Indira K. Jain, J.

1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred Criminal Appeal No.659/2002 against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.25/2001. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

2. The complainant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order preferred Criminal Revision No. 269/2002. For the sake of convenience, respondent is referred in her original status as an “accused” as referred in the Sessions case.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:

Accused-Surekha Umakant Kasale, was the wife of complainant-Umakant Kasale. Deceased-Parvatibai was the mother of complainant and mother-in-law of accused. The couple had one male and one female child. They were residing at Latur from 1995 till June, 2000.

4. According to prosecution, accused used to pick up quarrels with her husband on the ground to transfer the entire property in her name and she should be given salary of complainant. Due to frequent quarrels, complainant started residing at Renapur where Parvatibai was residing and he used to commute from Renapur to Latur. He was serving as a Pharmacist in Civil Hospital, Latur.

5. Incident occurred on 21.12.2000 in the noon. It is alleged that accused approached the complainant and picked up quarrel with him. Thereafter, she proceeded to Renapur and raised quarrel with her mother-in-law Parvatibai. She assaulted Parvatibai with an iron instrument on her head, back and hand, causing multiple injuries. The neighbourers and others assembled there. Parvatibai was shifted to Government Hospital, Renapur and then referred to Government Hospital at Latur.

6. One Bharat Mamadage who saw the incident disclosed it to complainant-Umakant. He was informed that after assaulting Parvatibai, accused attempted to commit suicide with the help of scarf. On receiving information, Umakant lodged report to Police Station Renapur. Crime No.142/2000 came to be registered initially under Sections 324 and 309 of the I.P.C. On the death of Parvatibai on 27.12.2000 offence under Section 302 I.P.C. came to be added. It appears that after the death of Parvatibai, postmortem was performed.

7. During investigation, PW 10 Head Constable Annasaheb Suryawanshi, visited the place of occurrence and recorded spot Panchnama (Exh40) in the presence of Panch witnesses. An iron instrument known as “pahar” allegedly stained with blood, bangles, earth mixed with blood and scarf came to be seized from the place of incident. Head Constable Suryawanshi recorded statements of witnesses.

8. On 27.12.2000 PW 10 Head Constable Suryawanshi handed over further investigation to PW 11 SDPO Pravin Patil. Accused was interrogated. At her instance, wooden plank (Lakdi Dhalpi) came to be recovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser at Aurangabad. C.A. report and postmortem notes were collected. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur who, in turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.

9. Charge came to be framed against respondent/accused, vide Exh.15. She pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The factum of relationship inter se between the parties is not in dispute. However, regarding commission of offence, her defence was of total denial. According to accused, her relations with complainant were not cordial. He had filed divorce proceedings against her and to take revenge she was falsely implicated.

10. On going through the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offences as referred hereinbefore. Hence, this Appeal by the State and Revision by the complainant.

11. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. A