JUDGMENT 1. This is State's Appeal against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated 25-3-70, by which he acquitted the respondents of the charge under section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. for the murder of Mst. Chel Kunwar on the night intervening 11th and 12th June, 1967, in their house in village Si was. 2. We have heard arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and of Shri B. L. Purohit on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3. He was also appointed amicus curiae for the rest of the accused. 3. The prosecution case in short is that Mst. Chel Kunwar was married four years before her death to accused Roop Singh, it is alleged that Roop Singh's family was displeased with Mst. Chel Kunwar as she failed to bring dowry to the expectations of the family. A day before the occurrence Arjun Singh P.W. 12 who was her distant cousin happened to come to her village on 11.6.67 at about noon time and met Mst. Chel Kunwar. She told him that her husband, his sister and parents have been beating her and had decided to get rid of her. She implored him to take her away but he was unable to do so for want of conveyance. She is alleged to have been killed the same night. One Mst. Dhap Kunwar P.W 7 had seen the dead body and found some nail marks on her neck. She managed to send message to her father. When the message of her death reached her father Narain Singh PW 3 in the village of Bolakuda about 2-3 miles away from Siwas, he despatched Arjun Singh to Siwas. He reached there at about 9-30 a.m. but by then, the funeral pyre had been lit. The participants in the cremation told him that they had seep some ligature marks on her neck and some blood and vomit on her `odhna'. Thereupon, Arjun Singh proceeded to the Police Station Magar Talao and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P. 4. 4. The case entirely hinged upon circumstantial evidence. The participants in the cremation told him that they had seep some ligature marks on her neck and some blood and vomit on her `odhna'. Thereupon, Arjun Singh proceeded to the Police Station Magar Talao and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P. 4. 4. The case entirely hinged upon circumstantial evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to a letter written by Roop Singh on 15.8.66 to his father-in-law Shri Narain Singh in which he had said that he had levelled some false accusations against his parents which has caused great sadness in the family and if he continued to adopt an indifferent attitude towards him, then he will have one day to repent for it. This letter is Ex P.7. There is another letter Ex P. 8 which is dated Nil in which he had openly accused his wife of falsely charging his parents and had stated he was not prepared to excuse her conduct. His parents were also determined to marry him again but he had not yet made up his mind. In yet anther letter dated 8.9.66 Ex. P. 11. he had even mentioned that some one had offered his daughter in marriage to him. This evidence urged the Public Prosecutor provided the surest proof regarding the motive and intention of the family of the accused. The shadow of the incoming misfortune had already been sensed by the deceased and she not only told Arjun Singh in the after noon about what was likely to happen to her but sometime in the evening, she went to the house of Mst. Dhap Kunwar PW 7 and told her that she was likely to be done to death during the night. Mst. Dhap Kunwar consoled and sent her away. Early morning her husband's sister accused Mst. Sukhia came to the house of Mst. Dhap Kunwar and carried Mst. Dhap Kunwar to her house where in the light of a lantern she saw the dead body of Chel Kunwar with nail marks on the neck. Her father-in-law accused Devi Singh placed his turban on her feet and sought her advice regarding disposal of the dead body. Mst. Hazari PW 8 belongs to another village but happened to visit that night some of her relatives, living in front of the house of the accused. Her father-in-law accused Devi Singh placed his turban on her feet and sought her advice regarding disposal of the dead body. Mst. Hazari PW 8 belongs to another village but happened to visit that night some of her relatives, living in front of the house of the accused. She heard a cry of 'mare re mare re' in the proceeding night and in the following morning Sukhia's daughter told her that all the four of the accused had killed her aunt. The dead body was taken by an unusual route to the cremation grounds where Bhanwar Singh PW 1, Chandan Singh PW 3, Jai Singh PW 6 noticed ligature marks (not nail marks) on the neck of the deceased and even asked Devi Singh to wait until some one from Bolakuda arrived. But Devi Singh did not wait and lit the pyre. The contention of the State is that the aforesaid evidence established the complicity of all the four accused persons in murder of helpless Chel Kunwar. 5. The case of the accused was that Roop Singh was not even present on that night in the house and that Mst. Chel Kunwar fell ill all of the sudden and expired. 6. The learned Additional Sessions, Judge after discussing the circumstantial evidence came to the conclusion that the conduct of the accused Devi Singh in not informing the parents of the deceased about her death and in making `unholy haste' in cremating the dead body does lead to an inference of unnatural death of Mst. Chel Kunwar. But this act alone did not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the deceased had a met a violent death. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, further appears to have been influenced by the fact that it was a case of violent death, then, the `odna' removed from the person of the deceased should have been as alleged, found positive for any blood or poison. It was, therefore, not a clear case of homicide. He further held that though the relations between the deceased and her husband were far from happy, yet the letters written by Roop Singh to his father-in-law and mother-in-law did not indicate that there was any intention on his part to put her to death. It was, therefore, not a clear case of homicide. He further held that though the relations between the deceased and her husband were far from happy, yet the letters written by Roop Singh to his father-in-law and mother-in-law did not indicate that there was any intention on his part to put her to death. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did believe that Arjun Singh met the deceased in the day preceding the fateful night but he disbelieved the entire story put forward by Mst. Dhap Kunwar. He also held that the body was not taken by any unusual route and that while 4 witnesses claimed to have seen ligature marks, 3 other witnesses denied to have seen such marks on the body. The learned trial Judge, therefore, was of the. view that the prosecution failed to prove that accused Devi Singh admitted before Mst. Dhap Kunwar that they had killed the deceased. The prosecution also failed to establish that Mst. Dhap Kunwar had sent information to Bolakunda to the effect that all the accused had killed Mst. Chel Kunwar and were in a hurry to cremate her. The conduct of Devi Singh in not caring to inform the parents of the deceased and in having a hurried cremation do no more than raise a strong suspicion about the unnatural death. But that was not sufficient enough to prove that the accused who were inmates of the house at the time of her death were guilty of causing death of Mst. Chel Kunwar with the common intention of doing so. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor now urged that it was brought on the record that all the four accused persons were in the house on the fateful night and a healthy girl like Mst. Chel Kunwar could not have died without any indication of prior illness. Mst. Chel Kunwar was apprehensive of the designs on her life on the part of all four persons and had told Arjun Singh and Mst. Dhap Kunwar about it. In these circumstances, the Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in acquitting the accuse of murder. In the alternative; the learned Public Prosecutor submitted, if this court was unable to reverse the verdict of murder, atleast there was a case for convicting the accused under section 201 IPC. 8. We have given our very careful consideration to the whole case. In these circumstances, the Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in acquitting the accuse of murder. In the alternative; the learned Public Prosecutor submitted, if this court was unable to reverse the verdict of murder, atleast there was a case for convicting the accused under section 201 IPC. 8. We have given our very careful consideration to the whole case. We do not agree with the learned trial Judge Mst. Chel Kunwar did not die of violence. On the contrary, we are inclined to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that Mst. Chel Kunwar could not have died except on account of violence and that she was certainly done to death. The testimony of Mst. Dhap Kunwar cannot easily be discarded when she said that Mst. Chel Kunwar went to her house in the evening preceding her death and told her that she was likely to be killed by her people. That Arjun Singh had been there aerier in the afternoon and further that Mst. Chel Kunwar told him that the accused were on the look out to put an end to her life were facts believed by the learned trial Judge. That corroborates the story of Mst. Dhap Kunwar. Mst. Dhap Kunwar also went to the house of crime in the morning and saw that, Mst. Chel Kunwar had some injury marks on her neck. Some witnesses have also seen injury marks on the neck of the deceased in the cremation ground. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also noticed that Udai Singh did not care to inform the parents of the girl who resided only a few miles away and did not wait-for their arrival and cremated the dead body in a hurry. All these facts do prove indubitably the Mst. Chel Kunwar did not die a natural death but was done to death. 9. But the next question that falls for determination is a more difficult one and it is as to who of the 4 persons killed her or whether all the four accused can be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC for the murder of Mst. Chel Cunwar. In this respect the evidence of Mst. Dhap Kunwar and Mst. Hazari are important. Mst. Dhap Kunwar PW 7 has stated that Devisingh put his turban on her feet and asked her to advise with regard to the disposal of the dead body. Chel Cunwar. In this respect the evidence of Mst. Dhap Kunwar and Mst. Hazari are important. Mst. Dhap Kunwar PW 7 has stated that Devisingh put his turban on her feet and asked her to advise with regard to the disposal of the dead body. But this statement is missing from the statement made by her before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr. P. C. When confronted with the omission, she had no explanation to offer. Mst. Hazari PW 3 was produced to support two facts: (1) that at about the time Mst Chel Kunwar should have been killed in the night, she heard cries of 'mare re mare re' and then the victim was silenced. Next morning she saw that 45 persons were carrying firewood to the cremation ground; (2) She saw accused Sukhia's daughter standing outside Devi Singh's house and the little girl told her that Mami aunt was killed by 4 persons. She told that Devi Singh, Roopsingh her mother and her Nani had killed her mami. Thereupon, Roopsingh came out of the house and slapped the girl and took her inside. The learned trial Judge appears not to have discussed the evidence of Mst. Hazari at all. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that she was a chance witness and could not be relied upon. He submitted that she was married in the village Lunavra where she stayed for 10 years and then left her husband's house some 22 years ago. She returned to stay in the village her parents, namely; Pilawani. Her son migrated to Pakistan and her father was murdered. She said she was a frequent visitor to village Siwas as the villages of Pilawani and Siwas are separated only by a river bed. This time she had come to deliver some message to one Mst. Munni one of her cousins. She was staying with another cousin Kuka. The learned counsel points out that this woman belongs to a different village and h&d no particular business to' be there in the village of Siwas on the fateful night. She has entered the witness box in order to discharge her debt to Narain Singh who had helped her in the prosecution of the persons who had murdered her father. She was confronted with her statement made in the committing court. Ex. She has entered the witness box in order to discharge her debt to Narain Singh who had helped her in the prosecution of the persons who had murdered her father. She was confronted with her statement made in the committing court. Ex. D. 7 portion G to H wherein she had deposed that the girl told her that her mother and her `Mama' had killed her `Mami'. There is nothing in her statement in that court that the girl told her that 4 persons had killed her and further that Roop Singh came and carried her girl inside the house. This portion of the statement is also missing from her police statement Ex. D. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the statement of Mst. Hazari. Unfortunately, she has not been consistent in her statement so as to help us to find out who the actual culprit out of the 4 was. In the committing court, she appears to have involved Roop Singh and Sukhia, but by the time she came to the court of session, she included Devi Singh and his wife also, it will, therefore, not to be safe for us to act upon the statement of this woman. 10. Now, having come to the conclusion that the death was homicidal, we are called upon to consider whether all the 4 persons can be convicted under section 302 IPC with the aid of section 34 I P C. To our mind, t here being only circumstantial evidence and there being to evidence that all the four persons shared a common intention of killing Mst. Chel Kunwar, we cannot press section 34 of the Penal Code into service without the aid of which it is not at all possible to convict the respondents. We may in this connection refer to a case which occurred in this Court and is reported in Narain Lal v. The State of Raj., (1969) II SCWR 282. In that case appellant Narain Lal and his father were persecuted for the murder of Smt. Pista, wife of the appellant on the night intervening 26th and 27th November, 1964. She was married in February,1961 she was not acceptable to her husband and his parents. Somehow the husband was persuaded to take her 7 or 8 months before the death. She also conceived but her relations with her husband & parents continued to be strained. She was married in February,1961 she was not acceptable to her husband and his parents. Somehow the husband was persuaded to take her 7 or 8 months before the death. She also conceived but her relations with her husband & parents continued to be strained. She was continued to be maltreated and even beaten by them. Sometime on the night of the incident, she was beaten and then strangulated to death. The news of her death was not sent to her brother, who did not live far from the appellant's house. Arrangements were set on the foot by the members of the appellant's family to take her body for cremation in the morning. On coming to know of it, Sitaram went over and found his sister lying dead in a room on the first floor of the house of the appellant. Suspecting foul play, he lodged a written report with the police, investigation was taken in hand dead body was sent to postmortem. The medical officer gave the opinion that the cause of the death was aphyxia as a result of strangulation. Both the accused were charged under section 302 and 176 IPC. The Sessions Judge had concluded that although there was a large number of members in the family, only the accused persons were capable of committing the crime. He excluded the possibility of any stranger having caused the death. The appellants had full opportunity to go into the room of the deceased ane perpetrate the crime and they alone had a motive to commit the murder. They also wanted to screen the murder as they did not inform Sitaram and made preparation for carrying the dead body for cremation. Mst. Sukh Devi grand mother of Narain Lal came forward to claim to have been sleeping with the deceased on the fateful night. The High Court examined Sukh Devi and also recalled the medical officer. Sitaram was recalled. Sukh Devi's, evidence that Pista was quite hale and hearty, when she went to sleep in the night with her but she found her dead lying on the floor when she woke up in the morning was rejected as unconvincing. The High Court examined Sukh Devi and also recalled the medical officer. Sitaram was recalled. Sukh Devi's, evidence that Pista was quite hale and hearty, when she went to sleep in the night with her but she found her dead lying on the floor when she woke up in the morning was rejected as unconvincing. The High Court, however, relying upon the evidence of the medical officer that even one person could have committed murder and that injuries on her person indicated that she had received the beating prior to her strangulation, held that of all the persons in the house of Narain Lal had a greater opportunity to commit the crime than any other person. The letters written by Narain Lal to Sita Ram went to show that the husband had no love for the wife. The husband had even suggested to Sita Ram that if he arranged her remarriage with some one else, he would be prepared to divorce her. On this evidence, Narain Lal was convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the evidence was far from conclusive to exclude the possibility of any one but the husband having perpetrated the crime. But even with regard to him it was observed that he may have been a party to the crime but there, was the possibility, that another or others may have done it without his help. The High Court had acquitted the appellant's father entertaining doubt about his taking part in the crime. The evidence being entirely circumstantial and being far from conclusive, the Supreme Court found itself unable to endorse the view of the courts below and.acquitted the accused. 11. The facts of that case are remarkably parallel to the facts in the case before us. Therefore, we are unable to hold anyone of the 4 accused persons to be guilty of murder of Mst. Chel Kunwar. We do however, feel that an offence under section 201 IPC was made out in the case by the act of hasty disposal of the dead body. Bhanwar Singh P.W 1 said that he at the request of accused Devi Singh had gone to the cremation ground, it was Devi Singh who lit the pyre. He thus, does not make a mention with regard to Roop Singh. Bhanwar Singh P.W 1 said that he at the request of accused Devi Singh had gone to the cremation ground, it was Devi Singh who lit the pyre. He thus, does not make a mention with regard to Roop Singh. Chandan Singh PW 3, Jai Singh PW 6 and Bhanwer PW 10 have also said nothing with regard to the presence of Roop Singh on the cremation ground. Arjun Singh PW 12 is equally silent regarding Roop Singh's presence. Therefore, accused Roop Singh cannot be held to a party to the disposal of the dead body. Devi Singh alone is guilty under section 201 IPC and he can be convicted even though not charged under that section. He knew that murder had been committed and caused the evidence of the commission of the crime to disappear, obviously with the intention that the offender or offenders may be screened from the legal punishment. Since the offence which has been committed was murder punishable with death, the offence of screening the offender is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and is also be liable to fine. 12. Accordingly, we uphold the acquittal of the accused under section 302 IPC but we convict accused Devisingh under section 201 IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months *******