VERMA, J.— Ashok Dhariwal, his father Kanmal , sister Lalita and paternal uncle Amrit Raj were committed to court of Sessions, Jodhpur for facing trial for offences u/ss 302, 120B and 201, I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur transferred the case for trial to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur. Learned trial Judge discharged Amrit Raj for all the charges and this order of discharge was maintained by this Court as well as by the apex Court. Charges for offences u/ss. 302, 201 and 120B, I.P.C. were framed against Ashok; charges for offences u/s. 302 read with ss. 120B and 302, I.P.C. were framed against Kanmal and Lalita. On revision, this Court quashed charge u/s. 201, I.P.C. against all the accused persons. Hence, Ashok was tried for offences u/ss 302 and 120B, I.P.C. while Kanmal and Lalita were tried for offences u/s 302 read with s. 120B, I.P.C. After trial, learned trial Judge acquitted Kanmal and Lalita of charges u/s. 302 read with s. 120B, L.P.C. he acquitted Ashok of charge u/s. 120B, I.P.C. However, he convicted Ashok of offence u/s. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved Ashok has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 156/1986, State Government has filed with leave of this Court D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 11/1987 challenging acquittal of Ashok for offence u/s. 120B, I.P.C. and of Lalita and Kanmal for offence u/s. 302 read with s. 120B, I.P.C. First informant Kailash has filed Criminal Revision No. 214/1986 praying for enhancement of sentence passed upon Ashok. Since all these matters arise out of common judgment and order, all of them have been heard together by consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common judgment. (2). Some of the salient facts of the case are not in dispute and may be noted here. Hansa Rani (deceased) was the youngest, of the five daughters of Peerchand (P.W. 34) and Madan Kanwar (P.W. 23). P.W. 2 Kailash is the brother of Hansa. The other of Hansa are Kamla, Sushila, Shanti and Vijay Laxmi, Kamala (P.W. 14) was married to Dalpat Mal Kumbhat (P.W. 29). P.W. 41 Sushila was married to one R.N. Modi. Vijay Laxmi was also married. Kailash was also married and his wife is P.W. 33 Asha Devi. P.W. 2 Kailash is the brother of Hansa. The other of Hansa are Kamla, Sushila, Shanti and Vijay Laxmi, Kamala (P.W. 14) was married to Dalpat Mal Kumbhat (P.W. 29). P.W. 41 Sushila was married to one R.N. Modi. Vijay Laxmi was also married. Kailash was also married and his wife is P.W. 33 Asha Devi. P.W. 26 Ganpat Mal is father of Dalpat Mal and father-in-law of Kamla Hansa Rani was an educated girl and had studied upto M.A. (previous) prior to her marriage. Hansas father Peer Chand used to reside at Balsar in State of Gujarat in connecotion with employment. Kailash Chandra used to live at Jodhpur in the locality known as Daphtarion kn Bas. (3). Ashok, his father Kanmal and unmarried sister Lalita were also residents of Jodhpur and used to reside at Ghanchio ka Bas with other members of the family which included Vijay Raj, grand father of Ashok, Hukam Kanwar, mother of Ashok, Kailash brother of Ashok and wife of Kailash. Ashok was a Lecturer in Engineering College, Jodhpur. (4). Marriage of Ashok was settled with Hansa by her brother P.W. 2 Kailash with the mediation of Dalpat Raj, her brother-in-law. This was sometime in June, 1977. At that time parents of Hansa were at Balsar. Kailash Chandra informed them of this settlement at which Peerchand and Madan Kanwar came to Jodhpur. Eventually, the marriage of Ashok was solemnized with Hansa on 28.6.77 with customary rites. At that time, there was no demand made from the grooms side, but the parents of the bride gave customary presents and spent in all about Rs. 35,000/- in this marriage. After their marriage, Ashok and Hansa visited Kashmir. Out of this wedlock a daughter, Varsha was born in April, 1978. Hansa after marriage continued her studies and passed her M.A. (Final) and B.Ed. examinations. She also joined service as teacher at village Kannana, which was at some distance from Jodhpur. She used to coomuto to and fro between Jodhpur and Kanana. Later on, Hansa joined commercial Taxes Department at Jodhpur as L.D.C. She used to visit her brother Kailash as also her sister Sushila frequently. However, Kamala and her husband Dalpat Mal were not on visiting terms with the family of Ashok appellant. (5). This is also not in dispute that on the night intervening 27.4.81 and 28.4.81, Hansa Rani was in her marital home. However, Kamala and her husband Dalpat Mal were not on visiting terms with the family of Ashok appellant. (5). This is also not in dispute that on the night intervening 27.4.81 and 28.4.81, Hansa Rani was in her marital home. Her husband Ashok, her sister-in-Law Lalita and her father in law Kanmal, along with other inmates of the family were also present in the house. Hansa Rani received extensive burns on her body that night and she was removed to M.G. Hospital in the taxi of P.W. 1 Ganpat Lal by Lalita and Kanmal. Amrit Raj (also called Amrit lal), uncle of Ashok went that very night to house of Kailash Chandra and informed him about Hansa Devi having been burnt and having been admitted to M.G. Hospital. There is some dispute regarding the precise nature of information conveyed by Amrit Lal, with which we shall deal at a later stage. Suffice it to say, that Amrit Raj transported Kailash (P.W. 2) and his wife Asha Devi (P.W. 33) the same night to M.G. Hospital. When Kailash reached M.G. Hospital, along with Asha Devi, they found that Hansa had already been admitted to E.S.I. Ward of the hospital and was under treatment. Lalita and Kanmal were already present there. Hansa was administered necessary treatment at the hospital but she eventually succumbed to her burn injuries and breathed her last in the hospital on 29.4.81 at 5.05 p.m. Her post mortem examination was conducted on 30.4.81 at 11.05 a.m. by Dr. N.S. Kothari (P.W. 32). Dr. Kothari found the following : "1. Superficial burns on the face (except forehead, scalp and eyes) i.e. both cheeks tempal region of .face on both side including both ear pinnas. Tip of nose both lips and chin. Superficial burns on neck antero laterally & posteriorly. Chest anteriorly including breast, upper part of the abdomen, just above the umblicus. Left upper limb including hand, right upper limb on its antero medial aspect except right hand, back of the chest and lumber region and upper part of gluteal region. The burn area showed reddening, blackening and peeling of skin. 2. Skalds burns showing reddening (Erythema) with blisters and reddening of skin on the right thigh, on the antero lateral aspect left thigh on its antero lateral and posterior aspect, and left leg lower l/3rd part, including ankle region antero medial and lateral aspect. 3. The burn area showed reddening, blackening and peeling of skin. 2. Skalds burns showing reddening (Erythema) with blisters and reddening of skin on the right thigh, on the antero lateral aspect left thigh on its antero lateral and posterior aspect, and left leg lower l/3rd part, including ankle region antero medial and lateral aspect. 3. There was vinisection stitched wound 2cm long on the lower l/3rd right leg on its antero-medial aspect." The burnt area showed reddening, blackening and peeling of skin. On opening the body, Dr. Kothari found that brain and brain membranes of Hansa Rani were congested. Mucus membrances of stomach were also congested. Small and large intestines were also congested. Other internal organs were healthy. In the opinion of Dr. Kothari, the cause of death of Hansa was shock as a result of burns. Dr. Kothari preserved viscera of Hansa Rani for chemical examination. In his opinion, the burns found on the body of Hansa Rani were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Kothari prepared post mortem report Ex.P. 41 regarding the autopsy. (6). Now, the basic substratum of the prosecution case: The prosecution story is that soon after her marriage, Hansa was taunted for brining inadequate dowry. She was humiliated of and on by her husband and her-in-laws including Kanmal and Lalita. She was being maltreated by the accused persons so that she may fetch more dowry. She complained of this behaviour of the accused persons to her parents, brother, sisters, sister-in-law and her friends. The accused persons tried to do away with her by administering slow poisoning. Ashok wanted to eliminate Hansa so as to enable him to get re-married and obtain larger dowry. The prosecution case is that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched among Ashok, Kanmal and Lalita, Hansa was burnt in the marital home. Then she was removed to the hospital to create a false impression of solicitude for her welfare,knowing fully well that she could not have survived the ordeal. The local Police was won over on behalf of the accused persons with the result that a false dying declaration of Hansa was obtained, even though she was not in a fit condition to give any statement. The case of the prosecution is that it was a cold blooded murder of a helpless lady, still in her twenties. The local Police was won over on behalf of the accused persons with the result that a false dying declaration of Hansa was obtained, even though she was not in a fit condition to give any statement. The case of the prosecution is that it was a cold blooded murder of a helpless lady, still in her twenties. The prosecution case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence, to which we shall allude later. Suffice it to say that according to prosecution, all the three accused persons were guilty of the brutal crime. (7). The defence was a complete denial of the alleged harrasment or torture of Hansa with a view to obtain larger dowry. The theory put forward by the defence was that on the fateful night, all the inmates of the house were sleeping upstairs and the accused as also other inmates of the family on hearing hue an cry came down and saw Hansa aflame. Kanmal placed a Pattu around her and doused the flames. In attempt to save Hansa, hand of Ashok also got singed. Thereafter, Hansa was immediately removed to the hospital and was got treated. Ashok even donated blood for her. Kailash and Asha were immediately informed of the occurrence and were taken to the hospital. Ft was denied that the accused persons or any one of them set Hansa on fire. (8). We have heard Sarva Shri S.R. Bajwa and Varun Gupta for the accused persons in both the appeals. We have heard Shri P.N. Mohnani, Special Public Prosecutor assisted by Surendra Surana on behalf of the prosecution in all the cases. Shri Niranjan Gaur has argued the matter on behalf of Ashok in criminal revision. (9). At the out set, we may state that the prosecution in this case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The principles regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence are rather well settled and we may recapitulate them here. Before an accused can be held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, following conditions must be satisfied 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established, 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explanable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, 3. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established, 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explanable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, 4. They should exclude every possible hypothasis except the one to be proved, and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The aforesaid principles have been held to constitute Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence (See Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1). Therefore, we shall have to see if the prosecution has been able to establish its case against all the three accused persons in accordance with the yardsticks indicated above. (10). We may note at this very stage that so far as accused Kanmal and Lalita are concerned, they were acquitted by the learned trial court. There is a presumption of innocence of an accused till he is proved to be guilty. The presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal. The High Court would be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal. This is, however, true that the High Court has full power to review at large the evidene upon which an order of acquittal has been passed by the Sessions Court and reach a conclusion that upon the evidence available on record, the order of acquittal should be reversed. But then, in such a case the High Court must not only find that the view of the learned Sessions Court about the evidence was unreasonable but must also state the, reasons why it finds the view of the Sessions Court to be unreasonable (Sec Bhakhala & Ramdin & ors. vs. State of M.P. (2). Hence, we shall have to reappraise the evidence of the prosecution bearing in mind the aforesaid principles. (11). One more principle, which we shall have to bear in mind is that the prosecution must stand on its own legs. vs. State of M.P. (2). Hence, we shall have to reappraise the evidence of the prosecution bearing in mind the aforesaid principles. (11). One more principle, which we shall have to bear in mind is that the prosecution must stand on its own legs. Falsity of defence can not take the place of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused Shanker Lals case (3). (12). Here, we may state that the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses before the learned trial Judge in support of its case. The defence has also examined some witnesses. We shall discuss this evidence at its appropriate place. (13). The first question to be examined in this case is if smt. Hansa died a homicidal death or she met an accidental or suicidal death. We have to examine the correctness or otherwise of the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge on this aspect of the matter. If we uphold the finding of the learned judge on this aspect, then we will be required to consider if all the accused or any one of them can be said to be guilty of such homicide. If we arrive at the finding that the death of Smt. Hansa was accidental or suicidal then there can be no question of upholding the conviction and sentence passed upon Ashok. (14). Now, there is no denying the fact that Hansa Rani died an unnatural death because of extensive burns sustained by her in the marital home. But, yet the central question is if she died a homicidal death. We have already referred to the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. N.S. Kothari (P.W. 32). The post-mortem report shows two distinct types of burns on the person of Hansa Rani, viz. superficial burns on the face, neck, chest etc. and scald burns on the right and left thighs. Dr. Kothari admitted that no definite opinion could be given whether the burns were homicidal. He, however, did not rule out the possibility that these could be homicidal. superficial burns on the face, neck, chest etc. and scald burns on the right and left thighs. Dr. Kothari admitted that no definite opinion could be given whether the burns were homicidal. He, however, did not rule out the possibility that these could be homicidal. He admitted in cross-examination: "If a person lights stove and her sari caught fire in the stove, then such type of burns could be caused but only superficial flame burns can be caused but not moist scald burns be caused. If accidentally boiling water falls on the both the thighs anterior side then scale (sic) moist burns could result. It dependes upon the position of the person at the time." As we understand the situation, two different type of burns, one by contact with flame and others with contact of boiling or very hot water were caused to the deceased. To suppose that the death was homicidal, we would have to imagine that boiling or near boiling hot water must have been poured on her thighs to cause scald burns and then she must have been burnt by bringing her body in contact with flames or vice versa. It would need a very imaginative brain with foreknowledge of the two different types of burns being caused by two distinct methods to accomplish such a fiendish act of brutality. Suffice it to say that the medical evidence by itself is inconclusive to show that the death of Hansa was homicidal. (15). Now, we may examine the concomitant circumstances, which have been pressed into service by the prosecution to show that the infliction of burns on the person of Hansa were homicidal. P.W.3 Ishwar Chand has been examined to depose that his house was in vicinity of the house of Ashok and other co-accused. On the fateful night, he was sleeping on the roof of his house and at about 2-2.30 a.m. he was aroused from sleep by shrieks of Hansa who was crying Mare Re, Mare Re. At this, he came down from the roof of his house and saw Amrit Lal telling Kishanlal that Hansa had become mad and she was throwing away utensils. He peeped towards the house of Ashok and saw some smoke coming out of his house. In cross-examination, he has stated that after seeing this incident, he went back to his house and slept again. He peeped towards the house of Ashok and saw some smoke coming out of his house. In cross-examination, he has stated that after seeing this incident, he went back to his house and slept again. He did not tell about this incident to any. body. He did not make any enquiries from Amrit Raj or Kishanlal about this event, nor did he tell them that he had heard shrieks of Hansa. He has admitted that for the first time, he informed the police about the incident on 13th June. He has stated that next day, he went to market and heard people discussing about the incident, yet he did not inform any one about what he had seen or heard. He admitted that he was having a criminal litigation with one Nemi Chand and Dhariwals were witnesses in that case. The learned trial Judge has found the testimony of this witness unreliable and unworthy of oredence in view of his conduct. We do not find any reason to differ from the assessment of the learned trial Judge. We are not impressed by his testimony and it. appear that this witness must not have heard the alleged shrieks of Hansa at all : otherwise, he would have definitely enquired from Amrit Raj and Kishan Lal about such Shrieks ; he would have also mentioned it to people who were discussing the episode next day in the market. Thus, the testimony of this witness does not advance the prosecution case at all. (16). P.W. 4 Roopa Ram also claimed to be a neighbour of the accused persons and deposed that on the fateful night, he had come from Ajmer at about 1.30 in night and after taking his meals, had gone to sleep upstairs. At that time, he heard a woman crying from the house of Kanmal <span class="Hfont">^^eus Fks D;ksa ckyksa] eSa Fkkjksa dka bZ fcxkfM;ksa In cross-examination he admitted that after hearing these shrieks, he slept quietly and neither informed members of his own family nor the neighbours about this incident. Learned trial court, keeping in view the conduct of this witness, in not informing the members of his family or other neighbours, had found his statement to be unreliable. We also find the testimony of this witness unworthy of credence and do not deem it proper to rely upon it. (17). Learned trial court, keeping in view the conduct of this witness, in not informing the members of his family or other neighbours, had found his statement to be unreliable. We also find the testimony of this witness unworthy of credence and do not deem it proper to rely upon it. (17). P.W. 5 Gautamchand Bhandari is another neighbour of the accused persons. He has, inter-alia, staled that on 27.4.81, he was sleeping at house. He was aroused from sleep at 2.30 a.m. on hearing shrieks"Mare Re, Mare Re. At this, he went to the roof of his house. He again heard similar shrieks emanating from the house of the accused persons. At that time, he saw Raja Lodha alias Umaid Raj Lodha standing on his roof top. He suggested to Raja Lodha that both of them may go towards the place from which cries were coming. But Raja Lodha said that this was a daily occurrence and he was feeling sleep and therefore if this witness so liked, he may go. At this, the witness got down from the roof and went towards thanak from the back door of the house and heard Amrit Lal telling Kishanlal that Ashoks wife had gone mad and was throwing utensils. In the meanwhile Ashok came to the roof of his house. At that time some smoke was coming out of the house of Kanmal. Then Ashok and Amritlal spread a bed sheet on the screen from which smoke was coming. At this, the witness enquired from Ashok and Amrit Lal as to how smoke was coming out. At this, Amrit Lal said that Ashoks wife had gone mad and was throwing utensils. At this, juncture Amrit Lal, who had a stone in his hand threatoned him, at which the witness went to his house and informed his wife of the incident. Learned trial court has found that this witness was on inimical terms with the accused persons. Learned trial Court did not find this witness reliable as the witness on his own admission had not stated to the police that he had heard shrieks of Hansa, nor did he state to the police that he saw smoke coming out of the house of Ashok. P.W. 22 Umaid Raj Lodha has been examined to corroborate the aforesaid story of Gautam Chand. P.W. 22 Umaid Raj Lodha has been examined to corroborate the aforesaid story of Gautam Chand. He has deposed that on the fateful night he had gone to see a picture and had returned at about mid-night. After some lime, he heard a shriek from the house of the accused persons. After 5-10 minutes, the shrieks were heard again. He got up and saw Gautam Chand standing on his roof. Gautam told him that the shrieks were coming from the house of the accused Ashok. Gautam asked him to accompany him to Ashoks house, but he declined. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he did not mention this incident to any body. He had met Ganpatmal Kumbhat next day but did not mention this fact to Ganpatmal, nor did he mention this fact to any body. The learned trial court has found both these witnesses to be highly unreliable and unworthy of credence and has given good reasons for the same. We do not find any good reason to differ with the learned trial court regarding the assessment of the testimony of these witnesses. (18). The other witnesses pertaining to this aspect of the incident are P.W. 16 Champa and her husband P.W. 21 Kishanlal. Both these witnesses have deposed that on the fateful night they were sleeping on the roof of their house. Both of them were aroused from sleep by shrieks Mare Re, Bale Re coming from the house of Kanmal. At that time, Ashok, Kanmal and Amrit Raj were standing on the Hatha of their house. Champa enquired from Amrit Lal as to what has happened, at which Amrit Lal told them that Ashoks wife had gone mad. Now, if these witnesses had really heard shrieks of Ashoks wife as claimed, it is but natural that they would have made enquires from Ashok or Ashoks Kanmal. Both of then do not claim that they at all enquired from Ashok or his father why Ashoks wife was crying. It does not appear that they informed any other neighbours about any such incident. Umaid Raj claimed to have gone near the house of the accused persons and claims to have talked to Amrit Lal but both these witnesses do not depose about his presence at all. It does not appear that they informed any other neighbours about any such incident. Umaid Raj claimed to have gone near the house of the accused persons and claims to have talked to Amrit Lal but both these witnesses do not depose about his presence at all. Learned trial Judge did not find the evidence of Champa to be trustworthy but found the evidence of Kishanlal to be worthy of credence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there was not much to distinguish the testimony of Champa from that of Kishanlal. We, therefore, find that testimony of Kishanlal deserved the same treatment as the testimony of Champa. Hence, we do not find this evidence reliable and trustworthy. (19). Now we may consider the evidence to the effect that on the fateful night, smoke was seen coming out of the house of the accused persons and Ashok and Amrit Raj were seen spreading a bed sheet on the screen from which smoke was coming out. We have already referred to the evidence of some of the witnesses, who claim to have been aroused from shrieks coming from the house of the accused persons and also saw smoke coming out from the said house and also claim to have seen Ashok and Amrit Lal putting a bed sheet on the network screen from which smoke is said to be coming out. P.W. 3 Ishwar Chand has deposed about some light smoke coming out. In next breath, he states that according to his surmise, it must have been smoke. The learned trial court has discarded his evidence as unreliable and rightly so. P.W. 4 Roopa Ram speaks only about shrieks but is silent about any smoke or the accused Ashok and Amrit Lal putting any bed sheet against net-screen. Gautam Chand Bhandari (P.W. 5) is the witness who has deposed about the smoke coming out and has also deposed about Ashok and Kanmal Apreading a bed sheet on the wirenet screen of the roof. We have already taken note of the fact that the trial court did not place any reliance upon the testimony of this witness and for good reasons. We have already taken note of the fact that the trial court did not place any reliance upon the testimony of this witness and for good reasons. We have already noticed the evidence of Smt. Champa and she does not support the story that smoke was seen coming out from the house of the accused persons or any accused persons were seen spreading a bed sheet over the net-screen of the ceiling. The same is the case with the evidence of her husband Kishanlal. P.W. 22 Umaid Raj also does not support Gautam Chand on this aspect of the matter. Thus, we find that prosecution has failed to establish beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that any smoke had been seen coming from the house of the accused persons and Ashok and Amrit Lal had been seen putting up a bed sheet against the net screen of the ceiling. So far as coming out of the smoke from the house is concerned, in itself it is a natural circumstance and it would be compatible with accidental or suicidal burning as well. (20). The next circumstance upon which the prosecution has placed reliance is that when Hansa was brought to the three wheeler of Ganpat Lal P.W. 1, she was altogether nude and while she was being taken in the three wheeler to the hospital, she cried" <span class="Hfont">^^eq>s tyk rks fn;k gS] vc dgka ys tk jgs gks and at this Lalita put her hand on the mouth of Hansa; upon which Ganpat Lal remonstrated with Lalita. Learned trial court has accepted the prosecution case that it was in three wheeler taxi of this witness that Hansa had been transported to the hospital but he has found the testimony of this witness in other particulars to be highly unreliable. This witness further deposed that when the three wheeler reached the hospital, Hansa was taken out of the three wheeler and was taken towards the out door wing of the hospital. At that time, accused Kanmal threatened her. <span class="Hfont">^^vius c;ku <ax ls nsuk ugha rks rsjs HkkbZ dks ekj Mkysaxs Learned trial court has found this evidence of Ganpat Lal also unreliable. We need not repeart the grounds on which the learned trial court found the testimony of Ganpat Lal on these two counts unreliable. At that time, accused Kanmal threatened her. <span class="Hfont">^^vius c;ku <ax ls nsuk ugha rks rsjs HkkbZ dks ekj Mkysaxs Learned trial court has found this evidence of Ganpat Lal also unreliable. We need not repeart the grounds on which the learned trial court found the testimony of Ganpat Lal on these two counts unreliable. Suffice it to say that Ganpat Lal is a highly unreliable witness who has provaricated at every step of his deposition and learned trial court was right in rejecting his testimony on the aforesaid two counts as unreliable. He has admitted that his statement Ex. D. 1 was recorded by Padam Chand Kala. He has further admitted that while giving statement Ex. D. 1, he did not state to Padam Chand Kala that Hansa had cried and Lalita had pressed her mouth by putting hand on the mouth of Hansa or that Kanmal had threatened Hansa as stated above. We have carefully perused the deposition of this witness and in agreement with the learned trial court. we are of the view that the testimony of this witness on the aforesaid two counts is an after thought, is unreliable and is wholly unworthy of belief. (21). The statement of this witness is that when Hansa came to his taxi initially, she was altogether nude and on seeing this, he suggested that she may be wrapped and thereupon Lalita brought a sari and Hansa was wrapped in the sari. This part of his testimony does not assist us in any way because this circumstance, is a netural circumstance. This witness has admitted that Hansa had walked to his taxi. This statement of Ganpatlal shows that when Hansa came to the taxi, she was to that extent conscious. (22). P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra has deposed that on the night intervening 27.4.81 and 28.4.81, at about 3.30 a.m. Amrit Lal Dhariwal came to him and informed him that Hansa had been burnt due to hot water and she has been admitted in M.G. Hospital. Upon this, he along with his wife went to M.G. Hospital on the scooter of Amrit Lal. He found Hansa admitted in the E.S.I. ward of the hospital. Hansas Nanad (Lalita) and father-in-law Kanma 1 were present there. Ashok was not present in the hospital. Upon this, he along with his wife went to M.G. Hospital on the scooter of Amrit Lal. He found Hansa admitted in the E.S.I. ward of the hospital. Hansas Nanad (Lalita) and father-in-law Kanma 1 were present there. Ashok was not present in the hospital. He found that Hansa was reeking of Kerosene and it did not appear that she had been burnt due to hot water. P.W. 33 Asha Devi is wife of this witness and she does not corroborate his testimony that when she and her husband reached the hospital, Hansa was reeking of Kerosene. About the conversation which took place between her husband and Amrit Raj, she stales that Amrit Raj had satated that Hansa had been burnt while warming the water. (23). We may state here that Amrit Raj has not been examined to say what precise information did he pass to Kailash and his wife. He was the best witness on this aspect of the case. The discrepancy between the two statements of Kailash and his wife regarding the actual information passed on by Amrit Raj though insignificant in itself, has an important bearing on the case. Amrit Raj has not been examined by either side and hence we do not know what precise information had he passed over. If the information could be that Hansa had been burnt while warming water, then it would be compatible with the two types of burns admittedly received by Hansa. (24). P.W. 12 Dr. M.M. Jain was the first person in M.G. Hospital to attend to Hansa. He has deposed that during the night in between 27.4.81 and 28.4.81, he was on duty at the casualty ward of M.G. Hospital and at about 2-3 a.m. a burn case was brought to him. The name of the burnt person was Hansa Rani and she was accompanied with 2-3 attendants. He tried to talk to the patient but she did not make any reply. He prepared Ex. P. 27 and called the House Surgeon. He has categorically staled in cross- examination that when he saw the patient, she was not smelling of Kerosene. This statement of Dr. M.M. Jain falsifies the statement of Kailash Chandra altogether and it appears that in his zeal to implicate the accused persons, Kailash has made this false introduction of Hansa reeking with kerosene. Dr. He has categorically staled in cross- examination that when he saw the patient, she was not smelling of Kerosene. This statement of Dr. M.M. Jain falsifies the statement of Kailash Chandra altogether and it appears that in his zeal to implicate the accused persons, Kailash has made this false introduction of Hansa reeking with kerosene. Dr. M.M. Jain is an independent witness, whom we have no reason to disbelieve. (25). Another doctor who examined Hansa and attended to her is Dr. chameli Patel. She also does not state that Hansa was smelling of Kerosene. On the contrary, she feigned ignorance on this aspect of the matter, upon which she was confronted with her previous statement Ex. D. 42 wherein she had categorically stated that Hansa was not smelling of kerosene. (26). This is in prosecution evidence that P.W. 11 Jamal Ali informed officials at P.S. Mahamandir at 4.30 a.m. on the fateful night itself about admission of Hansa in the hospital in a burnt condition. Prior to this, the patient had been examined by Dr. Harjeet Singh P.W. 43, at about 3.35 a.m. and he had started treatment of Hansa. He also does not corroborate the claim of Kailash Chandra that smell of Kerosene was emanating from the body of Hansa. (27). A very important and vital fact about which the prosecution and defence are at divargencc is regarding the condition of Hansa. According to prosecution, Hansa was not in a conscious state of mind so as to be in a fit condition to give any statement, while defence is at pains to show that Smt. Hansa did make a statement to police, while in her faculties and the said statement gives a tic to the prosecution story. Ex. D. 18 is the said statement and it is claimed that the same had been recorded by S.I. Harendra Singh, who has been examined as court witness. Harendra Singh has deposed that on 28.4.81, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at P.S., Mahamandir. On that day, he was deputed by S.H. O. Bhanwar Bux Mohammed to take action in the matter of a burn case reported from Hospilal. He has stated that on that day, he proceded to Hospital in connection with another case C.R. No. 67/81 for offence u/s. 302, I.P.C. He went to Hansa Rani in the hospital and recorded her statement Ex.D.18 in his own hand. He has stated that on that day, he proceded to Hospital in connection with another case C.R. No. 67/81 for offence u/s. 302, I.P.C. He went to Hansa Rani in the hospital and recorded her statement Ex.D.18 in his own hand. He obtained thumb impression of Hansa Rani on this statement. At that time, Hansas brother Kailash was also present. He asked Kailash to sign this statement, upon which Kailash affixed his signatures Ka to Kha on the same. He has stated that when he recorded the statement of Hansa Rani, she was conscious and was giving rational answers. At that time Dr. Chameli Patel, besides Kailash and one nurse were present. (28). We may readily state that though Shri Harendra Singh claims to have recorded the dying declaration of Hansa (Ex. D. 18), his statement has left an unsavoury impression about the manner he conducted himself in recording Ex.D. 18. He did not request any Magistrate to record her statement even though 8 to 10 Magistrates were available in Jodhpur to record the dying declaration. He did not obtain any certificate from the duty doctor regarding the physical and mental condition of Hansa to give a statement. He did not make any preliminary enquiry to ascertain her true condition. At any rate, he did not make record of any such enquiry. He claims to have requested Dr. Chameli Patel to attest the statement. According to him, Dr. Chameli Patel declined to attest the statement on the ground that she was only a student and would be (unnecessarily) dragged to court hearings. Ex.D. 18 does not show that he made any contemporaneous entry to this effect on Ex.D. 18. As against this Chameli Patel has made a categorical statement that Ex. D. 18 was not recorded in her presence and hence she declined to attest it. Now, there is no reason why P.W. 28 Dr. Chameli Patel would make a false statement on this point. Hence, we are of the view that Harendra Singh did not record Ex. D. 18 in presence of Dr. Chameli Patel and has falsely tried to show that Dr. Chameli Patel was present when Ex. D 18 was recorded. (29). Ex. D. 18 bears attestation by Kailash Chandra P.W. 2 brother of Hansa. According to Harendra Singh, Kailash Chandra was present when he recorded Ex. D. 18. D. 18 in presence of Dr. Chameli Patel and has falsely tried to show that Dr. Chameli Patel was present when Ex. D 18 was recorded. (29). Ex. D. 18 bears attestation by Kailash Chandra P.W. 2 brother of Hansa. According to Harendra Singh, Kailash Chandra was present when he recorded Ex. D. 18. According to Harendra Singh, Kailash Chandra had put his signatures on Ex. D. 18, which were Ka to Kha. P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra has admitted his signatures on Ex.D. 18 but has alleged that Harendra Singh obtained his signatures on Ex. D. 18 by threatening him. Harendra Singh has categorically denied that he had threatened Kailash Chandra before obtaining his signatures on Ex. D. 18. Thus, there is oath against oath on this point. Now, we may state that after the death of Hansa Rani, Kailash Chandra lodged a written F.I.R. Ex.P. 15 wherein he alleged that his sister Hansa was not a victim of an accident but was a victim of the evil custom of dowry. Kailash Chandra has admitted that Ex. P. 15 was in his own hand writing and had been signed by him. The recital in Ex. P. 15 <span class="Hfont">^^eq>s iwjk kd gS fd esjh cfgu tyuk ek= nq?kZVuk kugha gS vkSj og ngst dh dqizFkk dk fkdkj gqbZ gS gives an indication of the fact that prior to lodging of Ex. P 15, there was an impression that death of Hansa was accidental. This recital furnishes intrinsic evidence of what had been operating in the mind of Kailash prior to recording of Ex.P. 15, Now, if Harendra Singh would have obtained his signatures by giving him any threats as alleged, Kailash would have definitely mentioned this fact in Ex. P. 15 also. Hence, we find that claim of Kailash Chandra that he was threatened to signh Ex. D. 18 is an after thought and on this part of his story, we have serious doubts about the veracity of the claim. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a principle which does not apply to India. After carefully reading of the evidence of concerning witnesses on this aspect of the case, we do find that Ex. D. 18 was not recorded in presence of Dr. Chameli Patel, but in all probability, it must have been written in presence of Kailash Chandra, who attested the same. After carefully reading of the evidence of concerning witnesses on this aspect of the case, we do find that Ex. D. 18 was not recorded in presence of Dr. Chameli Patel, but in all probability, it must have been written in presence of Kailash Chandra, who attested the same. We have also no hesitation in saying that Harendra Singh did not observe due rectitude in recording statement Ex.D. 18 yet it would be too much to say that Kailash Chandra had attested it under duress or under pressure of threats. (30). There is one very grave and disturbing feature of the case, to which we must allude at this stage. During the pendency of the investigation of the case, Kailash Chandra gave press interviews and thus same sort of pre-trial by the press was arranged. This is not a healthy trend and the trial by press is likely to prejudice a fair trial of the case. We need not say more on this aspect because we do not propose to deal with the material brought out during press interviews admitted to have been given by Kailash Chandra. Suffice it to say that in his F.I.R. Ex. P. 15 Kailash Chandra did not choose to mention that his signatures on Ex. D. 18 were obtained under pressure of threats. (31). We may here examine the evidence on record to see if Hansa Rani was in a fit state of body and mind to give a statement as recorded in Ex. D. 18. One circumstance which learned counsel for accused persons had relied upon is that according to Ganpat P.W. 1, Hansa had walked upto his taxi. Then, he relied upon the circumstance that Dr. M.M. Jain did not mention in Ex.P. 26 that Hansa was unconscious. Dr. Jain in his sworn testimony has, however, stated that he tried to talk to Hansa, but she did not make reply. Dr. Harjeet Singh P.W. 43 has, of course, stated that Hansa was giving coherent answers, particularly when venesection was done on her. During the course of treatment, Hansa complained of thirst and burning. However, he also slated that inspite of being asked, she did not tell him how she got burnt. P.W. 28 Dr. Chameli Patel has deposed that Morphine had been administered to Hansa. She made queries from Hansa but she did not make any reply. During the course of treatment, Hansa complained of thirst and burning. However, he also slated that inspite of being asked, she did not tell him how she got burnt. P.W. 28 Dr. Chameli Patel has deposed that Morphine had been administered to Hansa. She made queries from Hansa but she did not make any reply. P.W. 10 Sushita Devid has stated that she had attended to Hansa and had enquired from her, how she got burnt upon which she gave a reply "who burns on her own." She has admitted that when Hansas bed had been shifted, she had assisted the nurse in doing so D.W. 7 Kaushalya has tried to show that she was on duty in ESI ward when Hansa was admitted. She had enquired from Hansa how she got burnt upon which Hansa said that she was warming water and her clothes caught fire. This evidence is not conclusive one way or the other and the probability is that Hansa must have been in a dazed state of mind with intermittent bouts of consciousness and unconsciousness and her statement might have been recorded by Harendra Singh in presence of Kailash Chandra, while she might have been in some sort of consciousness. However, as already stated the conduct of Harendra Singh does not appear to be above board and hence Ex. D. 18 may not be worth much. However, this has not been established satisfactorily that Hansa was throughout unconscious and could not have given EX. D. 18. We may here make it clear that evidence in any given case may attain any of the three alternative situation viz (a) a fact may be held to be proved; (b) a fact may be held to be disproved (c) a fact may neither be proved nor disproved. It is precisely this last situation which is obtainable before us on this particular aspect of the case. (32). Learned Special Public Prosecutor, relying upon the testimony of P.W. 10 Sushila Dalphina David that upon enquiry being made from Hansa, she stated-who gets burned on her own <span class="Hfont">^^¼dkSu vius vki tyrk gS½ urged that this utterance of Hansa conclusively establishes that she must have been burnt and must not have received burns in an accident. We have bestowed out earnest consideration in this connection. The utterance would be equally compatible with a situation where she got burnt by accident. We have bestowed out earnest consideration in this connection. The utterance would be equally compatible with a situation where she got burnt by accident. Hence, in our opinion no conclusion can be drawn from this utterance in isolation. We shall, however, examine, if in light of other circumstances proved in the case, this utterance would be of any significance in arriving at any firm conclusion. (33). Learned Special P.P. urged that Riles Tube had been inserted in the mouth of Hansa and this also made the story of dying declaration being made to Harendra Singh unreliable. We find that prosecution evidence on this point is discrepant and inconsistent. Dr. Chameli Patel speaks of administration of food to Hansa by Riles Tube but admits that there is no entry in Ex.P. 26 regarding this so far as 28th was concerned. Dr. P.W. 43 Harjeet Singh Minak has admitted in his statement that he had directed liquid food to be given orally. He docs not speak of insertion of any Riles Tube at all. The same is the case with the statement of P.W. 10 Sushila Dalphina David. She does not speak of insertion of any Riles Tube. C.W. 1 Harendra Singh has categorically stated that at the time he recorded statement of Hansa, there was no tube in her mouth. It does not appear that this statement of Harendra Singh was put to any cross- examination. Hence, this evidence also does not assist us in arriving at any firm conclusion. (34). Learned Special P.P. stated that Hansa was in such a precarious condition that even her blood pressure was not recordable and this shows that she could not have made any statement at all. Dr. Abject Singh Minak has himself explained this phenomena by saying that blood pressure could not be recorded because that part of the body, which is used for recording blood pressure was burnt. Hence, much does not turn upon this factor. (35). Dr. Haricot Singh Minak has stated that when he examined Hansa at 3.30 a.m. he had prescribed a morphine injection of 1/4 gram. Dr. Cham cli Patel has deposed that such an injection was given to Hansa at 3.35 a.m. She has stated that upon such injection being given, patient is not in a position to speak for ft to 10 hrs. Dr. Cham cli Patel has deposed that such an injection was given to Hansa at 3.35 a.m. She has stated that upon such injection being given, patient is not in a position to speak for ft to 10 hrs. However, in cross-examination, she admitted that she could not say if morphine had been given to Hansa between 3.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. or not. She admitted that record did not show this at all. On basis of Ex. P. 26, she stated that morphine was given to Hansa on 28th at 10.30 p.m. Thus, we find that the prosecution in not at all certain regarding the time morphine was administered to Hansa. When it is so, this evidence cannot be pressed into service to say that on 28th Hansa was definitely unconscious at 9.30 a.m. (36). Now, we may deal with the evidence pertaining to alleged illtreatment and cruelty towards Hansa by the accused persons. It is an admitted position that initially when the marriage was negotiated or when the marriage took place, there was no demand for dowry from the side of the accused persons. There was no settlement whatsoever about any dowry being given. However, the prosecution story is that soon after the marriage, accused persons started harassing Hansa on the ground that dowry was insufficient. Besides oral evidence, the prosecution has put on record two letters alleged to have been written by Hansa in her own hand. Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 are such letters. P.W. 42 Dr. T.S. Kapoor, an expert, was interalia examined to prove that these letters were in the hand of Hansa. P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra. P.W. 14 Kamla Kumbhat, P.W. 23 Smt. Madan Kanwar, P.W. 33 Asha Devi, P.W. 34 Peer Chand are closed relations of Hansa and all of them claim to be conversant with the handwriting of Hansa. All of them claim that Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 were in the hand writing of Hansa. Besides these near relations, there is the testimony of office colleagues of Hansa to the effect that they were conversant with the hand writing of Hansa and Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 were in her hand. As against this, learned counsel for the accused persons contended that Ex. P, 2 and Ex. P.3 had not been proved to be in hand writing of Hansa beyond reasonable doubt. Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 were in her hand. As against this, learned counsel for the accused persons contended that Ex. P, 2 and Ex. P.3 had not been proved to be in hand writing of Hansa beyond reasonable doubt. Ex. P. 2 and, Ex. P. 3 were not sealed by the officer recovering them. The evidence of Dr. Kapoor is not of much worth because the possibility of these letters being forgery has not been ruled out. The opinion evidence of Dr. Kapoor is demolished by the testimony of D.W. 2 Ramesh Thakur examined in defence. We have carefully considered these contentions. We find that learned trial judge has given cogent and convincing reasons to arrive at the finding that Ex.P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 were in the hand of Hansa. He has also given sound reasons for preferring evidence of T.S. Kapoor to that of Ramesh. He has considered report Ex.P. 46, the report prepared by Dr. Kapoor in details. This is true that Dr. Kapoor did not give any specific opinion about the ages of the ink on two letters. Likewise, he did not examine the writings to ascertain pen-pressure used in formation of different letters. But, these infirmities do not detract from the general worth of his evidence, which is corroborated by the testimony of close relatives conversant with the hand writing of Hansa further corroborated by the testimony of Hansas colleagues. P.W. 8 Ramdayal and P.W. 9 Kanahia Lal, who were conversant with the hand writing of Hansa. Hence in agreement with the learned trial judge, we hold that prosecution has succeeded in proving that Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 were in the handwriting of Hansa. (37). Now, this is true that Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 were recovered by Padam Chand Kala on 7.5.81 vide Ex. P. 4 and he did not seal these letters. P.W. 27 Mohd. Rafiq has deposed about recovery of these two letters. We do not think that much turns upon the fact that these letters were not sealed or for that matter the fact that they were produced bit late. The vital question before us is whether these two letters Ex. P.2 and Ex.P. 3 were in the hand of Hansa or not. The cogente question, will be if they were forgeries. We do not think that much turns upon the fact that these letters were not sealed or for that matter the fact that they were produced bit late. The vital question before us is whether these two letters Ex. P.2 and Ex.P. 3 were in the hand of Hansa or not. The cogente question, will be if they were forgeries. On these questions, the finding of the learned trial court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and we agree with the reasons given by him and hence need not reproduce the said reasons. (38). This is true that Ex.P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 do not bear any dates. Envelopes in which they were sent could have normally carried postal seals indicating the dates of posting and delivery. These envelopes have not been produced. There is, therefore, good deal of controversy between the two sides. According to learned Special P.P. these letters were written some time after the Dipawali of year 1980, when P.W. 34 Peer Chahd was posted at Porbander. Learned counsel for the accused persons contends that even if it were to be held that Ex.P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 were in hand of Hansa, they were not at all proximate to the incident and might have been written long back and hence prosecution cannot derive any advantage from them. Learned trial court, on the strength of intrinsic evidence available from Ex.P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 arrived at the finding that Ex.P. 2 was written sometime at the end if year 1978 or in the beginning of year 1979 and Ex.P. 3 was written some 15 or 20 days thereafter. We have to see if this finding is correct. Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 have been reproduced in the judgment of the learned trial court in extenso. We may also reproduce them in extenso. Ex. We have to see if this finding is correct. Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 have been reproduced in the judgment of the learned trial court in extenso. We may also reproduce them in extenso. Ex. P. 2 reads as follows : <span class="Hfont">^^iwT; firkth o ekrkth lknj iz.kkeA i= vkidk ugha vk;k gS fd vki dqky iwoZd gksaxsA vkius eq>s fdu nfjUnksa dks lkSai fn;k gS os eq>s cgqr gh nq[k nsrs gSA esjs llqjky okys rks ikqvksa ls Hkh x, chrs gSA os jkst eq>s ekjrs gSa o dgrs gS fd vius ihgj ls :i;s yk ugha rks tku ls ekj Mkywaxk o rsjh lkjh iksy [kksy nwaxk rq>s tku ls ekj nwaxkA os jkst eq>s ekjrs gSa o dgrs gS fd rykd ds isij ij lkbZu dj eSa euk djrh gwa rks os Mjkrs gSa& dy mUgksaus esjk xyk nck fn;k] dgrs gS fd eSa tku ls ekj Mkywaxk eSa tsy tkus ls ugha Mjrk fQj NksM+ fn;k o dgk fd HkS;k nwt ij 1000 :i;s vkus pkfg,A os eq>s ihVrs gSa o dgrs gSa fd ,sls fy[k vkSj dgrs gSa fd rwus esjs lkFk ,slk fd;k oSlk fd;k o eq> ij >wBs vkjksi yxkrs gS o fy[kus ij etcwj djrs gSaA ugha fy[kus ij eq>s ekjrs gSaA ,d fnu eSusa] fQj muds dgus ij lc fy[k fn;k tSlk os pkgrs FksA D;ksafd mUgksaus dgk fd rw fy[k ns rks eSa rq>s dHkh ugha ek:axk u rax d:axkA ijUrq vc os eq>s Cysd esy djuk pkgrs gSA vkius tks 3000 :i;s dSykk ds lkFk Hksts VsifjdkMZj ds os mUgksaus [kpZ dj fn,A vc dgrs gS fd vkSj :i;s ykA vki kh?kz vkdj eq>s ys tkb, ugha rks ;s eq>s nq[k nsaxs ;k ekj MkysaxsA vkidh iq=h galkjkuh** Ex.P.3 eeads as follows : <span class="Hfont">^^iwT; ekrkth o firkth] fnokyh ds fnu bUgksaus eq>s Mjk;k vkSj xyk nckuk pkgk nks rhu ckj dksfkk dh fQj eSaus euk dj fn;kA fQj dgk fd rqe ejuk pkgrh gks rks yks eSa ekjus dks rS;kj gwaA eSusa euk fd;k fQj Hkh xyk nck;k ckn esa mUgksaus NksM+ fn;k xys ds nnZ ds fy, eSa jksbZ rks iwNk ds crkvksa fd jksbZ D;ksa eq>s crkvksA viuh lQkbZ esa dgk fd rqe pkgrh gks rks eSa vHkh ekj ldrk gwaA vHkh tsy tk ldrk gwaA vkt gh fnokyh ds fnu tsy pyk tkÅaxkA esjh fiNyh ftUnxh ds ckjs esa iwNk vkSj dgk fd lc fy[k dj nks eSusa ugha fy[kk rc mUgksaus eq>s ekjkA fQj Hkh eSusa ugha fy[kk rks ekjrs jgsA eq>s etcwj gksdj fy[kuk iM+kA mudk nksLr vk;k gqvk rks mlus ckj&ckj vkokt yxkbZ uhps vk] fQj Hkh fy[kkrs jgs] mUgksaus viuh bPNk ds vuqlkj fy[kkrs jgsA 15&16 ist fy[kk,A fy[kkus ds ckn eSa jksbZ vkSj ekQh ekax yh tks eq>ls xyrh gqbZ ekQ dj nks rc mUgksaus dgk fd eSa QkM+ nwaxk] esjs ikl jgsaxs] tc rqe lq/kj tkvksxh rc QkM+ nwaxk] fQj ckn esa dgk fd ;s yks QkM+ nsrk gawA esjh utj ds Qsj gksrs gh dgk fd ;s QkM+ fn;kA vkSj ckgj tkyh esa Mky fn;kA eSaus rks ;gh lkspk fd QkM+ fn;k] rc esjs eu eas ;gh Fkk fd QkM+ fn;kA eSusa dgk fd QkM+ fn;k] rc dgk fd QkM+ fn;k ugha rks rqe eq>ls Mjrh jgksxh dkQh fnu ckn eas irk pyk fd mUgksaus QkMk+ ugha gS vkSj cSad ykWdj esa j[kk fn;kA fQj geskk Mjkrk jgk fd bldh QksVks LVsV dkih djokÅaxk vkSj lc dks nwaxkA rqEgkjs firkth ds eSusftax Mk;jsDVj dks ysVj fy[kwaxk vkSj bl ysVj dh QksVks LVsV dkWih lkFk HkstawxkA vkSj dSykk dh nqdku mBok nwaxkA ;s ysVj lc dks crkÅaxkA /kedk /kedk ds lkjh ckrs eq> ls iwNhA vxj rqeus ugha crkbZ rks eSa ;s lcdks crk nwaxkA eq>s lc ckrsa lp lp crkvksA gj oDr Mjkrs jgrs FksA HkbZ;k nwt ds fnu eq>s dgk fd vkt tkvks rks nks ekg er vkuk nks krsZa j[kh fd ,d rks vkt tkvksxh rks okfil eSa cqykÅa ugha rc rd er vkuk] nwljh ;g fd rykd ys yks rkfd eSa vkxs dk lksp ldwaA esjs llwj dks [kkuk [kkuk Fkk bUgksaus fQj Hkh eq>s ckgj ugha tkus fn;kA esjh uuan us [kkuk cuk;k fQj cgqr dgus ij NksM+k rc llqj th us dgk fd rS;kj gks tkvks vkSj ihgj pys tkvksA Vkbe cgqr gks x;kA 12-30 gks pqds Fks esjh NksVh uuan llqjky ls ughs vkbZ FkhA eSa rS;kj gksus Åij pyh x;h ;s ihNs dh ihNs Åij vk x, vkSj fQj rax djus yx x;s vkSj eq>s cgqr ekjkA ;s iwNk fd crkvksa fd rqeus D;k lksp ds eq>ls kknh dh] eSusa tokc ugha fn;k rks ekjrs jgsA dkQh ekjus ds ckn eq>s vkalw vk x;sA tkrs tkrs I;kj ls cksys vkSj dgk fd tYnh ?kj vkukA blds ckn dqN er lkspukA Now a bare reading of Ex.P. 2 goes to show that though in the beginning, there is a general reference to the in-laws, but when read carefully, it shows in unmistakable terms that it refers to misdeeds of her husband and not to all in-laws. The same is the terned of Ex. P. 3. To our mind, these two letters when read carefully do go to show that Hansa was really complaining of the misdeeds of her husband.. There is no mention in these letters that any of her other in-laws maltreated her or were a party to the maltreatment given by Ashok Dhariwal to Hansa, Expression <span class="Hfont">^^:i;s ugha rks tku ls ekj Mkywaxk o rsjh lkjh iksy [kksy nwaxk] dy mUgksaus esjk xyk nck fn;k] ^^os eq>s cgqr ihVrs gS vkSj dgrs gS fd rwus esjs lkFk ,slk fd;k] eq> ij >wBs bYtke yxkrs gSA 38. Show this fact very clearly that actually the grievance of Hansa was directed against Ashok. The same is true of Ex.P. 3. We, therefore, do not agree with learned Special P.P. that Ex.P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 constitute incriminating evidence against all the accused persons. However, we are inclined to agree with him that Ex.P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 do constitute definite evidence against Ashok of maltreatment of Hansa by him. (39). Learned counsel for the accused persons vehemently contended the Ex.P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 go to indicate that there was some unsavoury part of Hansa and Ex.P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 should not be construed as evidence of maltreatment on account of demands for dowry. This is true that Ex.P. 3 docs not refer to any dowry demands but Ex.P 2 clearly mentions of a demand for money. (40). Now, regarding intrinsic evidence about the time of writing Ex.P 2 and Ex. P. 3. Ex.P. 2 clearly shows that it must have been written about Bhaiya Dooj of the year in which it was written. It also refers to the fact that Rs. 3(KX)/- sent with Kailash for purchase of tape recorder had already been spent. Ex. P. 3 shows that it must have been written sometime after Dipawali. Ex.P. 3 also refers to an earlier incident of Bhaiya Dooj. The learned trial Judge appears to be correct in arriving at the conclusion that these letters must have been written the year money was sent to Ashok through Kailash for purchase of tape recorder or thereafter P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra has deposed that within one year of the marriage Rs. 6-7 thousand were given to Ashok for purchase of tape recorder etc. He also stated that he sent Rs. 3000/- on Bhaiya Dooj. 6-7 thousand were given to Ashok for purchase of tape recorder etc. He also stated that he sent Rs. 3000/- on Bhaiya Dooj. He was not, however, sure if this was first or second Bhaiya Dooj after marriage of Hansa. When it is so, the letters Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 might have been written sometime in the end of year 1977 and not necessarily at the end of year 1970. However, the contention of learned Special P.P. that they were written sometime in 1980, when Peer Chand was Posted at Porbandar, does not appear to be correct and has been rightly rejected by the learned court below on good grounds, which we need not repeat here. Our conclusion on this count is reinforced by Ex.P. 1 telegram which was given by Kailash Chandra to his father Peer Chand at Balsar on 17.11.77. This documentary evidence this shows beyond doubt that Ashok was harassing Hansa and was creating problems which compelled Hansa to write Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 and compelled Kailash to send Ex. P. 1. We may here state that Ex. P. 1 does not speak of all the in-laws but refers only to Ashok. This reinforces our conclusion that Ex.P. 2 really referred to misleeds of Ashok only and reference to in-law generally was actually a complaint against Ashok and not against Kanmal or Lalita in any way. (41). Learned counsel for accused persons appears to be right when he contends that Ex. P. 3 shows that there was something in the part of Hansa, about which she was compelled to make some admissions in writing by Ashok. But if this is true, it would furnish an additional motive for Ashok to do away with Hansa. Ashok himself has not cared to explain what this part of Hansa was, to which she had to allude to in the said letter except denying the authorship of Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3. This denial is not of much avail in the circumstances of the case. (42). Now, we may deal with the prosecution story so far as it relates to dowry demands by the accused persons made orally on various occasions. P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra has deposed that when Hansa returned from her in-laws place soon after marriage, Hansa complained that her <span class="Hfont">^^llqjkyokys were displeased because tape recorder, ceiling fan and watch etc. (42). Now, we may deal with the prosecution story so far as it relates to dowry demands by the accused persons made orally on various occasions. P.W. 2 Kailash Chandra has deposed that when Hansa returned from her in-laws place soon after marriage, Hansa complained that her <span class="Hfont">^^llqjkyokys were displeased because tape recorder, ceiling fan and watch etc. had not been given. He claims that on being informed of this, the brides side sent Rs. 1000/- 1500/- after a month or two and gave rupees 6-7 thousand within one year of the marriage. He has particularly referred to one incident prior to these payments. When Ashok came to his shop and threatened him, upon which Ex.P. 1 was sent. Kailash has slated that on receipt of his telegram his father had came to Jodhpur and had met Kanmal and Vijaymal who assured. <span class="Hfont">"^^ge vkksd dks lek nsaxs mldk dqN LoHkko gh ,slk gSAS This admission of Kailash goes to show that the grievance was against Ashok and not against the other in-laws or against other accused persons. This is true that Kailash has generally and vaguely reiterated that the treatment of "Sasuralwallans" with Hansa was of cruelty. In this context he has stated <span class="Hfont">^^lkl vkSj u.kn mls rjg rjg dh ckrsa lqukrh Fkh fd rqEgsa dke djuk ugha vkrk gS vkSj ;gkW rd dgrs Fks fd ?kwa?kV vkSj vf/kd fudkyksA But this evidence does not show that Lalita or Kanmal, apart from Ashok, were really malteating Hansa and were making demands for dowry. Kailash has admitted again that when complained about such treatment, Ashoks father and grand father assured that they would <span class="Hfont">^^ge vkksd dks le>k;saxsA Kailash further admitted that whenever Hansa came to his place, she complained of beating by Ashok. He reiterated this fact by saying <span class="Hfont">^^mlus vius ifr ds }kjk gh ekjuk crk;k Fkk This testimony of Kailash does not establish that Lalita and Kanmal made any dowry demands or treated Hansa with cruelty. Of course, this evidence does show matreatment on part of Ashok. (43). Kailash has also come out with the story that Hansa was being given slow poison while she stayed with her in-laws in 1981. He has referred to in this connection to the fact that Hansa was treated by Dr. Suresh Jain and Dr. Suresh Jain had suspected poisoning. Dr. (43). Kailash has also come out with the story that Hansa was being given slow poison while she stayed with her in-laws in 1981. He has referred to in this connection to the fact that Hansa was treated by Dr. Suresh Jain and Dr. Suresh Jain had suspected poisoning. Dr. Suresh Jain has stated that he had treated Hansa in January or February 1981. He got her blood, stools and urine examined. He also got her x-rayed and did not detect any abnormality hence suspected effect of some foreign body which could by poison also. He has stated that he had advised that Hansa may be got admitted in the Hospital and may also be got examined further. He admits that he did not know if such further examination was got done or not. Hence, on this evidence it is difficult to conclude that any attempt of poisoning of Hansa had been made. (44). Kailash in this very conection has referred to the fact that one Dr. Mardia had also suspected slow poisoning of Hansa. This Dr. Mardia has not been examined and the only inference is that had Dr. Mardia been examined, he would not have supported this story. (45). P.W. 23 Madan Kanwar is the next witness on the question of alleged illtreatment and cruelty on ground of dowry demands. Madan Kanwar has deposed that when Hansa returned after marriage from her Sasural she complained of ill treatment on account of inadequacy of dowry. She has deposed that after about 1-1/2 month of marriage Ashok came to her house demanded tape recorder, lemon-set and watch and also held out threats. She stales that upon this, she wrote letter Ex.P. 16 to her husband at Balsar. She has further stated that when Hansa came again, she complained that Lalita used to abuse her and also gave beating to her by tongs. Now, even Kailash does not speak of any such beating by Lalita but speaks of beating by Ashok alone. Madan Kanwar has then deposed that whenever Hansa came from in-laws house, she complained of beating by Kanmal, Ashok and Lalita. This statement of Madan Kanwar is not corroborated even by Kailash. This version was not given by Madan Kanwar in her previous statements Ex.D. 39 proved by the Investigating Officer. Madan Kanwar has then deposed that whenever Hansa came from in-laws house, she complained of beating by Kanmal, Ashok and Lalita. This statement of Madan Kanwar is not corroborated even by Kailash. This version was not given by Madan Kanwar in her previous statements Ex.D. 39 proved by the Investigating Officer. Hence, we do not find the statement of this witness reliable so far as she has tried to implicate Akamai and Lalita. (46). P.W. 33 Asha is the next witness on this point. She has tried to show that Hansa complained generally about the maltreatment by Akamai, Ashok and Lalita but while giving particulars of complaints by Hansa has given out that Hansa had been complaining of beating by Ashok. Her evidence, thus, does not establish any maltreatment by Kanmal or Lalita, though it does indicate maltreatment by Ashok. The same is true of the evidence of Peer Chand, Sushila, Kamala and Suresh. There is no evidence of any specific complaint about any specific incidents pertaining to demands of dowry or maltreatment by Kanmal or Lalita. However, the testimony of these witnesses, so far as accused Ashok is concerned, though exaggerated, goes to show that Ashok was habitually maltreating Hansa and was making demands for dowry. The oral testimony of aforesaid witnesses gets corroboration from the two letters and telegrame referred to above. Ex. P. 16 is another letter written by Madan Kanwar to her husband Peer Chand, delivered at Balsar on 2.9.77, as is evident from the postal markings on the same, which corroborates the aforesaid testimony. We, therefore, find that the finding of the learned trial Judge on this score is correct and is based on proper appreciation of evidence. (47). Learned counsel for Ashok vehemently contended that even though at some point of time, relations of Hansa and Ashok might have been turbulent, yet lateron they were living an amicable life. Hansa was permitted to pursue her studies, she was permitted to join service and she was a free agent so far as her movements were concerned. Reliance has been placed on photographs Ex.D. 48 to Ex. D. 50 which are said to have been taken when the couple visited Kashmir. Likewise, reliance has been placed on letter Ex. D. 53 sent by Peer Chand on the birth of daughter to Hansa. Reliance has also been placed on Ex. Reliance has been placed on photographs Ex.D. 48 to Ex. D. 50 which are said to have been taken when the couple visited Kashmir. Likewise, reliance has been placed on letter Ex. D. 53 sent by Peer Chand on the birth of daughter to Hansa. Reliance has also been placed on Ex. D. 54 which is a congratulatory message sent on the occasion of the marriage of younger brother of Ashok. Now, these two latter missives are formal in nature and appear to have been sent for keeping appearances. Ex.D. 48 to Ex. D. 50 appear to have been taken when the young couple was still under the euphoria of newly found marital bliss. Hence, this evidence does not demolish the prosecution case that Ashok maltreated Hansa, because Hansas parents could not meet his demands for dowry. (48). There are certain other circumstances too, on which prosecution has relied in support of its case against the three accused persons. It is alleged that Ashok had to meet P.W. 5 Gautam Chand 10-15 days prior to the incident at Sojati Gate. Ashok was accompanied with his daughter. This witness boarded a tempo and Ashok with his daughter also boarded a tempo. Upon enquiry from Gautam Chand, Ashok told him that he was returning after seeing a picture. At this Gautam Chand enquired why Hansa was not with Ashok. To this Ashok replied that he was tired of life and it was now only a metier. of few days. Gautam Chand enquired why he was thinking in such a manner. Before Ashok could reply, some other people boarded the tempo and the conversation could not proceed further. Ashok has denied that any such conversation transpired between him and Gautam Chand. This witness has been held to be wholly inreliable by the learned trial Judge and the learned Judge has given cogent grounds for disbelieving this witness. The witness admittedly did not narrate this story when his police statement was recorded. His explanation was that he was not asked to narrate this incident and hence he did not depose about it. The explanation is neither convincing nor reliable. Hence, the testimony of Gautam Chand in this respect does not advance the prosecution case at all. (49). The witness admittedly did not narrate this story when his police statement was recorded. His explanation was that he was not asked to narrate this incident and hence he did not depose about it. The explanation is neither convincing nor reliable. Hence, the testimony of Gautam Chand in this respect does not advance the prosecution case at all. (49). The other circumstance sought to be used by the prosecution is that after the statement of this witness had been recorded, accused Ashok along with Vijay Raj, Surendra and Mahendra gave beating to him and told him to change his statement and threatened to kill him, if he did not change the statement. Gautam Chand has deposed that he lodged a report with regard to this incident that very day in Police Station, Mahamandir and the case was pending with Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur. Now, this alleged subsequent conduct of Ashok, even if believed to be true, would not help us in arriving at the conclusion of the guilt of the accused persons. This alleged subsequent conduct would at best show that Ashok and his companions were keen to ensure that witness did not depose against Ashok. Here we may point out that we are not holding that Ashok and his aforesaid companions must have indulged in such an act. Since, it was a matter for independent trial, we refrain from commenting further upon this aspect of the matter. (50). Another circumstance to point to the guilt of the accused, to which prosecution referred was that Dr. Suresh Jain P.W. 13 was not allowed to treat Hansa on 29.4.81, when he went to the E.S.I. Ward where Hansa was lodged and he was given beating by Kanmal, Vijay Raj and others. A report was made by him to Police Station, Sardarpura and a case was pending already in this regard. Now, we find in the testimony of Dr. Chameli Patel that she was House-surgeon of the unit in which Hansa was being treated and Dr. Pandey was the unit incharge. P.W. 10 Sushila Dalfina Devid has also stated that Dr. Pandey was the incharge of the unit. Both these witnesses do not say that Dr. Jain had anything to do with the treatment of Hansa. Dr. Jain has admitted that Dr. Chameli Patel was the House Surgeon and Dr. Pandey was the unit incharge of the particular ward. P.W. 10 Sushila Dalfina Devid has also stated that Dr. Pandey was the incharge of the unit. Both these witnesses do not say that Dr. Jain had anything to do with the treatment of Hansa. Dr. Jain has admitted that Dr. Chameli Patel was the House Surgeon and Dr. Pandey was the unit incharge of the particular ward. He claims to have been summoned to see Hansa by Dr. Chameli Patel. Dr. Chameli Patel does not support Dr. Jain in this regard. We find that it is extremely deubtful if Dr. Suresh Jain had really anything to do with the treatment of Hansa. He has admitted that not a single entry in the Bed Head Ticket Ex. P. 26 was in his hand, though there were entries in the same in the hands of other doctors. This witness has admitted that Hansa was related to her. Hence, it appears that he was at best an intermeddler. Hence, without holding that the story given by him is true, but assuming that it is so, we do not think that much turns upon this circumstance. So far as the determination of the guilt of the accused persons is concerned. Moreover, the complaint of Dr. Jain is subject matter of another independent judicial enquiry. Hence, we would not like to comment further on this aspect. (51). The prosecution has alleged that Kanmal tried to take away the dead body of Hansa without post-mortem examination and this must be treated as an incriminating circumstance. P.W. 13 Suresh Jain has deposed that after death of Hansa, relatives of Hansa tried to take away the dead body of Hansa about which he informed the police of the fact. He has not given the names of such relatives. P.W. 35 Pukh Raj Rathi has tried to support this witness by saying that a quarrel had taken place between the doctor and the accused persons regarding post mortem of Hansa and at that time Kanmal, Vijay Raj and Ashok were present. At that time, the police reached and took away the dead body of Hansa to mortuary where Panchayatnama Ex.P. 39 was prepared, which he had attested. Now, if any such serious quarrel would have really taken place, Pukh Raj would have mentioned this fact to police and mention would have been made of this fact in Ex. P. 39. At that time, the police reached and took away the dead body of Hansa to mortuary where Panchayatnama Ex.P. 39 was prepared, which he had attested. Now, if any such serious quarrel would have really taken place, Pukh Raj would have mentioned this fact to police and mention would have been made of this fact in Ex. P. 39. The accused have denied that any such incident took place. (52). We may here state that Pukh Raj also came out with a theory that Ashok had made some sort of confession before him. Learned trial court has found the story of Pukh Raj wholly unreliable and has given good grounds for arriving at this conclusion. We agree with the learned trial Judge and need not reproduce the grounds given by him. (53). At this very juncture, we may mention that P.W. 14 Kamala has also come out with a story after Hansa had been admitted to Hospital. Ashok came to hospital and told her ^^esjs ls xyrh gks xbZ ekQ dj nks& eSa bldk bykt djok nwaxk tks dqwN Hkh gksxk esa djokÅaxkA** This story has been denied by Ashok. Learned trial court has not found this testimony worthy of credence. From the statement of this witness, it appears that relations of this witness with in-laws of Hansa were not at all cordial. According to Dalpatmal, husband of this witness, Ashok did not like Hansa to visit the house of this witness and Hansa was even beaten if she visited the house of Dalpatmal. Hence, when relations between Ashok and Dalpatmal were so strained, it is unusual that Ashok would have made any confession to Kamala. Hence, we find that finding of trial Court on this aspect is also based on good reasons. (54). One circumstance which the prosecution has tried to use against Ashok is that he did not join the funeral of Hansa. P.W. 19 Surajmal has deposed that he had joined funeral of Hansa and Ashok was not present at that time. He has stated that those who contemplate second marriage or are young in age, do not participate in funeral of first wife. Ashok has denied this story but we do not find any good reason to disbelieve Surajmal on this point. We, therefore, find that prosecution has succeeded in proving that Ashok did not participate in the funeral of his wife. Ashok has denied this story but we do not find any good reason to disbelieve Surajmal on this point. We, therefore, find that prosecution has succeeded in proving that Ashok did not participate in the funeral of his wife. What weight should be attached to this circumstance, we shall examine later. (55). One particular circumstance to which prosecution alluded was that Ashok himself did not inform Kailash about the incident. Now, this circumstance is neither here nor there because it is in prosecution evidence itself that Amrit Raj had gone that very night to inform Kailash of the incident and it was he, who had taken Kailash and his wife on his own scooter to hospital. (56). Prosecution has also tried to show that prior to the incident, Kanmal had purchased 30 litres of Kerosene. P.W. 44 Shanti LaL was examined to say that he was a salesman on cunsumer shop of Word No. 37 and on 26.4.81 some body had purchased 10 litres Kirosene each on the ration card of Ashok-Kanmal No. 69881, Kanmal Vijay Raj No. 69883 and Kailash Kanmal No. 69885. He made an entry in his Sales Register Ex. P. 47 and got it signed by the person who purchased the kerosene. He has admitted that he did not know as to who had purchased the Kerosene. Now, this evidence is meutral in nature. Kerosene is used in various house holds as domestic fuel. It is in prosecution evidence itself that besides the three accused persons, there were other members in the family occupying the house. Existence of three ration cards itself shows that three family units resided in the house. Out of these units, who purchased the Kerosene is not clear. (57). Prosecution has come out with the case that prior to the incident, Hansa was not keeping well and she had been admitted first at Mardia Hospital and later at M.G.. Hospital where she was treated for about 10-12 days. After Hansa was discharged from M.G. Hospital, mother-in-law of Hansa came to the house of Kailash, where Hansa was slaying. She asked Kailash and his wife to send Hansa with her but they declined to do so on the ground that Hansa was still in frail health. Upon this, Hansas mother in-law got annoyed and went back. After Hansa was discharged from M.G. Hospital, mother-in-law of Hansa came to the house of Kailash, where Hansa was slaying. She asked Kailash and his wife to send Hansa with her but they declined to do so on the ground that Hansa was still in frail health. Upon this, Hansas mother in-law got annoyed and went back. On 22.4.81 Lalita came to the house of Kailash and requested Asha to send Hansa but the request was declined. On 23.4.81, Lalita again came to house of Kailash and repeated the request which was again declined. Thereafter, on the evening of 23.4.81, Lalita rang up the house of Hamraj, a neighbour of Kailash. This phone was attended by Asha. Lalita told her on the phone to send Hansa and also conveyed that her parents were quite angry why Hansa had not come. Lalita again rang up on 24.4.81. This time, the phone was attended to by Kailash. Lalita conveyed that her family was to go to Nakoda (a place of pilgrimage) and Hansa may be sent. Upon this, Kailash escorted Hansa to the house of the accused persons and left her there. The family actually never went to Nakoda. Thus, the story of going to Nakoda was only a ruse to precure presence of Hansa at the marital home. It is urged that this circumstance shows that there was a definite conspiracy among the three accused to do away with Hansa and it was pursuant to such conspiracy that Hansa was made to join the accused persons at their home. The accused persons in their statements recorded u/s. 313, Cr. P.C. have denied this story. (58). P.W. 33 Asha has admitted that Hansa was brought to their house from the hospital on 17th/18th April. According to Kailash, or 2 days after Hansas discharge from Hospital, Hansas mother-in-law came to the place and asked that Hansa be sent. This story of Kilash is not corroborated by Asha. According to Asha, her own parents in-law were at Jodhpur upto 21.4.81 when they left for Porbander. Now, Peer Chand also do not corroborate this story. Asha has deposed that on 22nd and 23.04.Lalita hand come to lake Hansa. Kailash himself does not corroborate this story. About the alleged telephonic talks with Lalita, Hemraj at whose phone the conversation is said to have taken place was not examined. Now, Peer Chand also do not corroborate this story. Asha has deposed that on 22nd and 23.04.Lalita hand come to lake Hansa. Kailash himself does not corroborate this story. About the alleged telephonic talks with Lalita, Hemraj at whose phone the conversation is said to have taken place was not examined. Son of Hemraj, who is said to have called Asha to attend the phone, has also not been examined. Kailash and Asha have prevaricated on various counts and hence it would not be safe to accept their testimony on this count without proper and independent corroboration, which is not forth coming in the case. (59). Learned Special Public Prosecutor contended vehemently that in case accused Ashok absconded soon after the occurrence and hence an adverse inference should be drawn against the accused on the basis of this conduct. We have already alluded to the prosecution evidence, which itself shows that accused Ashok did visit Hansa at the hospital. This is true that Ashok could not be arrested for quite some period but it has been pointed out at the bar that he was trying to secure bail u/s. 438, Cr. P.C. and when he failed in this attempt, he himself surrendered before the court on 5.1.83. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has not refuted this position. P.W. 46 A.P. Tiwari, who investigated into the matter has categorically stated that Ashok did assist in the investigation of the case at the initial stages and Ashok used to meet him but he went underground only after Kanmal had been arrested. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that accused Ashok absconded in the sense in which it is usually understood to mean flight from process of law due to feeling of guilt or wrong doing. This technical absconscion, so to say, must have been actuated by a feeling of fright due to arrest of his father. (60). From a conspectus of all the circumstances, we find that Ashok was married to Hansa. Initially, there were no demand for dowry. However, later on Ashok started harassing and maltreating Hansa. He made demands for additional dowry. It appears that he suspected the past of Hansa and partly on this account also maltreated her. Due to this harrasment of Hansa by Ashok, Kailash had to send telegram Ex. P. 1 to his father. During her life time Hansa also wrote letters Ex. However, later on Ashok started harassing and maltreating Hansa. He made demands for additional dowry. It appears that he suspected the past of Hansa and partly on this account also maltreated her. Due to this harrasment of Hansa by Ashok, Kailash had to send telegram Ex. P. 1 to his father. During her life time Hansa also wrote letters Ex. P. 2 and Ex.P. 3 to her father complaining of the conduct of Ashok. However, there is no credible definite evidence that Kanmal and Lalita also harrassed or maltreated Hansa. Of course, there arc vague, indefinite and general assertions on this score but they do not point to any trustworthy evidence of any conspiracy amongst the accused persons to do away with Hansa. This is proved satisfactorily that Hansa was burnt in her marital home during night of 27.4.81 and 28.4.81 and on that night all the three accused persons were present at the marital home, besides other inmates of the family, the family itself consisting of at least three units. It has not been established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that the accused persons or any one of them had set Hansa on fire. The fact that she sustained scald burns as also flame burns, points to the possibility that she might be heating water on the stove and somehow she caught fire and the pot of heated water fell on her person throwing the hot water on her person causing scald burns on her thighs. The prosecution has not succeeded in ruling out this possibility beyond reasonable doubt. This is true that defence has not properly and sufficiently explained how Hansa got burnt in the marital home, but this weakness of defence does not add any strength to the prosecution case. It has come in evidence that after Hansa was burnt in her marital home, Kanmal and Lalita took her to the hospital. Intimation was also sent to the brother and his wife and they were escorted to the hospital. This is true that the conduct of Harendra Singh in this case in not only above board but this possibility has not been ruled out beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that Hansa might have given statement Ex.D. 18 to Harendra Singh in presence of her own brother Kailash, whose signatures admittedly appear on this document. This is true that the conduct of Harendra Singh in this case in not only above board but this possibility has not been ruled out beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that Hansa might have given statement Ex.D. 18 to Harendra Singh in presence of her own brother Kailash, whose signatures admittedly appear on this document. This is to be remembered that though Kailash has tried to deposed that Harendra Singh obtained his signatures on Ex. D. 18 under threat, this story has not been substantiated and rather appears to be an after thought. Kailash lodged the report of this incident at Police Station, Mahamandir with a great deal of delay on 29.4.81. It appears highly probable that Kailash must have signed Ex. D. 18 with full knowledge of its contents. A due to this fact appears in F.I.R. Ex. P. 15 itself wherein Kailash mentioned. ^^esjh cgu dk tyuk ek= nq?kZVuk gh gS** We may also stale that F.I.R. Ex.P. 15 lodged by Kailash was not a spontaneous document but is a creature of prior consultation with an advocate, as admitted by him. There is a tendency those days to exaggerate and twist cases of accidents into cases of dowry deaths. We have already referred to a distinctive feature of the case that there was some short of pre-trial by the press wherein Kailash participated. There is evidence on record to show that a committee known as Dahej Virodhi Abhiyan Samiti, of which P.W. 35 Pukh Raj Rathi appears to be a self styled President played an important role during the course of investigation of the case. A large number of witnesses in this case have given either highly exaggerated statements or have prevaricated. This has already been pointed out by the trial court itself. If the accused persons really wanted to murder Hansa, they would not have rushed her to the hospital and would not have informed Kailash and his wife before her death. We have already pointed out that medical evidence in this case is at best inconclusive and does not indicate that in all human probability Hansa must have been burnt by the accused persons. This is true that investigation in this case suffers from numerous infirmities but all the circumstances taken cumulatively only create grave suspicion against Ashok. Suspicion, however, grave it may be, cannot take the place of cogent and reliable evidence. This is true that investigation in this case suffers from numerous infirmities but all the circumstances taken cumulatively only create grave suspicion against Ashok. Suspicion, however, grave it may be, cannot take the place of cogent and reliable evidence. We, therefore, find that the charge of murdering Hansa, has not been brought home against accused Ashok or accused Kanmal or Lalita. Likewise, the charge that the three accused persons conspired to commit murder of Hansa has also not been fully established against them. (61). Here we may refer to certain rulings which have been cited at the bar before us. State (Delhi Administration) v: Laxman Kumar (4) had laid down a proposition that the witnesses who had not only rushed to the spot but had taken a leading part in putting out the fire from brides person and ensured her despatch for medical assistance at the shortest interval and gave information to the police, made a blanket available, called a taxi and extended human sympathy could not be said to have animosity towards the accused. Hence when such witnesses appear for the prosecution, their evidence could not be lightly brushed aside. This ruling does not help the prosecution in any way because, as pointed out already the neighbours who claimed to have heard the shrieks of Hansa were highly unreliable persons and did nothing of the short which may inspire confidence in their testimony. (62). In Sube Khan V. State of Rajasthan (5) the testimony against the accused consisting of statement of a child witness corroborated by the testimony of the neighbours. The evidence was found to be unimpeachable. We do not see how this ruling is applicable to the present case at all. (63). In Inderkaur and another v. State (6), the deceased had inflicting the accused person by ascribing specific acts to them. The statement was corroborated by the medical evidence. This testimony was further corroborated by the testimony of neighbours whose evidence was dis-interested and unimpeachable. The prosecution case was accepted because the possibility of the deceased committing suicide or her clothes catching fire accidentally had been excluded altogether. This ruling also does not help the prosecution, in view of the discussion already made by us. (64). In Smt. Lichhamadevi v. The State of Rajasthan, (7), there is again a testimony of a dis-interested medical officer regarding the dying declaration made by the deceased. This ruling also does not help the prosecution, in view of the discussion already made by us. (64). In Smt. Lichhamadevi v. The State of Rajasthan, (7), there is again a testimony of a dis-interested medical officer regarding the dying declaration made by the deceased. This testimony was further corroborated by the testimony of neighbours, who had removed the iron chain of the door and had taken the burnt woman to the hospital. The testimony was held to be reliable and on this basis the conviction recorded by the High Court was maintained by the apex Court. This case is also of no assistance to the prosecution. (65). In Virbhan Singh and another V. State of U.P. (8), the circumstances proved against the accused were telling in nature and the conduct of the accused person was consistent only with the active involvement in the commission of the crime and hence conviction of the accused person was sustained by the High Court. In that case it was observed :- "It is an unfortunate and disturbing phenomenon that has recently arisen in many part of our country that instances of bride killing are alarmingly on the increase. If society should be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the courts must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose detterrent punishment." This ruling also does not assist the prosecution in the present case. The conduct of the accused persons including Ashok is also considtent with the theory that Smt. Hansa might have been burnt accidentally. (66). The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon Udaipal Singh v. The Stale of U.P., (9) in support of his assertion that presence of accused Ashok in the marital home along with an opportunity to commit the offence should be held sufficient to conclude that at least Ashok had committed the murder of the deceased. We have carefully gone through this ruling. The mere presence of accused Ashok or other members of the family in the house when Hansa got burnt, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that she must have been burnt inspite of the fact that Ashok did have a motive to commit the crime. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the possibility of an accident has not been ruled out altogether. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the possibility of an accident has not been ruled out altogether. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied upon State of Haryana v. Anil Kumar and other, (10). The facts of this case are quite different from the case in hand. In that case the bride-had been burnt and the dead body was found lying in a pugillistic posture, which can only happen if the victim had received burn injuries for a considerable period during which neither the victim received any outside help nor did she herself tried to extinguish the fire. There was absence of burn injuries on the finger tips of her in-laws. It was held in the circumstances that case of accident was not made out. This case is not of much help to the prosecution at all because in this case it is in evidence that Kanmal and Lalita took Hansa to the hospital while she was very much alive. (67). In G.Vecrabrahman v. State of A.P., (11), the accused was in exclusive company of his wife in his own house and no one else was present when the occurrence took place. The neighbourers who rushed to the spot on hearing cries of the deceased were not allowed by the accused to enter into the house but had to effect entry by forcing open a door. On being accosted by the neighbourers the accused did not give any reply to the neighbourers but subsequently gave a false statement to the police that his wife had caught fire while working in the kitchen accidentally. No effort was made by the accused to call for a doctor or to take his wife to the doctor or to the hospital. In the aforesaid circumstances it was held that the accused must have committed the murder of his wife. This ruling also does not assist the prosecution in the present case in any manner. (68). The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied upon Nika Ram v. The State of H.P., (12). The facts of that case are very much different from the facts of the present case and we find that this ruling also does not afford any assistance to the prosecution in the present case. Reliance was also placed upon Som Nath v. State of Haryana, (13). The facts of that case are very much different from the facts of the present case and we find that this ruling also does not afford any assistance to the prosecution in the present case. Reliance was also placed upon Som Nath v. State of Haryana, (13). In that case, there were three dying declarations corroborated by other circumstances which were held to be sufficient to bring home the offence to the accused. We do not find that this case also affords any assistance to the prosecution. In view of our discussion above, we find that D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 146/86 filed by Ashok Dhariwal deserves to be succeeded. His conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court for offence u/s. 302, I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge u/s. 302, I.P.C. He is in jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The fine, if paid may be refunded to him. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 11/87 filed by the State of Rajasthan against the accused persons is rejected as it has no substance. Likewise, D.B. Criminal Revision No. 214/86 filed by Kailash Chand for em-hancement of the sentence passed against the accused Ashok Dhariwal is also rejected. The question of enhancing the sentence against Ashok Dhariwal can only arise only if we would have found him guilty of effence u/s 302, I.P.C.