1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.5.2010 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.289 of 2009 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shrikrishna and others), convicting the appellants under section 306 of IPC and thereby sentencing each of them to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine additional fifteen days rigorous imprisonment, the appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, may be narrated as under :

(i) That, the complainant, Maharaj Singh (PW4) on 22.4.2008 at 9:00 a.m., lodged a report at the Police Station, Phoof to the effect that yesterday his brother, Vijayram alias Putai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) left his village at about 9:00 - 10:00 a.m., to the house of his friend, Dashrath alias Pappu at Jagepura, Pawayya Colony and stayed there in the night. Today, in the morning he (complainant) received information that his brother, Putai committed suicide in the bungalow (a part of house) of Chunnilal Jatav. On this, he (complainant) went to the spot and found a rope around the neck of his brother, Putai and had died due to hanging. On this, Merg No.13/08 (Ex.P-6) under section 174 CrPC, was registered by Head Constable, Ram Kumar Pathak (PW3). The criminal law was triggered and set in motion.

(ii) That, the Investigating Officer, Brijendra Singh (PW1), immediately reached on the spot and prepared the spot map (Ex.P-1), safina form, Ex.P-2 and inquest on the dead body of the deceased (Ex.P-3) and sent it for post-mortem (Ex.P-4) and seized necessary articles from the place of occurrence. Dr. J.S. Yadav (PW7) conducted post-mortem at District Hospital, Bhind and opined that death occurred becuase of asphyxia due to hanging and

(iii) That, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the offence. On 17.4.2009 at 17:00 hours, an FIR at Crime No.63/09 under section 306/34 of IPC (Ex.P-5) was registered against the appellants by the Station House Officer, Ummed Singh Tomar (PW2). The matter was further investigated. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons (appellants) before the committal Court, which on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the trial Court for the trial.

3. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under section 306 of IPC against the accused-appellants. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and placed Exhibits P-1 to P-7, the documents on record. The accused-appellants have examined Chaturilal (DW1) and Ashok (DW2) in their defence.

5. The learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that charge has been proved against the accused persons as a result of which convicted them and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

6. In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged by the appellants on the ground of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Shri V.K. Saxena has submitted that the appellants have been falsely roped in the case. There was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of the offence for which they have been charged. There was no direct or indirect evidence of abetting the deceased to commit suicide by the app