T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 46/2001, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The respondent and two other accused were tried for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). All the accused are acquitted by the Trial Court. The State has filed appeal only against present respondent/accused No. 1, who is the husband of the deceased. Both the sides are heard.

2. Deceased Sheetal alias Anjana was daughter of first informant Piraji (PW 3). Piraji is resident of Borgaon, Tahsil Fulambri, District Aurangabad. She was given in marriage to present respondent/accused No. 1 on 19.4.2000. Accused is resident of Ranisavargaon, Tahsil Gangakhed, District Parbhani. Accused was working as Supervisor in the Government Project, Human Development Project and he was posted at Ranisavargaon. After the marriage, Sheetal cohabited with respondent at Ranisavargaon in the house of prosecution witness Dashrath Hake (PW 7). The incident took place in this matrimonial house.

3. It is the case of prosecution that accused used to avoid to send Sheetal to parents' house under false pretexts. It is the case of prosecution that accused wanted to see that the deceased does not get an opportunity to have free talk with her parents or brother. It is the contention of the State, prosecution that ultimately on one day, when accused came with deceased on the day of Panchami to the house of parents of the deceased and he was there for about one hour, the deceased disclosed that respondent/accused had illicit relations with a woman who was working with him in aforesaid office. She disclosed that on that count there was illtreatment given to her by the husband and his mother. The mother of the husband was also living in the same house and the said woman was living in the vicinity of the place of resident of respondent/accused No. 1. She had expressed that there was danger to her life as when she had raised grievance about the relationship, threats of life were given to her and she was warned to keep mum. Piraji made inquiry with respondent/husband after learning about the aforesaid things. The husband gave evasive answers by saying that Sheetal was taking the suspicion unnecessarily and he had no such illicit relations.

4. Few days prior to the date of incident, when Piraji visited the house of respondent, on that occasion also the deceased made similar disclosure. The incident in question took place on 7.9.2000 and the news about the incident was given by another son in law of Piraji. It was informed that Sheetal had died due to burn injuries.

5. On 7.9.2000 the neighbours of respondent noticed that smoke was coming out through ventilator, door and windows situated on the side of public road. They broke open the door from outside as the door was found to be closed from inside by putting on latch. After entering the kitchen, they noticed that Sheetal was already dead. The mother of husband viz. accused No. 3 was present when the neighbours gathered and after seeing the dead body, she informed that due to bursting of stove, the clothes caught fired and incident took place. After some time, the husband also arrived to the spot. He used to leave house for work in the morning. He saw the dead body and then he gave A.D. report that Sheetal died due to burn injuries and the incident had taken place probably due to bursting of kerosene wick stove.

6. The A.D. was registered on the basis of report given by the husband and dead body was referred for P.M. examination. On 7.9.2000 itself P.M. was conducted on the dead body. Doctor gave opinion that the death had taken place due to throttling and burn injuries were post-mortem in nature. The parents of deceased reached the matrimonial house subsequent to conducting of P.M. Piraji gave report on 8.9.2000 and the crime came to be registered at about 3.15 hours for the offences punis