( 1 ) THOUGH there are two appeals, in fact, there is only one appeal required to be dealt with by us at present. Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1992 was filed by a lawyer appearing on behalf of the accused. He subsequently, did not pursue the same and in the meantime, Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1992, being Jail Appeal, was already admitted and it was assigned to L. A. Shri K. G. Sheth of this Court to appear on behalf of the accused. L. A. Mr. K. G. Sheth drew our attention to the salient features, which, according to him, should clinch the matter in favour of the accused-appellant.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 19-1-1991, accused no. 1, who was the father-in-law of the deceased Bhadrikaben had strangulated her with an electric wire by giving 3-4 twists and thereby breaking the bronchial track, as also hyoid bone. The reason for the aforesaid dastardly deed was, according to the prosecution, demand of dowry. According to Mr. Sheth, the case of dowry has been given up by the prosecution completely in the course of trial. No doubt, it finds mention in the charge framed at Exh. 2.

( 3 ) AS the marriage was of the duration of 3 years or more, if the case of dowry was established, naturally, the amended provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would come into play. However, that being not the position, as we will later on see, it would not detain us further. In fact, the accused have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the charge under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. In Sessions Case no. 172 of 1991, said learned Judge has, however, believed the case of the prosecution that the deceased was in fact, strangulated in the aforesaid manner by accused no. 1 with the connivance and active assistance of accused no. 3, the husband. Imprisonment of life has been awarded and for offence under Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, R. I. for 3 years has been awarded and on both, final of Rs. 150. 00 has been imposed and in default thereof, the respective accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

( 4 ) THE dead body of the deceased was not found at the place where the accused are staying. The distance between the house of the accused and the place where the dead body was found is not specifically mentioned anywhere but in course of evidence, reference is made to the fact that from the house of the accused, if one wants to reach the place where the dead body was found, in a jeep car, it would take approximately 30 minutes. This fact has been mentioned in the panchnama as well.

( 5 ) UNDER the circumstances, it is obvious that, according to the prosecution, on account of demand of dowry, after inflicting physical cruelty which is attended to by this demand, on the fateful day, the deceased was done away with and thereafter, to dispose of the dead body it was taken away at the place where it was found. The finding of the dead body is also in a manner which would render the case of the prosecution, according to Mr. Sheth, very very doubtful. Doubtful, in the sense, that whether the accused were implicated into it or not and whether the dead body was that of Badrikaben ornot. The date of the incident is said to be 19-1-1991 and the dead body has been found after 4 days. The post mortem was carried on 24-1-1991. The post mortem report Exh. 12 read with the deposition of the Doctor, who performed the examination Exh. 11, clearly show that it is the dead body of an unknown female. It was a decomposed body and eyes, nose and face were bitten away by Meggets. Obviously, therefore, there was no question of physical identification of the body.

( 6 ) THE prosecution has, therefore, fallen back upon the articles that were said to be belonging to the deceased.

( 7 ) THE dead body was found out of a gunny bag nearby a canal known as "gangapur Canal". 5 feet away from it, some articles were lying which are the wearing apparels of a woman. Some ornaments which a married woman would ordinarily