Indu Kamble, then it becomes clear that even after seventeen years of married life and after having begotten three children from the said wedlock, the appellant/accused used to suspect character of his deceased wife Sushila. He used to beat her frequently by picking a quarrel with her. However, P.W.No.3 Rani Dhanwade, who is neighbourer of the couple though had spoken about addiction of liquor of the appellant/accused and frequent quarrel between him and deceased Sushila, has not spoken about beating by the appellant/accused to deceased Sushila. Thus, though close relatives of the deceased are speaking about addiction to liquor, picking up the quarrel by suspecting the character and frequent beating by the appellant/accused to deceased Sushila, P.W.No.3 Rani Dhanwade, who appears to be the independent witness having an occasion to watch events happening in the matrimonial life of the couple, has not spoken about suspicion about the character of the deceased Sushila by the appellant/accused so also beating by the appellant/accused to the deceased Sushila because of such suspicion. Thus, in the wake of this variance and shortcoming in the evidence of closely related witness to the deceased and that of the independent witness, the appellant/ accused is certainly entitled for benefit of doubt so far as suspicion about the character of the deceased wife and frequent beating is concerned. If these aspects are ignored, then what remains is addiction to liquor and frequently quarreling with the deceased. Though such frequent quarrels with a married woman after
