JUDGMENT 1. Braham Dutt and five others, who were challaned for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120 B and 342 1PC, on committal, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, who after considering the evidence produced in the case found Braham Dutt guilty of offences under section 302 and 201 IPC. One more person Dr. Tejkaran was convicted for the offences under section 201 IPC and the remaining four accused were acquitted of the offences under Section 120 B read with section 201 IPC and the other offence. Braham Dutt and Dr. Tejkaran have preferred appeal No.165 of 1987 against their conviction and sentence, while the State has preferred appeal No. 176 of 1988 against the acquittal of the other four accused. Both these appeal are being disposed together. 2. Facts in brief are that Manju, deceased, wife of Braham Dutt died on the night of 2nd August, 1981. At that time her husband Braham Dutt was studying in S.T.C. and he used to come to his village on holidays etc. On 2nd August 1981 it was Manju's birth-day and she spent the day with her parents and at about Four O'clock in the evening she went to her husband's house where her husband Braham Dutt, father-in-law Ram Kalyan and sister-in-law Krishna were present. PW.1 Vandana, sister of Manju had come along with Manju, and when they entered the room, krishna sister of Braham Dutt told Manju not to touch the bag of Braham Dutt. When Vandana was about to go back Manju told her that she would go to S.T.C. and she should inform her father about it. Upon this Krishna said that She (Manju) would be sent to far off S.T.C. where from she could not be able to return to her house. The same night two persons brought message to the father of Manju that Manju was seriously ill and was in the Hospital. Manju's parents, PW.5 Badrilal and PW.4 Urmila, went to the Hosptial. The description give by Urmila was that Manju had injuries on both cheeks and there was a ligature mark on the neck and the tongue was protruding and the hands were broken from the elbows. This witness was locked in a room by Dr.Tejkaran. In that room krishna, sister of Braham dutt and wife of Vidyacharan were also there. She wanted to know as to how Manju died and Dr. This witness was locked in a room by Dr.Tejkaran. In that room krishna, sister of Braham dutt and wife of Vidyacharan were also there. She wanted to know as to how Manju died and Dr. Tejkaran said he could not tell and krishna also said that Manju had been killed so what. At that time Badrilal also shouted that her daughter had been killed. Dr.Tejkaran, Madan Lal Pancholi and Vidyaratan Chopra, all caught hold of him and locked him in another room. Then early in the morning when the body of Manju was prepared for cremation her father and mother were allowed to see the face for a few seconds and were pulled away from there. Badri lal shouted that he would get postmortem conducted Badrilal has stated that he kept on shouting that his daughter had been killed. He could not make a report at the police station because Braham Dutt and Dr. Tejkaran threatened him. Even at the cremation ground he was not allowed to get postmortem conducted. Cremation took place in the early morning and by 7.00 a.m. every thing was over. Thereafter third-day ceremoney was also per,formed and none went to the Police Station to make a report. Manju's maternal uncle Dharam Diwakar, PW.3 came to Mangrol on 9.8.1981 after learning about the death of Manju by telegram. He talked to his sister Urmila and here husband Badrilal and when he learnt about the circumstances in which Manju died he lodged the first information report at the Police Station Mangrol on 10th August, 1981. The narration in the FIR is based on what Urmila and Badrilal told him. 3. Before coming to the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, we may refer to the written report, which is Ex.P.1. Though the report has been made by Dharam Diwakar it may actually be said to be the version of the mother of the deceased, who is sister of Dharam Diwakar. The narration starts that when Dharam Diwakar came to Mangrol on receiving telegram about the death of Manju he asked his sister and brother in-law as to how Manju died. Upon this his sister gave out this story. The story is that on 2.8.1981 which was Teej, festival day Urmila sent her daughter Manju to the house of her-in-laws (both families were living at Mangrol). Upon this his sister gave out this story. The story is that on 2.8.1981 which was Teej, festival day Urmila sent her daughter Manju to the house of her-in-laws (both families were living at Mangrol). At about 2.00 in the night Manju's father-in-law Ram Kalyan came to their house and said that Manju was seriously ill. Upon this Urmila went to the Hospital to Mangrol and her husband followed her. When she reached the Hospital she found that Manju was already dead. When her husband (Badrilal) wanted to see Manju, her husband Braham Dutt went after him in order to beat him. Dr. Tejkaran and Ramkalyan and compounder Pancholi told Braham Dutt not to beat Badrilal and upon this Braham Dutt said that if he (Badrilal) opened his mouth, he and his two children would be put to death. Then Urmila and Badrilal were locked in a room by Dr. Tejkaran and the body of Manju was taken away from the Hospital and then it was cremated against their wishes. Urmila further stated that Manju had been beaten by Braham Dutt and his family members and put to death. Her body was also cremated while it was dark, and they did not report to the police because of the threats given out to them. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case and took a number of circumstances into consideration in order to arrive at the finding that the case under section 302 IPC against Braham Dutt was proved and that Dr. Tejkaran and Braham Dutt were guilty of the offence under section 201 IPC. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case and took a number of circumstances into consideration in order to arrive at the finding that the case under section 302 IPC against Braham Dutt was proved and that Dr. Tejkaran and Braham Dutt were guilty of the offence under section 201 IPC. These circumstances pointed out by him are as under:- " 1- lkai ds dkVus dk dksbZ mipkj MkDVj lkgc dks fn[kkus ds vfrfjDr ugha fd;k x;kA lkai ds dkVus ij fdlh iM+kSlh dks irk ugha pyk vFkok nsgkar esa tSlk lk/kkj.kr;k gksrk gS] vU; mipkj fd;k tkrk gS tks ugha fd;k x;kA 2- MkDVj vCnqy jgeku ds c;ku ls vLirky ds jftLV~j esa dksbZ bUnzkt lkai ds dkVus ds lEcU/k esa fdlh jksxh dks vLirky esa ej tkus vFkok mldk mipkj gksus dk ntZ ugha gSA 3- tgka rd nok [kjhns tkus dk lEcU/k gS mldk [kjhnk tkuk Hkh lansgkLin gS vkSj og nok lnesa ls lEcfU/kr nok gS] ftlds fy, ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd lnek] ftldh nok nh xbZ og lkai ls dkVus ek= ls mRiUu lnesa ds fy, gh gks ldrh FkhA 4- ;g Hkh fl) ugha gS fd e`rdk dks nok Hkh nh xbZ vFkok ughaA 5- ;g Hkh fl) ugha gS fd ftl le; rFkkdfFkr nok [kjhnh xbZ ml le; e`rdk thfor Hkh Fkh] vFkok ughA 6- MkDVj vCnqy jgeku v0lk0 19 tks ofj"B MkDVj gS mudks ugha fn[kk;k x;kA fo'ks"k :i ls tcfd e`rdk eatwyrk] MkWDVj xkyc ds lxs ekSls HkkbZ dh iRuh FkhA 7- lkai ds dkVus ij rFkk e`rdk ds nkg&laLdkj rd D;k D;k mipkj fd;k x;k] ;k [kpZ fd;k x;kA ;g lHkh ?kj okyksa rFkk MkDVj xkyc dk fo'ks"k tkudkjh dk fo"k; gksus ls mls fl) djus dk Hkkj mu ij /kkjk 106 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa ,0 vkbZ0vkj0 1955 lqizhe dksVZ ist 801 dk fof/k n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA 8- tks xokgku izfrj{kk lk{; esa izLrqr fd, x, gSa os dsoy ek= U;ksrkjs ds cqykus ij tkuk dgrs gSa vkSj dsoy ;g dgrs gSa fd e`rdk dks lkWai }kjk dkV ysuk mudks dgk x;k FkkA lk/kkj.kr;k ekuoh; LoHkko ds v/khu ;g izdV gksuk pkfg, fd fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lkai us dkVk vkSj fdl izdkj dkVk] e`rdk fdl gkyr esa Fkh] ?kj okyksa dks dc bldk Kku gqvk o mlds i'pkr~ D;k D;k mipkj o dk;Z fd;kA lkai dks fdlus ns[kk gS] lkai dSlk Fkk oxSjkg] oxSjkgA 9- 'elku esa lfEefyr gksus okyksa esa Hkh bl izdkj dh ppkZ ugha gqbZ] tks fd LokHkkfod ckr FkhA 10- nkg&laLdkj Hkh vfr'kh?kzrk ls fd;k x;k vkSj nqdkusa [kqyus ls iwoZ gh fo'ks"k :i ls nqdkusa [kqyokdj nkg&laLdkj dk lkeku fy;k x;k vkSj dsoy ek= 10&12 O;fDr gh vFkhZ ds lkFk x,A 11- tks i= vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk izLrqr fd, x, gSa mudh izkekf.kdrk fl) gS vkSj mu ij fdlh izdkj dk lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA mu i=ksa ls czgEnr o eatwyrk ds lEcU/k dVq gksuk fl) gS rFkk ;g Hkh fl) gS fd e`rdk ,l0Vh0lh0 djuk pkgrh Fkh ftl ij mudks vkifRr FkhA 12- xokg vCnqy v0lk0 7 ds c;kuksa ls Li"V gS fd MkDVj vCnqy jgeku ls e`rd ds dsl dks fNikus dh dksf'k'k dh vkSj mUgsa bldh tkudkjh ugha gksus nhA 13- xokgku dY;k.kflag] osnizdk'k xxZ] LorU= xokg gSa ftuds c;kuksa ls Li"V gS fd e`rdk ds llqj fuf'pr mij Fks vkSj mlus iwNus ij ;gh dgk fd HkkstkbZ th dks tkus D;k gks x;kA bl izdkj lkai }kjk dkVs tkus dk ftdz ml le; rd Hkh ugha FkkA 14- bl dsl dh izFke lwpuk nsjh ls gksuk egRoghu gS D;ksafd mlesa dksbZ izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ugha gS ftlds fy, ;g vko';d gks fd fjiksVZ 'kh?kz djsA ;g dsl ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gS ,slh fLFkfr esa gkykr tks lk{; ls izdV gS mudk lw{e foospu ls gh fu.kZ; gksrk gSA 15- ;fn lkai ls dkVus dh dgkuh fl) ugha gksrh gS rks vU; gkykr dh jks'kuh esa blds vfrfjDr fd e`rdk dh gR;k dh xbZ dksbZ vU; ifj.kke ugha fudyrk gSA mUgksaus fuEu n`"Vkar Hkh izLrqr fd, gSa %& ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1986 ,l0ih0 2115 iSjk 20] fd0yk0 fjiksVZj&,l0lh0 437] 1985 lh0,0vkj0 248 MCY;w0,y0,u0 445A " 5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further held that if Manju died due to snake bite then the fact was specially within the knowledge of the appellant Braham Dutt and as such the burden of proving this fact was upon him. The accused did not lead any evidence to show as to from where the snake came and what search was made to trace the snake and there were no shouts about the snake or that a snake had bitten Manju etc. Thus the theory of snake bite was not found to be proved by the accused. For convicting the appellant Dr. Tejkaran main reliance was placed on the evidence of Dr. A.Rehman PW.19, who has stated that there was no entry in the Hospital register about the admission of Manju on the relevant date and of treating her for snake bite. Further it may be mentioned that the accused Dr. Tejkaran is a cousin brother of accused Braham Dutt and this relationship was made use of for purposes of attributing a movite to Dr. Tejkaran for covering as to what had actually happened. 6. A couple of letters exchanged between deceased Manju and her husband Braham Dutt were also referred to in order to find out the motive for purposes of doing away with Manju. She was very keen to join S.T.C. course and Braham Dutt did not approve of the same. As Manju was insisting to join this cause her husband murdered her. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Braham Dutt has contended that the FIR in a case is a very vital document and the back bone of the case and if this document can be said to be such, which is not believable, then the whole case of the prosecution goes away. A number of flaws have been pointed out in the theory set up in the FIR, besides the delay of 8 days in lodging the same. We shall refer to these contentions later. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out a number of circumstances in order to contend that the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved on the basis of the circumstances alone and according to him these circumstances have also not been proved. According to him the story has been developed in the testimony of the witnesses before the court and each witness has been cross. According to him the story has been developed in the testimony of the witnesses before the court and each witness has been cross. examined at length in order to show that there are several omissions in the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the parents of the deceased were fully satisfied that Manju had died a natural death and inspite of suggestions they were not willing to get postmortem conducted and it was only after the arrival of Dharam Divakar, the story of murder has been developed. It is argued that a deliberate attempt has been made in order to conceal the evidence that Manju was treated for snake bite. We shall presently refer to these documents. But before doing so we may look into the statements of the witnesses very briefly. 8. PW.1 Vandana is the younger sister of Manju deceased and she had accompanied Manju to the house of her in-laws on the fateful day. Manju had sent the message with her to her father that she would go for STC next morning. Upon this her sister in-law stated that Manju would be sent to a very long STC where from she could not return. In the night two peons had come to call them and they had said that Manju had been murdered by her husband. P1/44.2 Nattibai is a woman of the village who was informed about the death of Manju and she had gone to the house of Badrilal where the dead body was lying. She has not said anything about the injuries on the face and neck of the deceased. PW. 3 Dharam Diwakar is the person who lodged the FIR and his role has already been seen above and need not be repeated. PW.4 Urmila is the mother of Manju. She has given a little background that Manju's relations with her husband Braham Dutt were not good. He used to beat Manju when she wanted to do STC course and be in a position to stand on her own legs, but her husband and other in-laws were not in favour of this. Manju and her husband used to quarrel on these grounds also. 9. PW.4 Urmila has given for the first time in the court the description about the body of Manju that there were injuries on the both cheeks and there was a ligature mark on the neck. Manju and her husband used to quarrel on these grounds also. 9. PW.4 Urmila has given for the first time in the court the description about the body of Manju that there were injuries on the both cheeks and there was a ligature mark on the neck. Tongue was protruding and both hands were broken from the elbows. On her asking, Dr. Tejkaran said that he could not tell as to what disease had killed Manju. She and her husband both were locked in a room. She was not allowed to see the face of her daughter, even though both husband and wife kept on shouting and they also wated to get postmortem done on the body. PW. Badrilal is the father of Manju and his version is on the same line as that of Urmila. 10. PW.6 Bherulal is a neighbour, who went to the house of the appellant on hearing weeping of women. At about 6.00 in the morning Badrilal also came there along with Dr.Tejkaran and there were protests that his daughter has been killed. Dr. Tejkaran told him to talk in sense and also said that if it was so, a report be made with the police and the postmortem be conducted. Upon this Badrilal became quiet. There were 30, 40 persons who had collected there and by the time they reached the cremation ground there were 100 to 150 people. According to him the other teachers of the school, in which Badrilal was a teacher, were also present there. 11. PW.7 Babulal is a peon in the Mangrol Hospital. He was awoken up at about 2.30 in the night by Dr.Tejkaran as a case had come to the Hospital. He gave hot water. Dr.Tejkaran asked him to call Dr. Rehman as he had the key of the store. He had gone some distance but he was recalled as the girl had died. In the morning Dr. Tejkaran asked him to inform Dr. Abdul Rehman that he may look after the Hospital as Dr. Tejkaran would be going to the cremation ground. In cross-examination he has admitted that Dr. Tejkaran wanted to take out snake bite injection and therefore he wanted the keys of the Store room. 12. In the morning Dr. Tejkaran asked him to inform Dr. Abdul Rehman that he may look after the Hospital as Dr. Tejkaran would be going to the cremation ground. In cross-examination he has admitted that Dr. Tejkaran wanted to take out snake bite injection and therefore he wanted the keys of the Store room. 12. PW.8 Kalyan Singh also reached the house of the appellant when he heard weeping noise and according to him, Badrilal was saying that his daughter had been murdered and not died a natural death. Braham Dutt tried to attack him but then there were others who separated them. 13. PW.9 Om Prakash can be said to be an important witness. He is the owner of Vijay Medical Store and at about 2.00 in the night Braham Dutt came to buy medicines. He had the prescription given by Dr. Tejkaran. The cash-memo was retained by him because Braham Dutt did not have money and was also in a great hurry. This cash memo was seized by the police and along with this prescription was also seized. Braham Dutt left this prescription with him as he was in a hurry. This prescription is known as ticket and according to him illness mentioned in this prescription was snake bite. 14. This cash-memo is Ex.p.6 shows that drip set, glucose and some other injunctions were supplied. This cash memo was seized by Ex.p. 7. On top of it is written that one ticket and bill No. 8746 dated 3.8.1981 produced by Omprakash was taken into possession. While in the body of the seizure memo it is written Bill No.8746 has been taken into possession. While Omprakash has said that ticket (prescription) as well as the cash memo both were taken by the police. 15. PW.10 Ved Prakash has given a similar version as PW 10 Kalyansingh PW12 Ranjan is a sister of the deceased Manju and she had also written a letter to Braham Dutt pursuading hirryto allow Manju to take this S.T.C. course. Letters of Braham Dutt were at her house and she had handed over them to the police. It is also said that Braham Dutt had told her that he had brought the form for STC, but if Manju fills in this form then he would kill her. 16. Letters of Braham Dutt were at her house and she had handed over them to the police. It is also said that Braham Dutt had told her that he had brought the form for STC, but if Manju fills in this form then he would kill her. 16. PW.13 Brij Mohan is the husband of Ranjana and he has stated that a few days before the death of Manju, Braham Dutt had come to his village and said that if Manju did STC then he would scold her and beat her and he wanted his support in this. There were some arguments between them as Brij Mohan was not against the idea of Manju's doing STC course. PW. 16 Prabhulal has stated that at mid night he was easing himself. He saw Braham Dutt, his sister krishna and father Ramkalyan taking to Manju to Hospital and Manju was wearing under clothes and foam was coming out of her mouth. Braham Dutt was carrying her. 17. PW 18 is the wife of a person who was admitted in the Hospital on the fateful night. But she has not said anything about what she saw and has been declared hostile and does not help the prosecution case in any manner. 18. The statement of Dr. A.Rehman PW.19 has already been referred to above. The next witness is the investigating officer. 19. Manju was a young woman, married about seven years before her death and she died suddenly at night. She was hale and hearty in the evening and when such person dies it becomes a suspicious death. However mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof. There has to be some evidence to show that the deceased died an unnatural death and that it was caused by some one. Lateron it may be said that the person responsible for the death was accused. In the FIR it was mentioned in a general manner that Manju was killed after beating her and that her body was cremated in the earlier hours of the morning. There was no mention of the fact that there were injuries on the cheeks and the neck of the elbows in the hands. No one has stated as to how Manju was put to death. The learned Addi. There was no mention of the fact that there were injuries on the cheeks and the neck of the elbows in the hands. No one has stated as to how Manju was put to death. The learned Addi. tional Sessions Judge has given a number of reasons, calling them circumstances, which go against the accused, but in our opinion these circumstances can merely go to show that Manju died in suspicious circumstances, but they do not amount to evidence in the nature of circumstantial evidence in order to show that Manju was killed by someone or her husband. It may be that she was not treated properly, as Dr. A. Rehman was not called. Some person who could relieve Manju of the snake poison was not called immediately, but these circumstances alone would not go to show that the deceased died a homicidal death. As stated by PW Bherulal. Dr. Tejkaran had offered to get postmortem conducted on the body of Manju but Badrilal do not accept this and kept quiet. The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is such that because accused have not been able to prove that Manju died due to snake bite, therefore it should be accepted that she was killed by the husband. It has come in evidence that the body of Manju was prepared in the customary manner for purposes of cremation. Mehandi was applied to her hands, but it is surprising that no one besides her mother has come forward to say that there were injury marks on her body and that her hands were in any manner broken. Unless there are circumstances to show that Manju died a homicidal death, accused would not become guilty of murder merely because they were negligent in the treatment which was given to her. Even if it is accepted that snake bite theory is an after thought, then too it is not a case wherein the body was cremated without waiting for the parents. In this case there were 100 to 150 persons present at the cremation ground and a number of colleagues of Manju's father were also present. It was very easy to remove doubt by lodging a report at the Police Station. which was between the house of the appellant and cremation ground, and getting postmortem conducted on the body. In this case there were 100 to 150 persons present at the cremation ground and a number of colleagues of Manju's father were also present. It was very easy to remove doubt by lodging a report at the Police Station. which was between the house of the appellant and cremation ground, and getting postmortem conducted on the body. Besides the parents and sisters of the deceased no one has come forward to suggest about any foul play in the whole incidence. One of the circumstance referred to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the people who had collected at the cremation ground did not discuss anything about the snake bite. Here it may be said that no one discussed that Manju had been killed by her husband. Merely because they did not talk about snake bite, it would not mean that she had been killed. 20. The prescription slip which was prepared by Dr. Tejkaran after examining Manju, can be said to be a relevant piece of paper. However, this is not forthcoming. PW 9 Om Prakash has stated that after Braham Dutt had purchased the medicines, he had left the slip at his shop, as he was in hurry and his slip was seized by the police along with the cash-memo, which he had prepared. However, the prosecution has produced the cash memo but not the prescription slip. In the seizure memo Ex.P.7 in the heading it is written that one ticket and bill No.8746 were taken into possession, but the paper referred to as the ticket has not been produced. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that this ticket was the prescription written out by Dr. Tejkaran and the reason for not producing the same is that in this it was written that the ailment of Manju was snake bite. it is contended that only for removing any evidence consistent with the theory of snake bite, this paper has been concealed. It may be said that this document was a very relevant, piece of evidence as it would have thrown light on the nature of the illness of Manju and it can be said that the prosecution failed to produce it because it would have supported the accused. 21. It may be said that this document was a very relevant, piece of evidence as it would have thrown light on the nature of the illness of Manju and it can be said that the prosecution failed to produce it because it would have supported the accused. 21. A very big issue has been made out about the bitter relations between Manju and her husband, appellant Braham Dutt on the ground that Manju wanted to go for STC training, but the appellant was against it. Manju's sister and her husband have deposed about it, but then in the evidence it has come that the form for STC was brought by the appellant and that it was the appellant, who despatched the form. From the letter written by Manju it appears that the appellant was not so much against Manju doing STC but was disturbed by the fact that on this account the husband and wife would have to stay apart. There may be differences between the husband and wife on this account but then it can be said that when the appellant brought the form and submitted the same, then he had reconciled, otherwise he would not have brought the form and submitted the same. 22. The absence of entries in the Hospital record cannot lead to the conclusion that Manju was not brought to the Hospital. Her father and mother both state that she was in the Hospital and Dr.Tejkaran was there. The absence of entries in the Hospital register can only go to show that the formal procedural part was not performed and it would not become a case of not bringing Manju to the Hospital. If the accused and specially the appellant Dr. Tejkaran wanted to fabricate evidence they would have completed the entries in the register alongwith the description that Manju had died due to snake bite. It can only go to show that they were not fabricating and preparing any material which could be called in as evidence at a later stage. 23. It may be said that if the parents of Manju had any doubt about the cause of death, they had all the opportunities to make a report and get post mortem conducted, but they did not choose to do so. The matter was reopened only when Manju's uncle came there. 23. It may be said that if the parents of Manju had any doubt about the cause of death, they had all the opportunities to make a report and get post mortem conducted, but they did not choose to do so. The matter was reopened only when Manju's uncle came there. Even in the story of the parents of Manju there are several development, which go uncorroborated by other evidence. One of the reasons given for unpleasant relations between Manju and her husband is that the appellant used to take away Manju with him even before gona ceremony was performed. In our view this cannot be said to be a circumstance which goes to show that the appellant wanted Manju to be out of the way. 24. On the basis of these circumstances which are available in this case, it is difficult to say that the appellant Braham Dutt killed his wife Manju. First of all there is no evidence to show that Manju died a homicidal death and the circumstances do not show that the appellant Braham Dutt killed her. 25. As far as the appellant Dr. Tejkaran is concerned, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC. But as seen above, he had given a clear option to Manju's father to make a report and get postmortem conducted. The threats alleged to have given out by Brahamdutt are also an after thought only to cover up the fact that immediately the report was not lodged. If anything happens to a person then it is only natural that a person first approaches his family doctor and if the patient dies, the doctor would not become guilty of any offence. In order to make a person guilty for the offence under section 201 IPC, it is first necessary to show that some offence has been committed. In the present case this has not been done. Even the witnesses cited in the charge sheet as witnesses, who would go to show that death was homicidal, have not been examined. Before convicting Dr. Tejkaran, it has to be shown that he had knowledge that an offence has been committed. Only after that the question of doing any act to cause disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment would arise. Before convicting Dr. Tejkaran, it has to be shown that he had knowledge that an offence has been committed. Only after that the question of doing any act to cause disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment would arise. We are of the view that the conviction of Dr.Tejkaran can also not be maintained. 26. The learned counsel for the complainant has laid emphasis on the part of evidence of the parents of the deceased in which they have said that they had been looked and not allowed to see Manju and that the appellant Braham Dutt had attacked Badrilal. If all these versions are true then the parents of the girl owe an explanation as to why they did not make a report and get postmortem con,ducted. The theory of threats is a baseless theory having no credence at all. This case can at best be said to be a case wherein it may be said that the death of Manju occurred in suspicious circumstances. But then there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that Manju was killed by her husband or that any act was done to cover the crime. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and on this basis their conviction has to be set aside. 27. The appeals of Braham Dutt and Dr.Tejkaran are accepted. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. Braham Dutt shall be released if not wanted in any other case. Dr. Tejkaran is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. 28. The appeal of the State against the acquittal of four persons is dismissed.Appeal by accused accepted. Appeal by state dismissed. *******