BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Lalmohan Man has been convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and sentence: to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. He has also been convicted under section 498a, I. P. C. along with his mother Chinu Man, the other appellant, and each of P. Ws. 1. sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant Lal Mohan was to run concurrently. This appeal directed against the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentences arises under the circumstances stated below. ( 2 ) ON 18th July, 1985, on receipt of some information about the illness of his sister Kalyani, Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, rushed to the quarters of the appellant Lalmohan at Dhubulia within Kotwali Police Station and found Kalyani lying dead on the floor after the Police unlocked the door. Samarendra Bhattacharya, A. S. I. of Police. P. Ws. 12, then attached to Dhubulia Police Outpost reached the spot on receipt of some information, held inquest on the dead body of Kalyani in presence of witnesses, and sent it to Saktinagar Hospital for postmortem examination under the escort of N. V. F. Nil Ratan Biswas. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Rabindra Nath Ghosh, P. W. 8 on 19. 7. 1985. Ajoy P. Ws. 1, filed a written complaint at Dhubulia Police Outpost and pursuant to the said complaint, Makhan Lal Sahi, P. Ws. 10, then attached to the Police Outpost as S. I. of Police, took up the investigation of the case after endorsement by the O. C. Kotwali Police Station. The investigation ended in a charge-sheet, a trial and conviction and sentence of these two appellants in the manner stated above. ( 3 ) THE orders of conviction and sentence appealed against have been assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellants mainly on five grounds and these are:1. There has been inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. and that the investigation was perfunctory and illegal. 2. None of the material witnesses including close neighbours who might have thrown some light on the tragic death was not examined by the in vest gating Officer. 3. There has been inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. and that the investigation was perfunctory and illegal. 2. None of the material witnesses including close neighbours who might have thrown some light on the tragic death was not examined by the in vest gating Officer. 3. That the circumstances pointing to the innocence of the appellants were not considered at all by the trial Judge. 4. The post mortem report was perfunctory and the task was thrust upon an unwilling doctor who is not an expert on the subject and that 5. the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under section 498a, I. P. C. are wanting. Taking the last ground first, we propose to deal with the charge under section 498a, I. P. C. in order to appreciate the background of the tragic death of Kalyani. ( 4 ) TILL her marriage Kalyani, since deceased, was living at Matiary within Kaliganj Police Station with her father Sudhamoy, mother, Aruna, P. Ws. 2 brother Ajoy, P. Ws. 1 and others. On 24th Baisakh, 1390 B. S. she, then 16 years, was married to the appellant Lal Mohan and was taken to his single-roomed quarter at 13b Block 10 in the compound of Dhubulia - T. B. Hospital within Kotwali Police Station. The adjacent room was in the occupation of the appellant Chhinu, her son Tapas, daughter Chhaya. Lal Mohan was a Class IV employee in the Hospital. Within one and a 1/2 years of the marriage Kalyani gave birth to a female child in her parents house at Matiary and stayed there for five months. In the F. I. R. as also in his testimony Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, has stated that at the time of the marriage cash and some ornaments were given to the groom by the. brides party and since marriage the appellant, Lal Mohan and his mother Chhinu put pressure on Kalyani demending new articles including a bicycle. The informant has further stated in details which new demands were made by the appellants, how some of the demands were partially met and how the ill fated girl Kalyani was subjected to physical and mental torture. Two such instances as divulged by Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, may be referred to at this juncture, so far as the charge of, cruelty is concerned. Two such instances as divulged by Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, may be referred to at this juncture, so far as the charge of, cruelty is concerned. The first one relates to the occasion when Ajoy had been to Lal Mohans house at Dhubulia to take the couple to their Matiary house to celebrate Astamongala ceremony. On that occasion Lal Mohan abused and insulted Ajoy who returned home disappointed. There after, Ajoy's mother Aruna, P. Ws. 2 went to Lal Mohans quarters and after much persuasion and entrustment succeeded in bringing Lal Mohan and Kalyani to Matiary. This incident has not been effectively challenged during cross-examination of the witness. The next one relates to the conduct of Lal Mohan and his family members since the delivery of a child by Kalyani at Matiary. Kalyani had to stay at Matiary for about five months. Letter was written to Lal Mohan and his mother to take back kalyani and her baby to Dhubulia, but no reply was given. None of Lal Mohans house visited Matiary during that period to see the mother or the new by born baby. Eventually, Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, and his mother Aruna, P. Ws. 2, had to take Kalyani and her child to Lal Mohan's quarters when they found Lal Mohan asking Kalyani to leave the quarters immediately. This part of Ajoys statement was not challenged at all. Ajoy has referred to certain other occasions when Kalyani complained about torture on her by the appellants. The only objection raised by the defence was that these facts were not incorporated in the F. I. R. It is true that the incidents of cruel treatment on Kalyani have not been detailed in the F. I. R. , but the fact that Kalyani was subjected to physical and mental torture over demand of new articles, is there. We must not be unmindful of the shattered mental condition of Ajoy for the tragic death of his beloved sister. Moreover, the F. I. R. was scribed by Samarendra, a relation. It has now been well-settled that the F. I. R. need not contain the entire evidence and it would be sufficient if the substance of the allegations are qualitatively incorporated in the complaint disclosing a cognizable offence. Moreover, the F. I. R. was scribed by Samarendra, a relation. It has now been well-settled that the F. I. R. need not contain the entire evidence and it would be sufficient if the substance of the allegations are qualitatively incorporated in the complaint disclosing a cognizable offence. ( 5 ) THE acts of cruelty on the deceased Kalyani have been specifically corroborated by the F. I. R. and by the statements of Aruna P. Ws. 2 and Jyotsna; P. Ws. 7. It appears that Aruna, P. Ws. 2 and Jyotsna P. Ws. 7 have not been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and they are not charge sheeted witnesses. The learned Counsel for the appellants strongly criticised this infirmity in the prosecution case and insisted on rejecting their statements outright. This contention undoubtedly has some force behind it, but in our view, those statements do not deserve outright rejection. Under section 161, Cr. P. C. recording of statements of witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer is optional. Both Aruna and Jyotsna are certainly competent to depose at the trial, but in the absence of interrogation by the police under section 161, Cr. P. C. the evidentiary value of the same may lose some of its force. The Investigating Officer Makhan Lal Sahi, P. Ws. 10, then attached to Dhubulia Police Outpost had visited the quarters of Lal Mohan on 22. 7. 1985 when neither Aruna, P. Ws. 2 nor Jyotsna, P. Ws. 7, were available. He never visited Matiary where Aruna was staying. But from the evidence of the A. S. I. Samarendra Bhattacharya, P. Ws. 12, it appears that Jyotsna. P. W. 7 was one of the witnesses to the inquest report. She visited Lal Mohans quarters in the evening of 18th July, 1985, and she being the cousin sister of the deceased Kalyani, is a natural witness to visit that place immediately on information of Kalyanis death. This witness has substantially corroborated Ajoy about the ill-treatment meted to Kalyani. Aruna, P. Ws. 2, had also visited Lal Mohan's quarters on the night of 18th July, 1985. It is also natural and probable that the victim girl would get some relief by telling about her distress to her mother and cousin sister. This witness has substantially corroborated Ajoy about the ill-treatment meted to Kalyani. Aruna, P. Ws. 2, had also visited Lal Mohan's quarters on the night of 18th July, 1985. It is also natural and probable that the victim girl would get some relief by telling about her distress to her mother and cousin sister. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the fact of Lal Mohan and Kalyani staying in Matiary house for 15 days on the occasion of the thread ceremony of Kalyani's brother itself is pointer that Lal Mohan's relation with Kalyani or with her parents and brothers was good and the charge of cruelty has been brought in to suit the prosecution theory of murder of Kalyani by Lal Mohan. It was next contended with reference to Aruna, P. Ws. 2s statements that she used to visit Lal Mohans quarters every month and if the daughter had really been subjected to physical or mental freer or if Kalyanis parents and brothers were un anted then such frequent visits would not have been possible. No doubt Lal Mohan stayed at Matiary for about 15 days but this was his mere prevention because if there was real love between Lal Mohan and Kalyani, Kalyani would not have died within two months. The visit of Aruna to Lal Mohan's quarters is suggestive of prosecution case that Kalyani was subjected to torture and this was recorded to her mother and who in her anxiety for the health and welfare of her daughter had to come to Lal Mohan's quarters to appease him and his mother: If we accept, the statements of Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, Aruna, P. Ws. and Jyotsna, P. Ws. 7, which in the facts did circumstances of the case we do, the conclusion is irresistible that Kalyani, the deceased, was subjected to cruel treatment by her husband Lal Mohan and mother-in-law before her death within the meaning and scope as contemplated under section 498a, I. P. C. and the order of conviction under the aforesaid section must be sustained. ( 6 ) WE now pass on to, the other charge of murder framed against the appellant Lal Mohan, alone. Kalyani died on 18. 7. 1985 and her dead body was found inside the quarters of the appellant Lal Mohan. ( 6 ) WE now pass on to, the other charge of murder framed against the appellant Lal Mohan, alone. Kalyani died on 18. 7. 1985 and her dead body was found inside the quarters of the appellant Lal Mohan. While the prosecution case is that Kalyani had been murdered by her husband, appellant Lal Mohan, the specific defence case is that Kalyani had committed suicide and in support of such defence contention our attention was drawn to an entry in the G. D. of Dhubulia Police Outpost dated 18. 7. 1985, Ext. 3. At this juncture the court is called upon to decide as to whether this was a case of suicidal death or a homicidal one. Nobody has seen the death to take place. We will, therefore, have to depend upon certain circumstances together with the medical evidence placed at the trial in order to ascertain which of the two theories propounded, is acceptable and probable in the circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) FROM the testimony of Ajoy, P. Ws. 1, it appears that on 18. 7. 1985 at about 4 p. m. on receipt of some information from a neighbour of Lal Mohan that Kalyani was critically ill, he rushed to Lal Mohans quarters and found the door of Lal Mohans bed room under lock and key. He called Lal Mohans mother (appellant No. 2) but did not get any reply. At about 10 p. m. police came and unlocked the door of the room when Ajoy found his sister Kalyani lying dead on the floor with marks of injuries on her face. An electric lamp was burning inside the room. The appellant Lal Mohan was not found in the house. Kalyanis mother Arum, P. Ws. 2 and her cousin sister Jyotsna, P. Ws. 7 had already been to Lal Mohan's quarters by that time and both of P. Ws. 1. have testified that they noticed achymoses and about the cheeks of Kalyani who was lying on the floor. Jyotsria interrogated Lal Mohans mother who, did not respond. We have already stated in what state Ajoy, Aruna and Jyotsna found the did body for the first time. Ajoy, P. W. 1 has also stated that the distance of the ceiling from the floor of the room where the dead body was lying was 9 to 10 feet. Jyotsria interrogated Lal Mohans mother who, did not respond. We have already stated in what state Ajoy, Aruna and Jyotsna found the did body for the first time. Ajoy, P. W. 1 has also stated that the distance of the ceiling from the floor of the room where the dead body was lying was 9 to 10 feet. He noticed a hook fixed on the ceiling and a chouki about one cubit high placed on the floor. A small bag containing some quantity of coal was also found in the room. This part of the statement of Ajoy has not been challenged during the cross-examination of the witness. Samarendra Bhattacharya, P. Ws. 12 an A. S. I. of Police attached to Dhubulia Police Outpost was the first Police Officer to reach Lal - Mohans single-roomed quarters in the afternoon and according to this witness no rope either tied to the neck of the victim or to the ceiling of the room could be detected. On behalf of the defence there has been a desperate attempt to establish that some local boys had come to the place and the dead body of Kalyani was brought down by breaking open the door. Makhan Lal Sahi, P. Ws. 10, the Investigating Officer in this case, did not notice any damage to the door leaves or to the bolts. Although, the Investigating Officer had visited Lal Mohan's quarters after four days, there is no evidence, nor even any suggestion that between 18th and 22nd July, the broken door leaves or bolts were repaired. Swapan Kumar Dutt, P. Ws. 11, also working with Lal Mohan in Dhubulia T. B. Hospital, had his quarters within the same compound at a distance of 25/30 yards from that of the appellant. From the testimony of the witness, it appears that on the relevant date, that is on 18. 7. 1985. on his way to the Hospital at about 10/10. 30 a. m. he heard some noise of quarrel coming out of the house of Lal Mohan and at about 11. 30 a. m. following a row he rushed to the quarters of Lal Mohan. He found the doors and windows of the quarters open and Lal Mohans wife lying on the floor of Lal Mohans room. 30 a. m. he heard some noise of quarrel coming out of the house of Lal Mohan and at about 11. 30 a. m. following a row he rushed to the quarters of Lal Mohan. He found the doors and windows of the quarters open and Lal Mohans wife lying on the floor of Lal Mohans room. Although, the witness was declared hostile at the time of trial at the instance of the prosecution, the defence did not cross-examine him with the result that the aforesaid statements can be looked into as a substantive piece of evidence. Thus, according to the statement of P. Ws. 11, Kalyani had died between 10. 30 a. m. to 11/11. 30 a. m. on 18. 7. 1985. The approximate tine of death also fits in with the statement of Ajoy, P. Ws. I because somebody from Dhubulia had to go to Matiary to inform Ajoy who had to reach Lal Mohans quarters soon after that it may be recalled that it takes three hours to reach Dhubulia from Matiary by bus. ( 8 ) IN the above context we proceed to look into the findings and opinion of Dr. RN. Ghosh, P. Ws. 8 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kalyani on 19. 7. 1985 at about 2. 30. p. m. On examination of the dead body the doctor found the following: bruises and abrasions all over face, on the both sides of the neck measuring 2 x 1 each and bruises measuring 3 x 2 on right ear, exudation of serum around the injuries and formed crust, no parchmentation of the skin under the abrated area, while information round the abrated area, one ecchymoses (bruises) on the lower part of the face (law), 2 ecchymoses on the left side of the face each easuring about 1/2 found, Haemotoma present measuring 1/2t1 x 1/2 on the occipital bone and slight haemorhage on the skull below the skin, slight cerebral clotted blood present 1 x 1/2 on the 1 mid-brain. Hyoid bone fractured. Haemotoma present near the left side of sternum at the junctions of 3rd, 6th and 8th ribs. Both lungs congested. entrance of the air passage into the lungs by the pressure of fingers, right thumb on the right of the face and other two fingers oil the left side of the face. Hyoid bone fractured. Haemotoma present near the left side of sternum at the junctions of 3rd, 6th and 8th ribs. Both lungs congested. entrance of the air passage into the lungs by the pressure of fingers, right thumb on the right of the face and other two fingers oil the left side of the face. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to asphyxia due to pressure on air passage by finger, ante-mortem, homicidal in nature. The aforesaid findings and opinion of the doctor, P. Ws. 8 may be tested with reference to the tests laid down in Modis Text took on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twentieth Edition) page 157 wherein the difference between - suicidal hanging and strangulation have been illustrated. Thus while abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature marks are rare in case of hanging; these are not in case of strangulation. Then, while scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the, body are not usually present in case of hanging these are usually present in case of strangulation. Lastly, external signs of asphyxia usually not well-marked in case of hanging, but these are found in case of strangulation. Bearing in mind the aforesaid tests we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the opinion of the doctor formed on postmortem examination fits in with his findings leading to an inference that Kalyanis death was a homicidal one. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants contended in the first instance that Dr. R. N. Ghosh was not an expert on the subject, that the task of holding post-mortem examination was thrust upon him. by the C. M. O. H. and that the report had been tempered later on at the dictation of the investigating agency. It appears that Dr. R. N. Ghosh P. Ws. 8, retired soon after the said postmortem examination and accordingly, it may be presumed that he had vast experience on medical science and his competency was never tested with reference to, any approved text on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. From the testimony of Dr. R. N. Ghosh, P. Ws. 8, it appears that only column 3 of the report was filled in after three days, but the, other columns were not, disturbed. From the testimony of Dr. R. N. Ghosh, P. Ws. 8, it appears that only column 3 of the report was filled in after three days, but the, other columns were not, disturbed. Prima facie the doctor appears to bean impartial one not interested in securing the conviction of the appellants. ( 10 ) THE conduct of the appellant Lal Mohan was not above suspicion. He was not found in his quarters that afternoon or in the evening. He sent an information to the Police Outpost at 3 p. m. reporting the death of his wife by suicidal hanging although there is no evidence that the door was broken and the dead body was brought down before -the information was sent. If death took place between 10. 30/11. 30 a. m. there is no reason why the information could not be sent earlier to, the Police Outpost which was at a distance of half a kilometre from Lal Mohan quarters. The room in which Kalyanis dead body was discovered was in the exclusive occupation of the appellant Lal Mohan and his wife, the deceased Kalyani. No ligature for hanging, like cord; sari or bed-sheet was found in the room. So also there was no material with sufficient height to enable the victim to reach the ceiling for suspending her body. The defence theory of suicide is not also believable because no mother could sacrifice her life rashly before her nine month old daughter which was her first issue. It is noteworthy that strangulation may be committed without noise or disturbance (Modi at page 156 ). Thus, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances revealed at the trial and having regard to the medical evidence discussed in the preceding paragraphs we are firmly of the view that Kalyani had been murdered and none of the circumstances divulged at the trial is compatible with the innocence of the appellant Lal Mohan. Thus, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances revealed at the trial and having regard to the medical evidence discussed in the preceding paragraphs we are firmly of the view that Kalyani had been murdered and none of the circumstances divulged at the trial is compatible with the innocence of the appellant Lal Mohan. ( 11 ) AS to the probable cause of suicide, the defence suggestion was that Sujoy Chakraborty, son- in-law of A joys uncle, tried to establish some sort of illicit connection with Kalyani and on the night previous to the date of incident Sujoy had visited Lal Mohans quarters and was strongly chastised by Lal Mohan for which Kalyani committed suicide: This suggestion is not only wild but also absurd because Lal Mehans mother and sister were living in the adjacent room. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the prosecution case for non-examination of material witnesses including the close neighbours of Lal Mohan. This criticism has no foundation for it because the Investigating Officer had examined at least five witnesses (P. Ws. 3 to 6 and 11) all living in the adjoining quarters and it is found that at the trial all of P. Ws. 1, turned hostile. It is thus apparent that the neighbours of Lal Mohan would never betray him only to oblige the complainant party who were strangers. No useful purpose could be served even if all the inmates of the adjoining quarters were examined. In this cannel the classic observation of Their Lord ships in a case reported in Badri v. State of Rajasthan may be appropriately referred to. In this case Their Lord hips held that since under the Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of any fact, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that quality and not quantity of evidence matters. The testimony of a single witness can form the basis of conviction, if he is trustworthy and dependable. ( 13 ) AS regards the delay in lodging the F. I. R. the informant Ajoy has explained why the F. I. R. was lodged after four days. In his presence Jyotsna, P. Ws. 7 was interrogated by the A. S. I. of Police P. Ws. 12 and Ajoy must have been under the impression that there was no necessity for further information. In his presence Jyotsna, P. Ws. 7 was interrogated by the A. S. I. of Police P. Ws. 12 and Ajoy must have been under the impression that there was no necessity for further information. Moreover, the procedure for lodging the F. I. R. was unknown to this village boy who read upto class VI only. The learned Counsel for the appellants next drew our attention, to the statement of the Investigating Officer, P. Ws. 10 that he started investigation before the registration of the case and it was argued that the entire investigation had been vitiated. It appears that the written complaint was received by P. Ws. 10 at Dhubulia Police Outpost at- 9. 15 a. m. on 22. 7. 1985 and the same was forwarded to the O. C. Kotwali Police Station. The complaint was registered as Kotwali P. S. Case No. 45 dated 22. 7. 1985. The O. C. endorsed the case in P. Ws. 10s favour, a copy of which was received by the Investigating Officer at 10. 05 hours. The witness has categorically stated that he started investigation after the endorsement by the O. C. and it is immaterial whether the case was registered at Kotwali Police Station by that time or not. From the proceedings of the investigation as reproduced by P. W. 10, we are satisfied that there has not been any violation of the provisions of the Code (Sections 157 and 174) regarding investigated it thereby prejudicing the cause of the accused. ( 14 ) IT follows from what has been stated above that the guilt of the appellant Lal Mohan and that of the appellant Chhinu under Section 498a, I. P. C. has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. So also the guilt of the appellant Lal Mohan under Section 302, I. P. C. has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 15 ) THE conviction of the appellants under the aforesaid sections is therefore, upheld. The sentence imposed on the appellant Lal Mohan is affirmed. With regard t the sentence passed on the appellant Chhinu, it appears that she is an elderly lady and the order of conviction was passed more than four years back, we are not disposed to send the lady back to prison after such a long interval and a suitable sentence of fine is likely to meet the ends of justice. With regard t the sentence passed on the appellant Chhinu, it appears that she is an elderly lady and the order of conviction was passed more than four years back, we are not disposed to send the lady back to prison after such a long interval and a suitable sentence of fine is likely to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant Chhinu is sentenced to simple imprisonment for the period already undergone and she is also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant Chhinu is directed to pay the fine within two months from this date, in default of which the learned trial Judge shall take steps to secure her arrest and to commit her to prison. ( 16 ) SUBJECT to the modification of the sentence as above, the appeal stands dismissed. ( 17 ) LOWER court records be sent down as early as possible. ( 18 ) AN oral prayer for stay of this order made on behalf of the appellants, is considered and rejected. Appeal dismissed.