaba Patil and teacher Bharamu Vithoba Patil had lifted Ranjana and brought her through a passage to the front room when he reached home. They have not been examined as defence witnesses.

5. We will, therefore, examine the evidence as to the offe