VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Since both these appeals are arising out of the same Judgment and order, they are proposed to be disposed of by common Judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2016 has been preferred by original accused No.1 to challenge his conviction under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code awarded in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2005, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar on 05-11-2011, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2012 has been preferred by the prosecution to challenge the acquittal of original accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 364, 362 of Indian Penal Code in the same case. Parties would be hereafter referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The prosecution has come with a case that, informant Suresh Rangnath Mandlik is resident of Sangamner. He had sister by name Taramati @ Tarabai Asaram Raut. Taramati was residing separately from her husband since about five to six years prior to 2005 with her son Mahesh at Sangamner. She was a vegetable vendor. Her daughter Rohini was married and was also residing at Dholewadi, Sangamner. It was the routine of Taramati to go to Nehru Chowk in Sangamner around 08.00 a.m. for selling vegetables and to return to house around 06.00 p.m. On certain occasions she used to go to Akole, Rajur, Nashik for purchasing vegetables. Taramati was earning her livelihood from the said business. She has purchased gold ornaments from her business. She used to go to market by putting those ornaments on her person. Informant had told her many times that it is not safe for her to go with ornaments on person but she had not listened to his suggestion. Informant had seen one person along with her in Nehru Chowk. That person was also seen by other vegetable vendors who used to sit adjacent to the place where Taramati used to sit for selling vegetables. Upon inquiry by informant, Taramati had disclosed the identity of that person as Anna Vaidya from Sugao i.e. accused No. 1 and she had also disclosed that he was going to help her in purchasing a house.

Accused No. 1 was also seen in the house of Taramati. A month prior to missing of Taramati, she had met her brother and requested for extending amount of Rs. 20 to 25 thousand as hand loan for purchase of plot. She had also disclosed that, she would be taking loan from Bank of Baroda. Her brother had told her that, he would inform her after he collects the amount. Some days prior to her missing she had got certain amount from Bank of Baroda. The extra amount was demanded by her to her brother, but he told that she should make arrangement from other source for a time being and after he gets amount he would extend it to her. Thereafter, informant was informed by Mahesh- son of Taramati on 04-06-2001 that his mother has not returned from market since 28-05-2001 after she had left house to sell vegetables. Mahesh was told to make enquiry with the relatives but Taramati could not be found.

They had also made inquiry with the adjacent vendors and it was revealed that, Taramati left the place of business at about 05.00 p.m. on 28-05-2001 on the pretext that she would go home. When Taramati could not be found till 21-11-2001, informant lodged report about the same with Sangamner City Police Station on the ground that, somebody has abducted her on the count of amount.

3. It is the further prosecution story that, informant had returned at about 05.00 p.m. from Osmanabad on 06-06-2005. He came to know from a news clippings that, some skeletons and clothes as well as articles have been found in the field of accused No. 1. Informant therefore went to Akole Police Station on 07-06-2005 along with daughter of deceased and cousin brother. In the Police Station, he found parrot green colour saree, parrot green colour petticoat, green blouse and green bangles kept with human skeleton No.1. From the articles it was identified by informant and Others that, that skeleton was of Taramati. Adjace