Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Ramchandra Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant/Mahendra Ram and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 23.10.2019 passed by the 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2017 / 01 of 2018 and by order dated 25.10.2019, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 7 years, a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The deceased is the daughter-in-law of the appellant. Along with the appellant, his brother/Satyendra Ram was also put on trial who has since been acquitted on the ground that he is an old person and that for the last 20 to 25 years, he had been residing separately from the appellant/Mahendra Ram.

4. The case was lodged by the maternal uncle of the deceased namely Shailendra Singh, who has been examined as P.W.4 at the trial. In his First Information Report, he has alleged that the deceased was married to the son of the appellant more than seven years ago and after three to four years of marriage, the deceased was being subjected to ill treatment in her matrimonial home. On 11.10.2016, he learnt that the deceased was done to death by the appellant and his brother Satyendra Ram with the help of four to five other persons of the village. In order to screen the offence from the offenders, an attempt also was made to burn the dead body.

5. On the basis of the aforenoted written report, Salaiya P.S. Case No. 28 of 2016 dated 12.10.2016 was registered for investigation against appellant and his brother (since acquitted) under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C.

6. At the trial, though the P.W.4 has supported the prosecution case but has candidly claimed that information about the cause of death of the deceased was given to him by the son of the deceased who according to him was six years of age. Thus, assuming every part of the statement of P.W.4 to be true, he had not seen the occurrence and the only source of information that the deceased was attempted to be strangulated and then killed was from a six years old boy who, at the time of trial, had been residing with his maternal grand-parents.

7. P.W.4 has further stated before the Trial court that he and his family members had participated in the funeral and that he had not told the police officer registering the F.I.R. that he was informed by the son of the deceased. In the same breath, he has said that the son of the deceased who for most of the times lived with his maternal grand-parents and, on the date of his deposition before the Trial court, the son of the deceased had been residing with the maternal grand-parents only. He could not name any one of the villagers of the matrimonial home of the deceased who gave information about any ill-treatment to the deceased. The husband of the deceased, according to P.W.4, had been earning his livelihood at Surat. He did not know the whereabouts of the husband of the deceased. He had also no idea whether the deceased was being maintained by her husband or the source with which the deceased had been maintaining herself and her son in the house while she was residing with the appellant (father-in-law).

8. These parts of his deposition clearly give us an inkling that he was not on visiting terms with the deceased or members of her matrimonial home and had relied upon the version of the son of the deceased, who may not have been present at the place of occurrence to tell the truth.

9. We are at at a loss to understand as to who would have actually maintained the appellant in the absence