JUDGMENT Surya Prasad, J. 1. These two criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 26th March, 1993 passed by the then Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Session Trial No. 479 of 1991 (State v. Raj Kumar and others), convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 201, 498A, 304B and 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to 3 months R.I., 6 months' R.I., 1 year R. 1., no separate sentence under Section 304B, I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 500/- respectively and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I. respectively. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Smt.Sudesh deceased was the daughter of Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) resident of village Paharpur, police station Sivarpur, district Bulandshahar. She was married to the accused Raj Kumar, resident of village Sarsul, Police Station Tappal, district Aligarh, about a year prior to 20th July, 1991 on which date the incident had taken place. The accused Raghuvir Singh, Smt. Rajendri, Km. Brijesh and Brij Pal Singh are father, mother, sister and brother respectively of Raj Kumar, husband of the deceased Smt. Sudesh. It is alleged that on 28th July, 1991 at about 12 noon all the accused gave beating to Smt. Sudesh deceased in their house, sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her to fire. And yet she remained alive and, therefore, they removed her to their School-field, situated behind their Top and forcibly burnt her to death in that field. The accused Raghuvir Singh had taken that field on patta. All the accused had been making demand for dowry since the solemnisation of the marriage of the deceased with the accused Raj Kumar. For that reason they had beaten her many times even before the present incident. She had told all this to her father and brothers. Devi Ram (P.W. 1), tried to persuade the accused not to do so. Since they did not get the dowry, they burnt her alive to death. Devi Ram (P.W. 1), Manvir (P.W. 3) and many others of the village had seen the incident. They had tried to save Smt. Sudesh, deceased. Her half burnt body was lying in the said field. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) lodged a written report. Ext. Ka-1, at the police station Tappal about the incident. Devi Ram (P.W. 1), Manvir (P.W. 3) and many others of the village had seen the incident. They had tried to save Smt. Sudesh, deceased. Her half burnt body was lying in the said field. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) lodged a written report. Ext. Ka-1, at the police station Tappal about the incident. On that basis a chik report, Ka-10 was prepared and a case was ultimately registered against the accused. An entry to that effect was made in the general diary at serial No. 10, an extract of which is Ext. Ka-11. After the registration of the case the investigation ensured. Sukram Pal Tomar (P.W. 5) was the then Station Officer of Police Station Tappal. He was away in Village Matav in connection with the investigation of another case, at the time of the registration of the present case at the Police Station. In that village he received the relevant papers of the instant case through a Home-guard, named, Kallu Khan. Consequently he (Sukram Pal Tomer, P.W. 5) accompanied by a Sub-Inspector Udai Bir Singh Malik and certain police constables depaurted for the place of occurrence. Reaching there, he directed the Sub-Inspector Udai Bir Singh Malik to prepare the inquest Ext. Ka-5 regarding the dead body of Smt. Sudesh. Consequently he prepared it. The investigation officer Sukram Pal Tomar (P.W. 5) sent the dead body of Smt. Sudesh to the mortunary, through constable Araam Singh (P.W. 6). He arrested the accused Raj Kumar, Raghuvir and Smt. Rejendri next day. On 29th July, 1991 on return to his residence from other duty, the Circle Officer of Circle Khair Rizwan Haidar (P.W. 8) took up the investigation into the case. From Khair he proceeded to the police station Tappal where he took down the statements of the accused Raj Kumar, Raghuvir and Smt. Rajendri. Thereafter he depaurted for the place of occurrence. Reaching there, he took down the statements of Devi Ram (P.W. 1), Harbansh (P.W. 2), Manvir (P.W. 3), Km. Seema (P.W. 4) and certain others. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared their site-plan Exts. Ka-14 and Ka-15. Dr. Thereafter he depaurted for the place of occurrence. Reaching there, he took down the statements of Devi Ram (P.W. 1), Harbansh (P.W. 2), Manvir (P.W. 3), Km. Seema (P.W. 4) and certain others. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared their site-plan Exts. Ka-14 and Ka-15. Dr. D. C.Saxena (P.W. 7) conducted the post-mortem-examination on the dead body of Smt. Sudesh on 29th July, 1991 at 4.30 p.m. and found the following antemortem injuries thereon : "(1) Burn-100% all over body upto 4th except some small skin aness on mid of front of both thigha upto 4th, 5th degree the extent and smelling of kerosene oil all over. At some places 1st to 3rd degree in depth but deeply charred i.e., upto bones or upto muscles with bones exposed in areas of face, neck, both upper limbs, lower limbs below the level of knee. Burns on both lateral sides of chest and abdomen, line of demarcation seen over thigh skin. Charred boney ends at both wrists its and ankle and bones of face also charred." 3. In his opinion the death of Smt. Sudesh was due to shock as a result of extensive burn injury. He prepared the post-mortem Ext. Ka-12 at the time of conducting the post mortem examination. He has categorically stated that all the burn injuries found on the dead body of Smt. Sudesh were antemortem and not post mortem. 4. After completion of the investigation into the case and on the receipt of the post mortem report, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The prosecution examined the above named witnesses Devi Ram (P.W. 1), Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2), Manvir (P.W. 3), Km. Seema (P.W. 4), Sukhram Pal Tomar (P.W. 5), Araam Singh (P.W. 6), Dr. D. C. Saxena (P.W. 7) and Rizwan Haider (P.W. 8) and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 5. Devi Ram (P.W. 1), Manvir (P.W. 3) and Km. Seema (P.W. 4) are eyewitnesses, Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) is the father of the deceased. He has deposed on the demand for dowry by the accused and also on certain other aspects of the prosecution case. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) has also deposed on the demand for dowry and certain other facts/things alleged to have taken place before the incident. 6. He has deposed on the demand for dowry by the accused and also on certain other aspects of the prosecution case. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) has also deposed on the demand for dowry and certain other facts/things alleged to have taken place before the incident. 6. The accused have admitted that the marriage of Smt.Sudesh was solemnised with Raj Kumar, nearly a year before the said incident. They have, however, pleaded not guilty. They have stated that all the allegations levelled against them are wrong and incorrect and that they have been falsely implicated on accused of an enmity and Party-bandi. The accused Raj Kumar has further stated that there has arisen some dispute between Devi Ram (P.W. 1) on the one side and the members of his (Raj Kumar's) family on the other after the marriage. He has further stated that Manvir (P.W. 3) teased his sister and, therefore, he had beaten him (Manvir). He has also stated that he was in the jungle at the time of the incident. The accused have examined Sheo Raj Singh (D.W. 1) and Samya Singh (D.W. 2) and filed certain documents in support of their contentions. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on the record, the learned Special Judge/ Sessions Judge, Aligarh convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused through his impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved the accused Raj Kumar, Raghuvir Singh and Brij Pal Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 1993 whereas the accused Smt. Rajendri and Km. Brijesh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 1993 against the same. 8. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri P. N. Misra for the appellants-accused and the learned A.G.A. Shri V. S. Misra for the State and have carefully gone through the evidence on the record. The deceased Smt. Sudesh was married to the accused Raj Kumar, a year before the present occurrence. She was the daughter of Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2). The accused Raj Kumar, Raghuvir Singh, Smt. Rajendri, Km. Brijesh and Brij Pal Singh are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law. sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Devar) respectively of the deceased. The incident took place on 28th July, 1991. All these facts are not in dispute on the basis of the evidence on the record. 9. The house of Devi Ram (P.W. 1) is situated at a distance of 1/4 furlong from the house of the accused. sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Devar) respectively of the deceased. The incident took place on 28th July, 1991. All these facts are not in dispute on the basis of the evidence on the record. 9. The house of Devi Ram (P.W. 1) is situated at a distance of 1/4 furlong from the house of the accused. He is the son-in-law of the sister of Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2). He had acted as a mediator and had ultimately got the marriage of Smt. Sudesh, deceased, settled and solemnised with the accused Raj Kumar, nearly a year before the incident. He is, therefore, a common relation of Harbansh Singh and the accused. Smt. Sudesh deceased used to visit his house and talk to him. She had come to his house at the last nearly a month before the occurrence. 10. It is alleged that the accused had been demanding dowry and that in connection therewith they had been harassing Sudesh. Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) has categorically stated that he had given the dowry at the time of the marriage of Sudesh with the accused Raj Kumar, according to his capacity. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) has also stated the same thing. There is no reason to discredit them on this point. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) has, however, stated that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry given by Harbansh Singh at the time of the marriage and that they were demanding a she buffalow and a Motor Cycle in dowry. This statement of his appears to have a tinge of truth. This is so because their discontent and dissatisfaction was disclosed and revealed by Smt. Sudesh deceased to Devi Ram (P.W. 1) when she came to his house from the house of the accused, after her marriage and told him that the accused were demanding a she buffalow and a Motor Cycle and that they were harassing her in connection therewith and, thereafter, she entreated him to ask her father to fulfil their demand. The house of the father-in-law of Devi Ram (P.W. 1) is in village Prempur. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) and Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) happened to meet each other in that village. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) asked Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) to fulfil the demand of the accused whereupon he expressed his inability to do so. The house of the father-in-law of Devi Ram (P.W. 1) is in village Prempur. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) and Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) happened to meet each other in that village. Devi Ram (P.W. 1) asked Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) to fulfil the demand of the accused whereupon he expressed his inability to do so. Smt. Sudesh returned to her father's house from her husband's house nearly 3 months after her marriage. She wailed and wept and expressed that it was very difficult for her to live at her in laws house. She had told him Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) that the accused used to harass her and asked her to bring a she buffalo and also threatened to kill her. The accused Raj Kumar had come to the house of Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2). ten days after Devi Ram (P.W. 1) and he (Harbansh Singh, P.W. 2) had met in village Prempur. Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) had then six she buffallos' one of which was worth Rs. 15,000, Raj Kumar demanded that buffalo and a motor-cycle also. Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) refused to accept his demand. Consequently Raj Kumar expressed his anger and uttered that he would kill his daughter. However, Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) gave a sum of Rs. 6000 to Raj Kumar to purchase a motor-cycle. But Raj Kumar was not satisfied with the same and went back to his house leaving Smt. Sudesh at his (Harbansh Singh's) house. Three days thereafter, the accused Raghuvir Singh came to the house of Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2). He asked him (Harbansh Singh) to send Smt. Sudesh deceased with him. Consequently, Harbansh Singh (P.W. 2) did so. Ten days thereafter Smt. Sudesh deceased sent information through the younger brother of Devi Ram that the accused were harassing her. Therefore, he (Harbansh Singh) went to the house of the accused. Smt. Sudesh deceased told him that the accused were harassing her. She asked him to satisfy them by giving the buffalo. He returned to his house. 17- 18 days thereafter he received information about the death of Smt. Sudesh. 11. From what has been observed above, it is abundantly clear and established that the accused had been demanding a she-buffalo and a Motor Cycle in dowry since after the marriage and that he had been harassing Smt. Sudesh deceased on account of the non-fulfilment of demand for dowry by Harbansh Singh. 11. From what has been observed above, it is abundantly clear and established that the accused had been demanding a she-buffalo and a Motor Cycle in dowry since after the marriage and that he had been harassing Smt. Sudesh deceased on account of the non-fulfilment of demand for dowry by Harbansh Singh. 12. The marriage of Smt. Sudesh was performed nearly a year before the occurrence as mentioned earlier. The site-plans Ext. Ka-14 and Ka-15 show that the incident which was initiated at the house of the accused, got completed in their field. The post mortem report Ext. Ka-12 shows that there was 100% burn all over the body of Smt. Sudesh. Dr. D. C. Saxena (P.W. 7) has emphatically asserted that the injury was not the post mortem but ante-mortem. There is no evidence on the record to show that the accused were not present in the course of the incident at their house. The accused Raj Kumar has, for the first time stated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was in the Jungle, at the time of the incident. There is no basis for this statement. This statement being after thought, cannot be believed. There is no evidence on the record to show that the dead body was taken in an usual manner from the house to the aforesaid Patta field where the deceased was burnt. Half burnt dead body of Smt. Sudesh was taken away from the so-called Pyre. There was no pyre in the real sense of the term. There is no evidence on record to show that the aforesaid Patta field or any portion thereof was ever used as a burrial place for the purposes of the family of the accused. Nor is there any evidence on the record to show that any of the accused was weeping at his/her house or near about the Patta field in question at the time of the incident. There is not an iota of evidence to show that any of the accused tried to save Smt. Sudesh from burning in the course of the incident. Nor is there any evidence to show that any of them received any injury in the process of making efforts of any sort to save her from burning. There is not an iota of evidence to show that any of the accused tried to save Smt. Sudesh from burning in the course of the incident. Nor is there any evidence to show that any of them received any injury in the process of making efforts of any sort to save her from burning. Not only this but there is also no evidence to indicate that all the accused or any of them tried to take her in the hospital for medical aid. Now the question is how the death of Smt. Sudesh took place. Km. Seema (P.W. 4) is a child witness. Her house is adjacent to the house of the accused. She knows the accused. She also knew the deceased Smt. Sudesh. She, however, turned hostile. Consequently she was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the prosecution in the court below. On being confronted with her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she denied having given any such statement. 13. The then Circle Officer, Rizwan Haider (P.W. 8) had recorded the statement of Km. Seema (P.W. 4), a copy of which is Ext. Ka-13. A perusal of the statement Ext. Ka-13 of Km. Seema (P.W. 4) would show that the accused had caught hold of Smt. Sudesh under a Chappar of their house, that the accused Km. Brijesh sprinkled Kerosene oil on her and that the accused Raj Kumar set fire by lighting a match-stick with a match box. Thereafter they dragged her into a room of their house. After some time they removed her, keeping her in a bungle in their field where they put cowdung cakes on her, threw kerosene oil on it and set fire to it. Anyhow with great difficulty she came out from the fire, but the accused again threw her into the fire and the accused Km. Brijesh pressed her with a saki into the fire and the cowdung cakes were again put on it and Kerosene oil was also poured thereon. In this way Smt. Sudesh was burnt alive to death. This is all evidently clear from the statement of Km. Seema, Ext. Ka-13 referred to above. 14. There can be several reasons for Km. Seema (P.W. 4) having turned hostile. Rizwan Haider (P.W. 8) has asserted having recorded the above statement of Km. Seema according to what she had actually told htm. This is all evidently clear from the statement of Km. Seema, Ext. Ka-13 referred to above. 14. There can be several reasons for Km. Seema (P.W. 4) having turned hostile. Rizwan Haider (P.W. 8) has asserted having recorded the above statement of Km. Seema according to what she had actually told htm. He has denied the suggestion that he had falsely, fictitiously or fraudulently recorded her statement of his own accord. Smt. Sudesh had died when Devi Ram (P.W. 1) reached the Patta field of the accused. According to him Km. Brijesh was pressing the cowdung cakes with a Saki and Brij Pal Singh. Raj Kumar and Smt. Rajendri had been throwing the cowdung cakes when Sudesh was being burnt. Raghuvir Singh had a Jariken. material Ext. 2 at that time. Manvir (P. W. 3) has stated how Smt. Sudesh was burnt by the accused In their aforesaid Patta field. He has, however, made certain improvements over his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. It is not out of place to mention that to tell the truth is not merely a good intention. It is a damn difficult thing to do. It is a skill to be practiced. It is a technique. It is an effort. It takes brain. It takes watching. It takes humility and self examination. It is a science and an art. Human mind is an imperfect instrument which in attempting to grasp fact unnecessarily twists and turns them often. The tendency of even truthful witness is to make incorrect statement quite sub-consciously. Faculty of observations, retention and of re-production differs from individual to individual. One's memory, however, rententive it be, goes on failing with the lapse of time. In view of all this it is abundantly clear that discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses for one or more of the reasons mentioned above. So is the case in the instant case. There are minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the above named witnesses. These are, however, not on material points. Therefore, such minor inconsistencies and contradictions can very well be glassed over, ignored and overlooked. Moreover, man can tell a lie but the circumstances cannot. The circumstances in the instant case themselves speak a volume against the accused. The site plans Ext. Ka-14 and Ka-15, memos Exts. These are, however, not on material points. Therefore, such minor inconsistencies and contradictions can very well be glassed over, ignored and overlooked. Moreover, man can tell a lie but the circumstances cannot. The circumstances in the instant case themselves speak a volume against the accused. The site plans Ext. Ka-14 and Ka-15, memos Exts. Ka-2 to Ka-4 regarding the articles recovered from the place/places of the incident and the statements of the witnesses named-above if carefully read and considered together would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused burnt Smt. Sudesh to death. The circumstances of the present case, as mentioned above, also lead to the aforesaid conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. Now the question is as to what offence/offences has been committed by the accused in the instant case. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: "304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marrige and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." The marriage of Smt. Sudesh was performed nearly a year before the occurrence. It is shown and proved that she was subjected to harassment before her death by her husband and her husband's relatives i.e. father, mother, brother and sister for and in connection with the demand of dowry. There was 100% burnt injury on her body. Her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Therefore, her death is a dowry death. 17. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under : "113B. There was 100% burnt injury on her body. Her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Therefore, her death is a dowry death. 17. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under : "113B. Presumption as to dowry-death when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section "Dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)". 18. There is no evidence from the side 5 of the accused to rebut the presumption that they had caused the dowry death of Smt. Sudesh. On the other hand the prosecution had fully established by cogent and positive evidence that the accused had caused the dowry death of Smt. Sudesh. The circumstances of the case also speak nothing but the same. Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under : "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty-whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman ; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her to any person related to her to meet such demand." 19. The prosecution has also proved that the accused had subjected Smt. Sudesh to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet their unlawful demand. 20. The prosecution has also proved that the accused had subjected Smt. Sudesh to harassment with a view to coercing her to meet their unlawful demand. 20. The prosecution has also proved beyond doubt that the accused caused the evidence of commission of the offence of dowry death to disappear with the intention of screening the offence from legal punishment. It may be mentioned that the prosecution case does not fall within the ambit of Section 302, I.P.C. There is no evidence also to that effect. 21. Therefore, taking into consideration the pros and cons of the case, we arrive at the conclusion that the accused should be convicted under Sections 304B, 498A, 147 and Section 201 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentence each of them to the imprisonment for life, one year's rigorous imprisonment, three months rigorous imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively thereunder and that the conviction and punishment awarded to that accused under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. should be set aside. We further arrive at the conclusion that the conviction of all the accused in both the appeals under Sections 147, 498A and 201/149, I.P.C. and the sentences awarded to them thereunder respectively should be maintained. 22. Both the appeals are accordingly partly allowed. The conviction of the accused Raj Kumar, Raghuvir Singh and Brij Pal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and the sentence to death and fine of Rs. 500 awarded to them thereunder are set aside. They are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Reference No. 3 of 1993 for confirmation of their death is hereby rejected. The conviction of Smt. Rajendri and Km. Brijesh under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentence to the imprisonment for life awarded to them thereunder are set aside. They are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/149, I.P.C. All the accused, named, Raj Kumar, Raghuvir Singh and Brij Pal Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 1993 and the accused Smt. Rajendri and Km: Brijesh in Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 1993 are convicted under Section 304B, I.P.C. and sentenced to the imprisonment for life thereunder. The conviction of all the accused under Sections 147, 498 and 201/149, I.P.C. and the sentences awarded to them respectively thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, through his impugned judgment and order are upheld. The conviction of all the accused under Sections 147, 498 and 201/149, I.P.C. and the sentences awarded to them respectively thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, through his impugned judgment and order are upheld. The accused Smt. Rajendri and Km. Brijesh are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They are directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentences awarded to them. The accused Raj Kumar, Raghuvir Singh and Brij Pal Singh are in jail. They will continue to remain there to serve out the sentences awarded to them. 23. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal partly allowed.