JUDGMENT M. Mnrtaza Husain, J. 1. RAM Chandra and his father RAM Het, both residents of village Nakdahi, P. S. Tarabganj, District Gonda have come up with this appeal against the order dated 26-2-1975 passed by the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gonda in S. T. No. 408 of 1974. Through the impugned order RAM Chandra appellant has been convicted under Secs. 302 and 201, IPO. He has been awarded life imprisonment and four years' RI for those two offences which sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. RAM Het appellant has been convicted under Sec. 201, IPC and has been awarded four years' Rl. Smt. Raj Kunwari deceased was undisputedly the wife of RAM Chandra appellant. She was aged about 22 years at the time of occurrence. She died sometime in the night intervening 6/7-9-1972. In the next morning the two appellants and others took her dead body for cremation in a grave near river Chandahi quite close to the appellant's village. One RAM Sunder Tewari of appellants' village, who is now dead, sent a written report to S. O. Tarabganj infroming him that three days back he had learnt through RAM Chandra's mother that RAM Chandra had given a beating to his wife and since then her condition was precarious. RAM Sunder Tewari informed the police that Smt. Raj Kunwari had died on account of that beating and in order to screen the offenders the appellants had hurriedly taken her dead body for cremation. This written report was handed over to Badri, P. W. 3 who was the village Chaukidar for being taken to the police station. He was then unwell and therefore he sent that report to the police station through his son Chhedi P. W. 4. Badri himself accompanied by another Chaukidar Bhai Lal P. W. 7, rushed to the place where cremation was going on. 2. IT is contended by the prosecution that Badri, Bhai Lal and others entreated the appellants not to hurriedly cremate the dead body of Smt. Raj Kunwari as police was expected to arrive, but wiithout paying any heed to it fire had been applied to the mortal remains of Smt. Raj Kunwari. 2. IT is contended by the prosecution that Badri, Bhai Lal and others entreated the appellants not to hurriedly cremate the dead body of Smt. Raj Kunwari as police was expected to arrive, but wiithout paying any heed to it fire had been applied to the mortal remains of Smt. Raj Kunwari. While her dead body was burning three police constables followed by S.I. Sri Narain Upadhya P. W. 13 reached the scene of occurrence at about 9 a. m. The dead body which was then badly charred and burnt was taken by the police into custody along with some ash and other remnants of the pyre. This dead body was sent for postmortem examination, after holding inquest. Dr. G. B. L. Srivastava the then C. M. O. Gonda conducted autopsy of the dead body at 4 p. m. on 8-9-1972. He found the dead body of Smt. Raj Kunwari in burnt and charred condition whereby external injuries could not be deciphered. Upon internal examination scalp, skull bones, membranes, base of skull, vertebrae and pleura were found decomposed. The left lung was congested whereas in the right lung echploymatic gullai was seen. The kidneys were found large, white and nephrotic. There was haematoma 10 cm x 8 cm x 3 cm in right para reid area with clotted blood all around right kidney which in the opinion of the doctor was caused by ante-mortem injury. The cause of death was found by the doctor to be delayed shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to right kidney area. The case was investigated by S. I. Sri Narain Upadhya P. W. 13 who recorded statements of relevant witnesses and came to the conclusion that Ram Chandra appellant had beaten his wife and caused injuries in her abdominal region by lathi blows whereby she had received injuries and ultimately died. 3. WHEN charge-sheeted the appellants pleaded not guilty. They suggested that Smt. Raj Kunwari had died a natural death on account of shooting pain in her stomach with which ailment she was suffering for some time prior to her death. They further suggested that they had taken her dead body to the cremation ground at about 1 O' clock in the day and not in the morning. They suggested that Smt. Raj Kunwari had died a natural death on account of shooting pain in her stomach with which ailment she was suffering for some time prior to her death. They further suggested that they had taken her dead body to the cremation ground at about 1 O' clock in the day and not in the morning. It was also suggested that Ram Sunder Tewari was bearing grudge against them and, therefore, he had lodged a false report about killing of Smt. Raj Kunwari by the appellants and their alleged attempt to hurtiedly cremate her. No oral evidence was led by the appellants in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and passed the order under appeal. 4. IT is not disputed on behalf of the appellants that the police had arrived at the cremation ground when the dead body of Smt. Raj Kunwari was being burnt upon the pyre and her charred body was taken out of the fire by the police. Dr. G. B. L. Srivastava who had held autopsy of the dead body and had prepared post-mortem report Ex. Ka-3 had died before the opening of the trial in the Court below. Dr. Narendra Verma, Dy. C.M. O. Gonda was examined by the prosecution as P. W. 10 to prove the original post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Srivastava. He on the basis of the data given in the post-mortem examination report stated that the ante-mortem injury responsible for causing damage to the kidney of the deceased could be caused through blows given to her by the end of a lathi. It appears from the post-mortem examination report that the kidney of the deceased was nephrotic. According to 'Modi' the kidneys may be ruptured by the slightest indirect violence when they are already weakened by diseases. Nephritis has been described by Modi as one of such diseases. (See page 291 of Modi's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1977 Edition). The medical evidence on record thus shows; that the deceased had died as a result of injury caused to her right kidney area which kidney was already suffering from nephritis. This medical evidence proves that Smt. Raj Kunwari had died an unnatural death through violence and not a natural death. The medical evidence on record thus shows; that the deceased had died as a result of injury caused to her right kidney area which kidney was already suffering from nephritis. This medical evidence proves that Smt. Raj Kunwari had died an unnatural death through violence and not a natural death. Chandra Prakash P. W. 1,Smt. Jagpati P. W. 2 and Amrika Prasad P. W. 5 were examined by the prosecution to prove that three days before the occurrence the appellant had beaten deceased by giving lathi blows in her abdominal region. The neighbours of the appellant, Amrika Prasad P. W. 5 stated that at about 11 a. m. he heard alarm from the house of the appellants. When he went there he found Ram Het sitting outside his door but the witness himself saw no quarrel. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. His cross-examination done by the Public Prosecutor shows that he had really colluded with the appellants and had changed his statement made under Sec. 161, CrPC simply to oblige the appellants. He even stated that the father-in-law and brother-in-law of Ram Chandra were present at the lime of cremation. Had it been a fact, it is obvious that the police could never take Smt. Raj Kunwari's dead body out of the burning pyre. 5. CHANDRA Prakash P. W. 1 stated that at about 10 a. m. three days before the cremation of the deceased he heard alarm from the house of the appellants. When he went there he found Smt. Jagpati there. Ram CHANDRA was inside his Barotha. He learnt through her that some quarrel was going on inside. He too was declared hostile by the prosecution. His statement simply supports the prosecution in this respect that some quarrel had taken place at the house of the appellant at about 10 a. m. three days before the cremation of the deceased. 6. SMT. Jagpati P. W. 2 stated that when she reached the house of the appellant three days before the cremation of the deceased she saw that Ram Chandra was assaulting his wife in abdominal region by the end of lathi. Some leading questions were also put to her by the prosecutor with the permission of Court. 6. SMT. Jagpati P. W. 2 stated that when she reached the house of the appellant three days before the cremation of the deceased she saw that Ram Chandra was assaulting his wife in abdominal region by the end of lathi. Some leading questions were also put to her by the prosecutor with the permission of Court. Her statement read as a whole proves that Ram Chandra had given blows by the end Of a lathi in the abdominal region of the deceased while she was lying down on a cot about three days before her cremation. SMT. Jagpati admitted that after the death of her husband she gave birth to an illegitimate child. She also admitted that Ram Het appellant had accused her of illicit intimacy with Chandra Prakash P. W. 1 and had further contended that the illegitimate child was born to her from Chandra Prakash. That admission of SMT. Jagpati shows that she did not falsely deny that allegation. On account of the aforesaid accusation of Ram Het against SMT. Jagpati all that can be said is that her statement be scrutinised carefully. Her entire statement cannot be rejected on that ground. The medical evidence already referred to above fully corroborates her statement about the assault of the deceased by Ram Chandra appellant by the end of a lathi in her abdominal region. On account of that corroboration by medical evidence, SMT. Jagpati's statement can be safely accepted. Yet another circumstance which supports Smt. Jagpati's statement is that the appellant attempted to hurriedly cremate Smt. Raj Kunwari's dead body. Badri PW 3, Constable Amir Hasan PW 6 and Bhai Lal PW 7 have stated that the appellants were hurriedly cremating the: dead body of Raj Kunwari and it was taken out of the pyre when the police constables had reached the scene of occurrence. The statement of Ram Deo Pandit PW 8 who was declared hostile also leads to the inference that the appellants were hurriedly cremating Raj Kunwari's body. The conduct of Ram Chandra in hurriedly cremating his deceased wife affords a piece of circumstance which supports the statement of Smt. Jagpati about the assault of the deceased by Ram Chandra. The statement of Ram Deo Pandit PW 8 who was declared hostile also leads to the inference that the appellants were hurriedly cremating Raj Kunwari's body. The conduct of Ram Chandra in hurriedly cremating his deceased wife affords a piece of circumstance which supports the statement of Smt. Jagpati about the assault of the deceased by Ram Chandra. We have already remarked above that the statement of Amrika Prasad PW 5 about the participation of the father and brother of the deceased in the cremation cannot be believed because if everything had taken place normally, there was no reason for Ram Sunder Tewari, now dead, to inform the police about the taking place of Smt. RajKunwari's death in suspicious circumstances. The scribe of the report sent by Sunder Tewari to the police station, namely, Parmeshwar Saran PW 11 also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He stated that the written report was prepared when the police had reached the village. Even if that statement of Parmeshwar Saran is correct the fact remains that if Raj Kunwari had died a natural death and she was being cremated on normal course, there was no reason for the police to rush to village Nakdahi and to take out the burning dead body out of the pyre which had already been lit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the attempt of Ram Chandra appellant to hurriedly cremate his wife is a piece of circumstantial evidence which corroborates Jagpati's statement about the assault of the deceased by Ram Chandra appellant three days before the occurrence. 7. WE, therefore, agree with the trial Judge in his finding to the effect that Ram Chandra had given blows in the abdominal region of the deceased by means of a lathi three days before the occurrence and as a result of that assault the deceased died as her right kidney area was damaged which kidney was already suffering from nephritis. 8. IT was urged on behalf of Ram Chandra appellant that he had no intention to commit the murder of his wife, nor he could have the knowledge that by giving a few blows by the end of a lathi even grievous hurt could be caused to her and, therefore, Ram Chandra should be convicted only under Sec. 323, IPC. 8. IT was urged on behalf of Ram Chandra appellant that he had no intention to commit the murder of his wife, nor he could have the knowledge that by giving a few blows by the end of a lathi even grievous hurt could be caused to her and, therefore, Ram Chandra should be convicted only under Sec. 323, IPC. Reliance was in this connection placed upon Empress of India v. Fox, (1879) ILR 2 All. 522 ; State v. Babar Alt, AIR 1962 Assam 110 and Ramakrishna Panicker v. State of Kerala, AIR 1959 Ker. 372 . We have gone through those decisions and in our opinion the facts of the cases involved therein are different from those of the case in hand. Here the defence admits that Smt. Raj Kudwari used to have shooting pain in her abdominal area. That fact being in the knowledge of Ram Chandra, if he gave several lathi blows in the abdominal region of the deceased he can at least be saddled with the knowledge that through that assault he was likely to cause grievous hurt to the victim who was a tender and sick lady of about 22 years of age. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Ram Chandra deserves conviction under Sec. 325, IPC though not under Section 302, IPC or any part of Sec. 304 IPC. After having been held guilty for causing injury to Smt. Raj Kunwari resulting in her death, it is not necessary for us to separately sentence him under Sec. 201, IPC when he is being convicted and sentenced for the main offence under Sec. 325, IPC. So far as Ram Het appellant is concerned the only evidence against him is that he had participated in the cremation of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to show that he had any knowledge that the deceased was assaulted by her husband and had died as a result of that assault. Ram Het may be father of Ram Chandra appellant but he cannot [be convicted under Sec. 201, IPC unless it is established that he knew or had reason to believe that the deceased had died as a result of an assault by her husband. Mere relationship amongst the two appellants cannot prove that fact. 9. Ram Het may be father of Ram Chandra appellant but he cannot [be convicted under Sec. 201, IPC unless it is established that he knew or had reason to believe that the deceased had died as a result of an assault by her husband. Mere relationship amongst the two appellants cannot prove that fact. 9. IN Shamim Rehmami v. State AIR 1975 SC 1883 the real brother of the main accused who had committed murder of the deceased was convicted by this Court under Sec. 201, IPC because he was said to have given false information to screen his own sister from being punished for murder. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the brother may have known, or may have reason to believe that an offence of murder had been committed by his sister, but the other possibility that he may not have known or may not have reason to believe, and he may have only suspected that the offence: of murder had been committed by her, could not be ruled out and, therefore, the benefit of doubt had to be extended to him. 10. AGAIN in Nathu v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1245 it was observed by the Supreme Court that merely because the accused were brothers of the main offender it could not be presumed as a matter of legal proof that they must be deemed to have the knowledge of murder of the deceased by her husband. In the present case also if Ram Het had no knowledge that the deceased was assaulted by his son Ram Chandra sand had died as a result thereof and Ram Chandra represented to him that his wife had died on account of pain in her abdominal area which she used to have, and taking that version on its face value Ram Het joined Ram Chandra in the cremation of deceased's body it can thereby not be inferred that he knew or had reason to believe that the deceased had died as a result of some crime having been committed. We are therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of Ram Het ordered by the trial Judge under Sec. 201, IPC is not justified and has to be set aside. 11. AS a result of the foregoing discussion the appeal of Ram Het is allowed, and his conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below are set aside. We are therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of Ram Het ordered by the trial Judge under Sec. 201, IPC is not justified and has to be set aside. 11. AS a result of the foregoing discussion the appeal of Ram Het is allowed, and his conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below are set aside. The appeal of Ram Chandra appellant is partly allowed and partly dismissed. His conviction ordered by the Court below under Sec. 302, IPC is altered to that under Sec. 325, IPC for which offence a sentence of three years' RI is awarded to him. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the Court below is set aside. Conviction of Ram Chandra is upheld under Sec. 201, IPC but no separate sentence is being awarded to him for that offence as he is being sentenced far the main offence under Sec. 325, IPC which was responsible for the death of Smt. Raj Kunwari. 12. RAM Het is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. RAM Chandra is also on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentence of three years' RI awarded to him by us under Sec. 325, IPC. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall report compliance to this Court within six weeks. -- Ordered accordingly.