The facts giving rise to the present case, in short, are thus -One Vilas Mahadeo Patil - the complainant, is the resident of village Nerle.His daughter Aparna - the deceased was studying in 10th Standard.Accused No. 1 was earlier married but had no child from his first wife and hence he and his parents intended to perform his second marriage and, therefore, proposal of marriage to Aparna was accepted and accused No. 1 was married to deceased Aparna.After the marriage, they were living together at their home happily till Diwali.Thereafter when the complainant and his brother used to visit the house of the accused, they noticed that Aparna was not living with proper manner but was not ready to talk anything.Four months prior to the incident, when Aparna had gone to her parental home, she complained that all accused are giving ill-treatment to her, such as beating and abusing due to the reason that first wife of accused No. 1 had delivered a child.Aparna also informed her parents that accused was telling her that she was no more required.Even on the occasion of second Diwali when deceased Aparna was taken to her parents home, she complained that the accused was not allowing her to eat food at proper time and abusing her.On 5.12.1997 at 9.30 p.m. Ashok Patil told the complainant that he received a message through someone from Tasgaon that Aparna suffered an attack.Thereafter jeep was called by the complainant and in that jeep the complainant, his wife, his brother, Ashok Patil, other relatives and neighbour went to the house of the accused at about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 midnight.All the accused persons were present in the house.On enquiry, they informed that Aparna had died and cremation had taken place.when accused were asked as to why the complainant and the relatives were not informed, they were told that persons were sent with messages but they could not contact them and therefore they could not attend the funeral.The complainant and others returned to their village.Thereafter, after consulting the relatives, the complainant went to Kasegaon Police Station for lodging the complaint, however, as the incident had taken place at Tasgaon, the complainant went to Tasgaon police station and at least the complaint was lodged against the accused persons on 7.12.1997 and crime was registered at Crime No. 279 of 1997 under Section 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. on 7.12.1997 at 6.00 a.m. On 7.12.1997 investigation commenced in which course panchnama of the spot i.e. house of the accused was prepared.Statements of witnesses were recorded and accused persons were put under arrest.JUDGMENT Kakade, J.Originally, all the 5 accused persons were prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, Section 302 read with 34 and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were found guilty of commission of the offence under Section 498-A, Section 302 read with Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereas accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. but were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one year for offence of murder, whereas they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for six months for offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to surfer R.I. for one year ad to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and in default to suffer R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and, therefore, accused Nos. 1 & 2 have filed one appeal, whereas remaining accused persons have filed separate appeal who have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A with 34 of the I.P.C.Clothes of the accused No. 1 were also seized under panchnama.Bones from the spot of cremation were sent to the Expert and on completion of the investigation chargesheet came to be filed against the accused under law.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the impugned offences to which they pleaded not guilty.Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability.Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned Judge came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 & 2 were guilty of commission of the offence under Section 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereas the accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were guilty only of commission of the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 and proceeded to pass order of sentence against them in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We have heard Mr. Sudatta Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. for the State at length.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.At the outset, it must be noted that prosecution has relied upon the testimony of 14 witnesses, out of which two are police personnel.The remaining witnesses are either panch witnesses or neighbours of accused persons who are examined either on the point of harassment of Aparna or on the point of their attendance of funeral of Aparna when they came to know about her death on the fateful day.Apart from this evidence, the evidence of PW-11 Vilas Patil - the complainant and father of Aparna, PW-12 Prabhawati Patil is worthy to note which is relied upon by the learned Trial Judge.At this Juncture itself, we must note that all the material witnesses except parents of Aparna have chosen not to support the prosecution case and, therefore, they were declared hostile by the learned Trial Judge in the course of the trial.The learned Trial Judge, as can be seen from the judgment, has thought it fit to rely upon the testimonies of hostile witnesses in order to come to the conclusion that guilt of the accused persons for the impugned offence is established, especially when it is corroborated by the testimonies of parents of deceased Aparna, duly supported by circumstantial evidence.Therefore, we thought it fit to critically peruse the testimonies of 10 hostile witnesses.Panch witnesses are declared hostile and, therefore, the panchnama remained unproved though referred to by the investigating officer.So far as other hostile witnesses are concerned, it is seen that majority of those are examined by the prosecution to propound its theory that Aparna was under harassment from the accused persons and she died on the fateful day under the suspicious circumstances to the knowledge of those witnesses who also attended her cremation rites.However, it is to be noted that perusal of the testimony does not support the prosecution case about the alleged harassment or circumstances giving rise to the suspicion against the accused when it is alleged that accused persons killed her during the night.We have critically perused the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge and must not that he has relied more on surmises and conjectures than on hard proof of facts, which cannot be allowed in law.In the result, we have no option but to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.For the reasons recorded above, we hold that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants for offences with which they were charged and, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.In the result, both appeals are hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 10.6.1999 passed by the 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangli passed in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1998 is hereby set aside.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code