R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (who were original accused Nos. 1 to 5) under the judgement and order dated 27th september, 1984 of the Sessions Judge, surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1984. The respondents alongwith others, the original accused Nos. 6 to 17 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal code, in connection with the alleged murder of a young bride Manharba, who was at the relevant time i. e. during the night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984 residing with her in-laws the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 at village Olak. The prosecution version is that Manharba, daughter of Mohabatsinh nanubha of village Chotila was got married about 2 years prior to the date of the incident with one Dilubha, son of the respondent No. 1 Tapubha Bhagwanji at village Olak. After her marriage, she started residing at village Olak with the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 while her husband Dilubha was serving at Bhavnagar and residing there. The respondent No. 2 Prabhaben was her mother-in-law while the respondent No. 3 Bababa was her husbands sister. The respondent No. 4 Dolubha was her husbands elder brother while respondent no. 5 Chandubha was her husbands younger brother. The original accused Nos. 6 to 17 were distant relatives of the accused no. l Tapubha and were residing in the same village. Olak is a village having a population of about 1600 souls. ( 2 ) IT is the prosecution case that soon after the marriage, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 started ill-treating Manharba as they were dissatisfied with the dowry given to her. She had complained of ill-treatment when she visited Chotila soon after her marriage. On her first visit she stayed with her father at Chotila for nearly 1 months and during that period she complained that she was being ill-treated and not supplied sufficient food by her mother-in-law and sister-in- law. She also complained of being taunted by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry at the time of her marriage. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 Tapubha and his wifes sister came to Chotila to take manharba with them. She also complained of being taunted by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry at the time of her marriage. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 Tapubha and his wifes sister came to Chotila to take manharba with them. After she was taken to Olak, Manharba wrote a letter to her father Mohabatsinh complaining that she was ill-treated by the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and that they were beating her and not giving her sufficient food. Her father mohabatsinh therefore went to village Olak and brought her to Chotila. At that time she was not allowed to take her ornaments by the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and was sent only with a pair of clothes. At that time also manharba complained to her father and her cousin brother Parbatsinh that the accused- nos. 1 to 5 were ill-treating and beating her and she was not given sufficient food. She had slated that she was being ill-treated by them because of less dowry given to her during the marriage. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 Tapubha and one Khumansinh of his village came to Chotila after about 1 months and they asked Mohabatsinh to send Manharba. Mohabatsinh refused to send her with them saying that she was being ill-treated at Olak. At that time khumansinh given assurance that if she is sent to Olak, she would not be ill-treated and that she would thereafter be sent to stay with her husband Dilubha at bhavnagar. Thereupon, she was sent alongwith the accused No. 1 Tapubha and khumansinh to village Olak again. She was however, not sent to Bhavnagar on the ground that her husband was not able to find a suitable house at Bhavnagar. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, Mohabatsinh received a letter Ex. 24 from one Madhubhai thakarshi of Olak in which he was asked to come to village Olak under some pretext. Mohabatsinh therefore went to Olak and brought Manharba again to Chotila. At that time also she complained that the accused nos. 1 to 5 were beating and harassing her. She had told Mohabatsinh that if she will be again sent to Olak, she would be murdered by the accused Nos. 1 to 5. Manharba was thereafter not willing to go to Olak. At that time also she complained that the accused nos. 1 to 5 were beating and harassing her. She had told Mohabatsinh that if she will be again sent to Olak, she would be murdered by the accused Nos. 1 to 5. Manharba was thereafter not willing to go to Olak. After about 3 to 4 months one meghubha, a Police constable who is the husband of the sister of the accused No. 1 tapubha came to Chotila with his wife. They met Mohabatsinh and asked him to send Manharba to Olak, but Mohabatsinh refused to send her on the ground that she was being ill-treated by the accused Nos. 1 to 5. Meghubha, however, requested mohabatsinh to send Manharbha at the time of marriage of his daughter, which was to take place after about 2 months. Meghubha assured Mohabatsinh that manharbha would be treated well. After about 2 months, accused No. 1 Tapubha and Meghubha came to Chotila and asked mohabatsinh to send Manharbha to Olak as the marriage of Meghubhas daughter was fixed. Manharbas husband Dilubha was to attend that marriage. However, mohabatsinh and his brother Hematsinh refused to send her, stating that she was being ill-treated by licensed Nos. 1 to 5. Meghubha gave an assurance to them that alter the marriage ceremony was over, she would be sent alongwith her husband dilubha to Chotila. Mohabatsinh and hematsinh thereupon sent Manharba to olak to attend the marriage of Meghubhas daughter. After about 8-10 days, on 14-5- 1984 in the afternoon, a message was received through the original accused Nos. 15 and 16 that Manharba had died on account of burns early in the morning and she was cremated. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on the next day, i. e. 15. 5. 1984, Mohabatsinh, his brother hematsinh, his nephew Parbatsinh, his other brother Bachubha, Rumsinh and others went in the evening to Olak for mourning the death of Manharba. At Olak, they came to know that Manharbas body was found burning at night in the kitchen and at that time her tongue was protruding. On 14. 5. 1984 when they had received the information at Chotila about the death of manharba, they had already suspected foul play and a complaint was prepared on that 5 day at Chotila, which was to be handed over to the DSP at Surendranagar. That writing Ex. On 14. 5. 1984 when they had received the information at Chotila about the death of manharba, they had already suspected foul play and a complaint was prepared on that 5 day at Chotila, which was to be handed over to the DSP at Surendranagar. That writing Ex. 23 was ultimately handed over to the DSP on 16. 5. 1984 at Surendranagar. On 15. 5. 1984 in the late evening they had HI returned to Chotila from Olak and on the next morning, the DSP was given the writing Ex. 23 on which he directed necessary enquiry to be made. The application Ex. 23 was received by the SDPO, Surendranagar for enquiry on 19. 5. 1984. On 20. 5. 1984 the SDPO proceeded to Sayla where he called Mohabatsinh. He recorded the complaint of Parbatsinh on 21. 5. 1984 at 12. 35 a. m. and sent it to Lakhtar Police Station for registration of the offence. That complaint is at mark 22a. Since the application ex. 23 was received by the DSP prior in point of time, that was treated as the fir by the Trial Court. In the application ex. 23 it was stated that the death of manharba had taken place on 14. 5. 1984 early in the morning in suspicious circumstances which merited a detailed enquiry. It was stated that it was not a case of mere accident and it appeared that she was mudered. It was also stated therein that after the marriage, Manharba was being ill-treated by her in-laws at Olak. It was stated that if Manharba had died due to accidental death, her body would not have been disposed of in haste. It was also stated that Manharba because of ill-treatment from her in-laws had expressed fear that she would be killed. It was also staled that she was being harassed because of insufficient dowry. The investigation was started by Circle Police Inspector at 1. 35 a. m. on 21. 5. 1984. The place of the incident was the kitchen room of the house of the accused No. 1. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 23. 7. 84 against 17 persons including the respondents who were accused Nos. 1 to 5, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC read with Section 114 of the IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 23. 7. 84 against 17 persons including the respondents who were accused Nos. 1 to 5, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC read with Section 114 of the IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Act. The charge was, however, framed for the offences punishable under Section 302, read with section 34 of the IPC against the accused Nos. 1 to 5, as also individually under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 were also charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were further charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 114 of the IPC. The rest of the accused Nos. 6 to 17 were charged for the offences punishable under section 201 read with Section 114 of the ipc and there is no appeal filed against their acquittal. These accused Nos. 6 to 17 were related to the accused No. 1 and they were implicated on an allegation that they had helped the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in disposing of the dead body of Manharba with a view to screen the offenders. ( 5 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The defence version is that manharba had died at 5 oclock in the morning on 14. 5. 1984 due to burns received by her from the primus (stove) and that the accused Nos. 15 and 16 were sent to Chotila to inform her fathers family and after they had come from Chotila in the afternoon between 3 to 4 p. m. to Olak, manharba was cremated at about 5 oclock in the evening. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court held that the prosecution did not prove that Manharba had met with homicidal death. It was held that in the fir Ex, 23 which was an application given to the DSP, Surendranagar on 16. 5. 1984 there was no mention about witness thakarshi Laghra having told the complainant about his having seen the body of manharba burning in the midnight in the kitchen of accused No. l with her tongue protruded. The Trial Court held that the father of Manharba would never have sent manharba to Olak if she was being beaten there and apprehended to be killed. The Trial Court held that the father of Manharba would never have sent manharba to Olak if she was being beaten there and apprehended to be killed. It was held that there was no independent evidence to show that Manharba was ill-treated by the accused Nos. 1 to 5. It was also held that in the FIR Ex. 23 it was not stated that the dead body of Manharba was disposed of by taking it out of the house in a sling (Jholi ). The Trial Court further held that manharba would not have failed to inform her husband about her ill-treatment by writing letters and since no such letters were forthcoming, the story of ill-treatment was not proved. The Trial Court also held that the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested witnesses and there was no independent corroboration to their testimony. It was further held that if the body of manharba was already disposed of by the accused Nos. 1 to 5, then they would not have sent accused Nos. 15 and 16 to inform her father at Chotila. It was held that manharba wanted to go to Bhavnagar and she did not like to stay with the accused nos. 1 to 5 at Olak and therefore, the possibility of her having committed suicide could not be ruled out. In the words of the trial Court read ". . . the signs and symptoms resulting from the dirty atmosphere and the hostile surroundings in which manharba was placed is a pointer to the fact that there was reasonable possibility of her having committed suicide and the prosecution has not been able to exclude or eliminate this possibility beyond reasonable doubt". It was held that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by it for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the accused by any reliable or satisfactory evidence. All the accused were, therefore, acquitted by the learned Sessions judge on 27th September 1984. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court had not taken into account the important circumstances which were established from the evidence on record and had mechanically rejected the evidence of important witnesses on the ground that they were interested witnesses. It was contended that the application Ex. 23 was drafted on 14. 5. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court had not taken into account the important circumstances which were established from the evidence on record and had mechanically rejected the evidence of important witnesses on the ground that they were interested witnesses. It was contended that the application Ex. 23 was drafted on 14. 5. 1984 at Chotila where Mohabatsinh, father of Manharba received information about her death due to burns and disposal of her dead body. Therefore, all the particulars could not have reflected in the application Ex. 23. The applicant of Ex. 23 was not in the village where the incident took place and therefore, no adverse inference could have been drawn from non-mention of the details of the incident in that application. It was submitted that the evidence of Thakarshi Laghra as also the defence witness accused No. 10 clearly discloses that at midnight they had seen the body of Manharba aflame on the floor in the kitchen of the house of the accused No. 1 where she was residing with the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and at that time she was already dead. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that there was ample evidence to show that Manharba was being ill-treated by the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and she had to be brought back to Chotila several times by her father and only by assurances of some people she was reluctantly sent back to Olak. It was submitted that during the period of two years she could hardly stay at Olak for a few months. It was further submitted that the complaint of the ill-treatment would naturally be made in such cases to ones own relatives and therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside by saying that it was evidence of interested witnesses. The learned Public prosecutor took us through the entire evidence and submitted that prosecution has been able to establish that Manharba was being ill-treated because of insufficient dowry by the accused Nos. 1 to 5 whenever she resided with them at Olak, that she apprehended that she would be killed that on 14. 5. 1984 she was found lying dead in the kitchen around 1. 1 to 5 whenever she resided with them at Olak, that she apprehended that she would be killed that on 14. 5. 1984 she was found lying dead in the kitchen around 1. 00 a. m. and her body was seen burning, that prior to this there were no shouts heard that she was seen lying on the floor burning with her tongue protruded, that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were standing in the Osri at that point of time and there was no indication of their having tried to save her, that her body was disposed of before dawn and even close neighbours were not informed about the removal of the body and finally that the defence version put up by these accused persons about the body having been disposed of in the evening and that Manharba had died due to accidental death in the morning at 5 oclock while preparing tea, is proved to be palpably false. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 1 to 5, the present respondents contended that the chain of circumstances was not complete and no conclusion of guilt could be arrived at from the facts and circumstances established in the present case. He submitted that if two inferences are possible then in an acquittal appeal the High Court should accept the inference drawn by the Sessions Court in favour of the accused persons. He argued that the F. I. R. Ex. 23 which said to have been given on 16. 5. 1984 was a very suspicious document. In that typed application at the bottom, date 14. 5. 84 was typed while at the top date, 15. 5. 84 was typed. It was submitted that the complainants party had ample time to include the details which they are said to have gathered on 15. 5. 84 from the witnesses at Olak. The fact that there was no mention therein of anyone having seen the body of Manharba burnt at midnight and her body having been taken out in a sling (Jholi), showed that the story which has been put up in this regard at the trial is an afterthought. It was submitted that false case has been made out against these accused persons after about 5 days of mature consideration and thoughtful planning which is reflected in the so-called information given by Parbatsinh on 21. 5. It was submitted that false case has been made out against these accused persons after about 5 days of mature consideration and thoughtful planning which is reflected in the so-called information given by Parbatsinh on 21. 5. 1984 at mark 22a, which according to him has rightly been not treated as the first information. It was further contended that the so- called letter from Manharba about ill-treatment is a figment of imagination because it does not find any reference in the application ex. 23 which is the FIR. He submitted that except oral evidence, there was no evidence of guilt or demand of dowry and that there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence to show any cruelty or demand of dowry. He submitted that witness thakarshi, his wife Fuliben and their son Madhubhai who were residing in the house just adjoining the house of the accused do not support the case of murder or even suicide. The timings given by these witnesses about the incident vary from person to person and the possibility of the death having taken place in the morning around 5. 00 a. m. cannot be ruled out. It was further argued that a boy who is said to have seen the incident at the earliest point of time when Manharbas body was burning has not been traced out by the prosecution. Though there were some persons who had gathered near the house of the accused at night when the body of manharba was burning, no independent witnesses from amongst them is examined by the prosecution. It was submitted that thakarshi admittedly treated Manharba as his daughter since at the time when she was got married, the marriage had taken place at his house. However, he simply says that after seeing Manharbas dead body burning, he went back to his house and did nothing. It was submitted that this was not a normal conduct of a man who had seen the person whom he treated as his daughter lying on the floor burning. It was also submitted that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 who are said to be standing at the relevant time outside in the Osri of their house would never have allowed any witness to enter the house particularly if they were trying to destroy the evidence of murder by setting the dead body of Manharba on fire. It was also submitted that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 who are said to be standing at the relevant time outside in the Osri of their house would never have allowed any witness to enter the house particularly if they were trying to destroy the evidence of murder by setting the dead body of Manharba on fire. It was, therefore, submitted that Thakarshi could not be relied upon and the evidence of his wife Fuliben and Madhubhai is of no use to the prosecution because they had not witnessed the incident. It was submitted that the defence witness accused No. 10 vajubha Motibhai has not said anything on the basis of which these accused could be convicted. The said accused No. 10 had only stated in his deposition that he had seen the body of Manharba on the floor in the kitchen when he had gone alongwith thakarshi at night and that the body was burning and the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were standing in the Osri and thereafter, he went back. From this, it was submitted that it cannot be said that accused Nos. 1 to 5 had committed murder of Manharba in furtherance of their common intention and that they were trying to dispose of her body by setting it on fire. The learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that this was a pure case of accident and it was not even suicide far from being murder. He submitted that there was no smell of kerosene noticed by anyone. He submitted that if suicide were to be committed, she would have poured kerosene on her body while setting fire and that would have raised such flames as would have burnt the entire house. It was further submitted that upto 11 oclock of that night i. e. 13. 5. 1984, she was at Thakarshis house where she was in normal mood and not under any depression and therefore, it was not possible that after going home she would commit suicide. It was, therefore, submitted that this was a clear case of accident due to burns which she got from the primus (stove) while making tea in the morning. It was further submitted that even if the accused Nos. It was, therefore, submitted that this was a clear case of accident due to burns which she got from the primus (stove) while making tea in the morning. It was further submitted that even if the accused Nos. 1 to 5 acted in panic by taking away the body from the house in a sling (Jholi), one cannot infer that they had caused the death of manharba. It was submitted that in absence of any other evidence, mere disposal of the dead body by setting it on fire or taking it out in a sling (Jholi) will not prove murder. It was also submitted that there was no reliable evidence regarding the actual time of cremation. The learned Counsel for the accused further argued that since the prosecution had alleged motive against these accused persons, the evidence was required to be carefully considered. He took us through the evidence on record pointing out some contradictions and omissions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Counsel finally argued that in case of burning, death may be sudden and therefore merely because there were no shouts or screams heard during the night by the neighbours, it could not be inferred that manharba was first killed and then her body was set on fire. He submitted that had it been a case of murder, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 would have locked the doors from inside so as to prevent outsiders from entering the house. He also submitted that accused Nos. 1 to 5 were in fact standing in the Osri because they has become numb and dumbfounded on seeing the daughter-in-law of the house dead because of the accident. He further contended that nonregistration of the death of Manharba was not an important circumstances because in villages many a time deaths are not registered. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the acquittal of the respondents was justified and calls for no interference by this Court. ( 9 ) THE point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is, therefore, whether the accused Nos. 1 to 5 committed murder of Manharba during the night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984 in furtherance of their common intention and that her body was disposed of with a view to screen these offenders in furtherance of their common intention or by aiding and abetting each other. 1 to 5 committed murder of Manharba during the night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984 in furtherance of their common intention and that her body was disposed of with a view to screen these offenders in furtherance of their common intention or by aiding and abetting each other. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY the body of Manharba was disposed of on 14. 5. 1984 and therefore, it was not available for any postmortem examination. All that could be recovered from a place shown in the cremation ground much later on 21. 5. 1984 was 200 grams of ash and a few small pieces of bones which proved to be meaningless. ( 11 ) MANHARBA was got married with the son of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at village Olak two years prior to the date of incident. According to her father Mohabatsinh P. W. 9, who has deposed at Ex. 40, she had started staying at Olak soon after the marriage and during her initial stay of 15 to 20 days, she was taunted by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law that she had brought less dowry and she was being ill-treated by them. Thereafter, she had gone to Olak after staying at Chotila, being taken back by the accused Nos. 1 s sister-in-law. From olak she wrote a letter to her father in which she had mentioned that her life had become miserable and it would have been better if she had been thrown in a well. This letter was also read by Parbatsinh. Mohabatsinh, therefore, went to Olak and brought her back. The said letter according to Mohabatsinh had been lost. Parbatsinh, cousin brother of Manharba in his deposition ex. 22 has referred to this letter written by Manharba to her father, and stated that it was mentioned in that letter that she was being harassed, that no sufficient food was given to her, that she was being severely beaten and further that it would have been better that if she had been thrown in a well. He had stated that he had read that letter and on this letter being received, mohabatsinh had proceeded to Olak and brought Manharba to Chotila. He had stated that he had read that letter and on this letter being received, mohabatsinh had proceeded to Olak and brought Manharba to Chotila. That letter having been lost as stated by Mohabatsinh, the deposition as regards its contents cannot be discarded on the ground that the letter is not produced because the deposition as regards the contents of such lost letter would be relevant as secondary evidence of its contents. Merely because in the fir Ex. 23 the said letter was not mentioned, it cannot be said that Manharba had never written the letter to her father. Parbatsinh who was present when the application Ex. 23 was prepared as also when it was submitted, has stated in paragraph 30 of his deposition that they did not find it necessary to mention the particulars of that letter by Manharba in the application ex. 23. Mohabatsinh has further deposed that thereafter the accused No. 1 tapubha and one Khumansinh had come to fetch Manharba and at that time mohabatsinh had told Khumansinh that manharba was being harassed by her in-laws. Khumansinh took responsibility on himself and therefore, Mohabalsinh allowed manharba to go alongwith them on the advise of his elder brother Hematsinh. Khumansinh had assured him that no one will ill-treat Manharba. Thereafter, after about 15 to 20 days Mohabatsinh received a letter Ex. 24 from Madhubhai Thakarshi of Olak that he should under some pretext come down to Olak. Mohabatsinh therefore, went to Olak and brought Manharba back to Chotila. At that time Manharba had told him that she was being beaten by her in-laws and also taunted because of insufficient dowry given to her. Mohabatsinh has staled that at that time he decided not to send Manharba again to olak. After about 3 months, Meghubha, brother-in-law of the accused No. 1 and his wife had visited Chotila and at that time they had requested Mohabatsinh to send manharba, but he refused to send her as she was being ill-treated by her in-laws. Meghubha, therefore, told him that he should at least send Manharba at the time when his daughter was to get married. Two months thereafter, the accused No. 1 alongwith Meghubha (who was a Police constable) had come to Chorila. Meghubha had taken the responsibility stating that after the marriage of his daughter, he would send Manharba and her husband Dilubha to chotila. Two months thereafter, the accused No. 1 alongwith Meghubha (who was a Police constable) had come to Chorila. Meghubha had taken the responsibility stating that after the marriage of his daughter, he would send Manharba and her husband Dilubha to chotila. Meghubha had also assured that no harm will be caused to Manharba. He therefore allowed Manharba to go with them. About a fortnight thereafter, two persons from Olak - accused Nos. 15 and 16 had come to Chotila and in the afternoon informed his cousin brother Madhavsinh that his daughter Manharba had died. Thereafter, he had taken bath, but he did not go to Olak on that day because his elder brother had gone out of the village. On the next day, i. e. 15. 4. 1984, they went to Olak in the evening at about 6. 00 p. m. ( 12 ) PARBATSINH, cousin brother of manharba, has deposed in paragraph 8 of his deposition at Ex. 22 that Manharba had told him that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were severely and frequently beating her and were not giving her meals. He has also stated that she was complaining that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were harassing her because she had brought less dowry. He has also stated that she was sent to Olak because of the intervention of Khumansinh. He has further stated that she was brought back to Chotila by Mohabatsinh pursuant to the letter of Madhubhai, and at that time also she had complained to him that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 continued to harass her as before and that her husband was not liking her and she was not to be taken to bhavnagar. Manharba had complained that this time if she was again sent to Olak, these accused Nos. 1 to 5 will kill her. ( 13 ) WITNESS Bachubha, who is examined at Ex. 35 has stated that he was uncle of manharba and that Manharba has personally stated that she was being harassed by her in-laws because less dowry was given. Even Madhavsinh P. W. 5 Ex. 33, cousin brother of Mohabatsinh has deposed that manharba was being harassed by her in- laws because of insufficient dowry and as she was of and on coming to Chotila, he had come to know about this. ( 14 ) WITNESS Thakarshi P. W. 2 Ex. Even Madhavsinh P. W. 5 Ex. 33, cousin brother of Mohabatsinh has deposed that manharba was being harassed by her in- laws because of insufficient dowry and as she was of and on coming to Chotila, he had come to know about this. ( 14 ) WITNESS Thakarshi P. W. 2 Ex. 29 has deposed that he was treating Manharba as his daughter and his son was treating her as sister because when she was got married, the marriage had taken place in his house. He had stated that he belongs to Kolhi community while the accused persons belong to Garasiya community. His house is just adjacent to the house of the accused no. 1 in the locality where the Garasiyas stay. He has stated that Manharba had come near to door of his house and told him to write a letter to her father. Manharba had told him that she was being harassed. He, therefore, wrote a letter to Manharbas father through his son Madhubhai. Thereafter, manharbas father had come and taken her. His son Madhubhai Thakarshi p. W. 3 has, in his deposition at Ex. 31, stated that the letter Ex. 24 was written by him at the instance of his father to the father of Manharba, asking him to come down to Olak under some pretext. He has stated that because Manharba might have been harassed in her house, she had asked his father to write such letter. In the application Ex. 23 which has been treated as fir being prior in point of time, there was a specific reference to the said letter Ex. 24 and it was stated that Manharba was being harassed and ill-treated by her in-laws because they did not find dowry to be sufficient and they wanted another woman who could bring more dowry. There was a repeated reference in the said application to the fact that Manharba was being ill-treated by her in-laws and that she was allowed to go to Olak only after intervention and assurances of Meghubha. ( 15 ) FROM the aforesaid evidence, which is natural evidence coming from the near relatives of Manharba, we are fully satisfied that after her marriage Manharba was being ill-treated by her in-laws - the accused Nos. ( 15 ) FROM the aforesaid evidence, which is natural evidence coming from the near relatives of Manharba, we are fully satisfied that after her marriage Manharba was being ill-treated by her in-laws - the accused Nos. 1 to 5 during her stay at Olak for the sake of dowry and that she was physically beaten and she apprehended that if she was sent to Olak, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 would kill her. The learned Sessions judge has discarded the above important evidence on trivial grounds. The witnesses who have deposed about the ill-treatment of manharba have been consistent on that aspect and are supported by the immediate version of ill-treatment reflecting from the fir Ex. 23, as also from the fact that manharba was sent back only after the intervention and assurances of Khumansinh and thereafter, Meghubha to Olak. A very important circumstance of gross ill-treatment meted out to Manharba by accused nos. 1 to 5 has been satisfactorily established from the aforesaid evidence. It is clearly established that she apprehended that she might even be killed if she was sent to Olak. It is only because Meghubha, a police constable, who had accompanied the accused No. 1 Tapubha to fetch Manharba, gave an assurance that she would be treated well and will not harass by her in-laws that she was lastly sent to Olak, never to return again. ( 16 ) THE incident took place during the night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984. Upto 11. 00 p. m. on 13. 5. 1984 Manharba was at the house of Thakarshi, which is just across the house of her in-laws at olak. The distance between two houses was hardly 40 feet as per the Map Ex. 49. The incident had obviously taken place after Manharba went back to her house from the house of Thakarshi at 11. 00 p. m. on 13. 5. 1984. The fact that Manharba was at the house of witness Thakarshi upto 11. 00 p. m. on 13. 5. 1984 has come out in the deposition of Thakarshi and his wife. Therefore, till that point of time Manharba was alive. ( 17 ) THAKARSHI Laghra P. W 2 in his deposition at Ex. 00 p. m. on 13. 5. 1984. The fact that Manharba was at the house of witness Thakarshi upto 11. 00 p. m. on 13. 5. 1984 has come out in the deposition of Thakarshi and his wife. Therefore, till that point of time Manharba was alive. ( 17 ) THAKARSHI Laghra P. W 2 in his deposition at Ex. 29 while deposing as to what he had seen during that fateful night has stated in paragraph 10 that at the time of the incident he was at his house at night. He was sleeping in the "falia" (open space in front of the house) of his house. Around midnight at about 12 oclock, Vajubha the accused No. 10 came there and woke him up telling him that something was burning in the house of Tapubha - the accused no. 1. He has stated that Vajubha was a family relation of Tapubha and his house was behind the house of Tapubha. He has then stated in paragraph 11 of his deposition that thereafter he had gone to the house of Tapubha and seen that Manharba was lying in the kitchen on the floor and her entire body was burning. He had seen that manharba was not alive at that time and that her mouth was wide open. He has further deposed in paragraph 12 of his deposition that when he had gone there, the accused No. 1 -Tapubha was standing in the Osri of his house. The accused No. 2 - wife of Tapubha was also standing in the osri. Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were also standing there in the Osri. He has stated that these persons did not say anything on seeing him. Thereafter, this witness came back to his house and had remained awake. He has slated that thereafter he did not come out again. He has then stated in paragraph 13 of his deposition that he does not know as to what happened thereafter to the dead body of Manharba. He has stated that they must have removed the dead body during the night, but he had not seen it. He then states that he was not informed about taking of Manharbas dead body for cremation. In the morning at 6 oclock he came out of the house and as stated by him in paragraph 15 of his statement, manharbadead body was not there. He then states that he was not informed about taking of Manharbas dead body for cremation. In the morning at 6 oclock he came out of the house and as stated by him in paragraph 15 of his statement, manharbadead body was not there. The accused No. 1 Tapubha was at that time in his house. He had thereafter gone away to i his field and had not gone to condole the accused No. 1. He has stated that the incident had taken place on Sunday night (night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984 ). He has stated that thereafter on Tuesday manharbas father, her brother Parbatsinh and others, in all eight persons had come to Olak from Chotila. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that he was woken up by Vajubha at 3 oclock in the morning. He has denied that he had not woken up at 12 oclock in the midnight. He has slated that when Vajubha had come to call him, they had gone in the kitchen by opening door, which was merely shut, i. e. it was only shut but was not locked or latched (barna khali vasela hata ). At that time the roof beam (mobharo) was burning. This witness belongs to Kolhi community and resides amidst the locality in which the accused No. 1 and other persons of garasiya community reside. His deposition is to be appreciated in light of this background. He had written in the letter Ex. 24 which is sent through his son to the father of Manharba that he should come down under some pretext and that they should keep this letter a secret. This indicates that he did not want to invite the wrath of the accused No. 1 and others residing in the same locality and therefore, did not want them to know about his having called mohabatsinh to Olak. His reluctance in coming out openly on all fronts against all these accused persons is only a natural conduct because staying there in a locality of a different community, he obviously cannot afford to generate hostility which may harm him. He had no enmity with the accused No. 1 and merely because he had a soft corner for Manharba and treated her as his daughter, it cannot be said that he is out to falsely implicate the accused Nos. 1 to 5. He had no enmity with the accused No. 1 and merely because he had a soft corner for Manharba and treated her as his daughter, it cannot be said that he is out to falsely implicate the accused Nos. 1 to 5. His evidence on the question of having woken up around 12 oclock by vajubha - accused No. 10 and having gone to the house of accused No. 1 Tapubha and having seen Manharba lying on the ground already dead with her body burning and at that time the accused Nos. 1 to 5 just standing in the outside Osri and about the dead body of Manharba having been disposed of before 6 oclock in the morning, has not at all been shaken in his cross- examination and he seems to be a very reliable witness on these material aspects of the case. The fact that he was woken up by vajubha the accused No. 10 is borne out from the deposition of Vajubha, who has deposed at Ex. 67. Accused No. 10 vajubha has stated that he had woken up thakarshi and told him that something was burning in the house of accused No. 1. He had gone alongwith Thakarshi to the house of the accused No. 1 and he had seen that manharba was lying in the kitchen burnt-up. He has also stated that at that time the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were standing in the osri of their house. He has also stated that when they had gone to the house of accused no. 1, the doors of the kitchen were just shut (meaning thereby they were not locked or latched ). He has stated that he had not gone to condole the accused No. 1 nor had he attended the funeral. Thakarshis version, therefore, gets full corroboration even from the deposition of accused No. 10 vajubha, who has chosen to examine himself at Ex. 67. Madhubhai son of thakarshi, P. W. 3 Ex. 31 has stated that when he woke up in the morning at 6 oclock, his father told him that Tapubhas house was on fire and Manharba was finished. He has stated that his father told him that tongue of Manharba was protruding out and that her legs were burnt. He has stated that before he woke up, the dead body of Manharba was already disposed of. He has stated that his father told him that tongue of Manharba was protruding out and that her legs were burnt. He has stated that before he woke up, the dead body of Manharba was already disposed of. As regards the version of tongue protruding out of the mouth of Manharba, thakarshi has staled before the Court that he had not seen the condition of her tongue at the relevant time though contradiction on this aspect has been brought on record by the prosecution in context of his Police statement. On the aspect that Manharba was dead and that Thakarshi had informed this witness when he woke up in the morning about the Tapubhas house burning and the death of Manharba, supports the version of Thakarshi. The learned Counsel submitted that in the deposition of madhubhai, he has stated that he was informed by his father that the house of tapubha was on fire meaning thereby that it was on fire at that lime, suggested that the defence version of the accused that she had died due to getting fire in the morning was probable. This witness has stated that he had woken up at 6 oclock in the morning and at that time the body of Manharba was already disposed of. Therefore, there was no question of Manharbas body burning at 6 oclock in the morning and while narrating what his father had told him about Tapubhas house having got fire, all that he wanted to say was that his father had informed him that there was fire in the house of Tapubha and Manharba was finished. Fuliben Thakarshi had stated that she had woken up at 4 oclock in the morning and Manharba was already dead and she does not know what happened to the dead body of Manharba. She has stated that her husband had gone to see the dead body of Manharba, but she does not know the time. Therefore, Thakarshis deposition to this extent of having gone to Tapubhas house and coming back and informing his wife and son stands corroborated. It was contended that Thakarshi who had fatherly affection for Manharba would not have just gone back doing nothing when he had seen her dead body burning in the kitchen of the house of the accused No. 1. It was contended that Thakarshi who had fatherly affection for Manharba would not have just gone back doing nothing when he had seen her dead body burning in the kitchen of the house of the accused No. 1. As noted above, thakarshi belongs to Kolhi community and he is surrounded by the accused persons and others belonging to Garasfya community and would naturally not want to openly strain his relation with the persons with whom he had to live. His fear is betrayed even in the letter Ex. 24, wherein he had requested Mohabatsinh not to disclose about that letter to any one and keep it a secret. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural in Thakarshi not raising an issue with these accused persons at the time or in his going back to his house during that night. The fact that Manharbas dead body was burning, as noted above, emanates even from the version of defence witness Vajubha. When the father of Manharba and other relatives came to know that she had died due to burns, they got suspecious that she might have been burnt alive and that is why that story appears in application Ex. 23 given to the DSP, Surendranagar. The version of Thakarshi on this material aspect cannot be brushed aside merely from the fact that his version does not find place in the application Ex. 23. In fact, non-mention of that version in the application Ex. 23 supports the prosecution case that the application was already prepared at Chotila on 14. 5. 1984 before the complainants party had proceeded to go to Olak. Thakarshi cannot be blamed for the facts which he has deposed not being mentioned in an application filed by somebody else. The application Ex. 23 was not an FIR by any eye-witness and its tenor suggests that there was a strong suspicion about manharba having been burnt alive. There is clear mention to her ill-treatment by her in-laws. There is also a mention of her body having been disposed of in haste. From the deposition of Thakarshi, we are fully satisfied that Manharba was found by him already dead and her body burning in the kitchen of the house of these accused persons around I oclock of the night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984 and at that time the accused Nos. From the deposition of Thakarshi, we are fully satisfied that Manharba was found by him already dead and her body burning in the kitchen of the house of these accused persons around I oclock of the night between 13. 5. 1984 and 14. 5. 1984 and at that time the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were just standing in the Osri of their house. We are also satisfied from his deposition that the body of Manharba was burning after she was already dead and that her body was disposed of before 6 oclock in the morning. Thakarshi was sleeping in the open space in front of his house hardly a few feet from the house of these accused persons. If manharba had caught fire while she was alive she surely would have raised alarm or screams and would have run about the place. In that event Thakarshi and other neighbours including the accused No. 10- vajubha would have noticed it and their version would surely not have been that they saw her dead body lying on the floor of the kitchen burning and all these accused just waiting around in the Osri. It is clear from the evidence on record that there were no shouts or screams of Manharba heard by anyone before Thakarshi and Vajubha had seen Manharbas body burning in the kitchen. This is clearly suggestive of the fact that at the time when her body was set on fire, she was already dead. There is absolutely no substance in the suggestion which is now sought to be made on behalf of the accused persons that the death would have been made instantaneous and therefore, there would be no shouts or screams. If it was only an accidental death in the morning at the lime of preparing tea, the entire scenario would have been different. There would have been shouts and screams because there was no question of Manharba dropping dead merely by catching fire from a stove. If Manharba had got fire by accident or even if she had tried to commit suicide, her attempt would have been to run out from the small kitchen because burns being extremely painful, she would have shouted for help or tried to extinguish the fire seeking help of the inmates and the neighbours. The accused Nos. If Manharba had got fire by accident or even if she had tried to commit suicide, her attempt would have been to run out from the small kitchen because burns being extremely painful, she would have shouted for help or tried to extinguish the fire seeking help of the inmates and the neighbours. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 would in that event be trying to extinguish the fire and would have collected people around. They would have surely given her some first aid treatment or attempted to call the doctor. The fact that there was no Doctor or Vaidya in the village, which is a small hamlet of 1600 souls would not have deterred them from sending somebody to the nearby village just 13 to 14 kilometers away where doctor is available. It is established that there was no attempt to extinguish the fire while the dead body of manharba was burning. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 were just standing in the Osri allow- : ing the body to burn away in the kitchen. The door of the kitchen was just shut and not locked or closed from inside and could be opened from outside. If it were suicide in a house where other relatives were staying the kitchen would have been closed from inside, but that was not the case. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 did not inform thakarshi or even their own kith Vajubha- d. W. 2 that Manharba had died due to accident by catching fire from the primus (stove) or that she had committed suicide. ( 18 ) THE evidence on record thus clearly discloses that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 allowed Manharbas body to burn away at night and before dawn without waiting for her husband or parents to arrive, they disposed of her body. Since the dead body was burning at about midnight and the accused allowed it to burn away very little would have remained of it to provide any cremation and only the remnants would be there to be cleaned up and thrown away before dawn in the cremation ground. This fact coupled with the fact that there was no formal funeral seen by anybody corroborates the version that remnants of her body were taken away from the house in a sling (Jholi) before the dawn. This fact coupled with the fact that there was no formal funeral seen by anybody corroborates the version that remnants of her body were taken away from the house in a sling (Jholi) before the dawn. ( 19 ) THERE is positive evidence on record to show that the information was sent to the parents of Manharba through accused Nos. 15 to 16, who reached Chotila around 10 oclock in the morning on 14-5-1984 after the remnants of dead body of Manharba were disposed of at 6 oclock in the morning. Madhavsinh P. W. 5 Ex. 33 has stated that on 14-5-1984 he and his uncle ramsinh had gone to the house of Pujari hematgiri at about 1. 00 p. m. , where the accused Nos. 15 and 16 had come. He has stated that he had asked accused Nos. 15 and 16 as to what time had they come, and they had stated that they had come at 10 oclock in the morning. There is no cross- examination of this witness on this aspect. It has come in evidence that from Olak it takes about 2 hours to reach Chotila. Therefore, these two persons might have started early in the morning before 8 oclock on that day. This witness has stated that these persons had told them that manharba had died due to burns which she received in the morning while preparing tea and that she had already been cremated. They told them that she was cremated early in the morning by taking her in a sling (Jholi ). He has stated that he had gone to olak on the next day. Bachubha Nanubha p. W.-6 Ex. 35 has also stated that they had gone to Olak on Tuesday, i. e. on 15-5- 1984. Hematgiri Pujari in whose house accused Nos. 15 and 16 had first gone on 14-5-1984 has, in his deposition Ex. 36 stated that when he had come for lunch around 12. 00 noon, he had seen accused nos. 15 and 16 in his house and they had asked him to call Bachubha, brother of hematsinh because their daughter was dead due to burns. The evidence therefore clearly discloses that the accused Nos. 36 stated that when he had come for lunch around 12. 00 noon, he had seen accused nos. 15 and 16 in his house and they had asked him to call Bachubha, brother of hematsinh because their daughter was dead due to burns. The evidence therefore clearly discloses that the accused Nos. 15-16 had informed Mohabatsinh - father of manharba and others at Chotila that manharba had died in the morning due to burns and that her body was taken in a sling (Jholi) and already cremated. If they had gone to Chotila to call father of manharba and her other relatives and if her body was not yet cremated as sought to be suggested on behalf of the accused, then the most natural conduct of the father and 5 other relatives of the Manharba would be to immediately proceed to Olak for funeral. The evidence clearly discloses that the information of the death of Manharba was given after the remnants of her body were disposed off in the early morning. There is an important aspect emanating from this positive evidence that the accused persons have taken up a false defence that body of manharba was cremated in the evening around 5 oclock on 14-5-1984. Her body was obviously disposed of much prior to 8 oclock in the morning on 14-5-84 when accused Nos. 15 and 16 started for Chotila, where they informed her father and others that she was already cremated. This clearly lends support to the version of Thakarshi and his son Madhubhai that body of manharba was disposed of before 6 oclock of the morning of 14-5-1984. If Manharba had died while preparing tea in the morning around 5 oclock, it is obvious that her body could not have been disposed of by taking out a funeral procession for cremation without the knowledge of the people around their house and in that event the accused Nos. 15 and 16 could not have started for Chotila as early as 8. 00 a. m. The accused No. 1 has in his further statement gone to the length of saying that manharba was cremated after persons who were called from Chotila came to Olak. This is proved to be palpably false in view of the above evidence showing that the accused Nos. 15-16 who had reached chotila at 10. 00 a. m. The accused No. 1 has in his further statement gone to the length of saying that manharba was cremated after persons who were called from Chotila came to Olak. This is proved to be palpably false in view of the above evidence showing that the accused Nos. 15-16 who had reached chotila at 10. 00 a. m. and had informed the people at Chotila that she was already cremated and in view of the reliable evidence of Thakarshi and his son Madhubhai that her body was disposed of before 6 oclock in the morning. ( 20 ) IN the above background, non-registration of death of Manharba assumes great significance. Pradhyuman Rana who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at Olak in his deposition at Ex. 38 has stated that no death was registered on 13-5-84 or 14- 584 in the register of deaths. He has produced Ex. 39, which is a copy from the death register for the month of May 1984, which shows that during that month no death was registered. If the death were accidental or even suicidal, obviously it would have got registered and it is no excuse to say that in villages people are not careful as regards the registration of deaths. The circumstance by itself may not be enough for any adverse inference, but in context of the other circumstantial evidence, it assumes greater significance. The accused nos. 1 to 5 had not registered the death of Manharba nor did they file any police complaint of any accident or suicide. This is an important aspect required to be taken into account alongwith other circumstances of the case, which are established. . ( 21 ) IT may be noted that Pradhyumansinh rana, Talati-cum-Mantri in his cross-examination had stated that he had not gone to condole the death of Manharba. The other witness who was a tailor in village olak - Dula Naran P. W. 10 - Ex. 41 who was examined as a panch witness for the panchnama of the scene of offence, has stated in his cross-examination by the Public prosecutor that he was stitching the clothes for the accused persons and their family members. In the cross-examination made on behalf of the accused he has stated that he does not know when Manharbas body was removed for cremation. Even witness Nanjibhai-P. W. 12 - Ex. In the cross-examination made on behalf of the accused he has stated that he does not know when Manharbas body was removed for cremation. Even witness Nanjibhai-P. W. 12 - Ex. 44 who was a panch witness, in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused has stated that he has not seen Manharba being taken for cremation and that he had not attended the funeral. Even the accused Nos. 6 to 17 who were closely connected to accused Nos. 1 to 5 and were of the same community have all stated that they had not attended the funeral of Manharba. This aspect clearly goes to support the version of the prosecution witness Thakarshi and his son madhubhai that Manharbas body was disposed of before 6 oclock in the morning. We are therefore satisfied from the evidence on record that Manharbas body was set on fire around mid-night of the night between 13-5-1984 and 14-5-1984 after she was killed and that it was ajlowed to burn in the kitchen and before dawn the remnants of her body were clandestinely disposed of. ( 22 ) IN our opinion the entire chain of the above circumstances would point only to the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and there is absolutely no possibility of the death of Manharba occurring due to suicide or accident. In the chain of circumstances as noted above, it is established that manharba soon after her marriage was ill-treated by the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for having brought insufficient dowry and she had to off and on be brought to Chotila where she had disclosed her torture and she was sent back only due to intervention and assurance once of Khumansinh and thereafter of Meghubha. The next circumstance which is established is that she was alive till 11. 00 p. m. on 13-5-84 when she had returned to her house from Thakarshis place. It is further established that her body was found burning in the kitchen of the house of respondents accused persons around 1 oclock during the night between 13-5-1984 and 14-5-1984 and at that time she was already dead and her entire body was aflame and that the doors of the kitchen were just shut though not locked or latched and could be open from outside. That the next door neighbour Thakarshi and accused No. 10 Yajubha had opened the kitchen door and seen Manharbas body lying on the floor and burning. At that time manharbas mouth was wide open. There were no shouts or screams heard prior to that point of time nor was any attempt made to save her. It is established that when her- dead body was burning in the kitchen, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were just standing in the Osri of their house allowing the dead body of Manharba to burn away. It is also established that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 did not do anything to put off the fire when dead body of Manharba was burning in their kitchen. It is further established that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 did not at all disclose to Thakarshi or Vajubha or anyone around there that Manharba had accidentally caught fire or that she had committed suicide nor did they make any effort to provide any help to Manharba. That the kitchen door was just shut and it was not closed or locked and the accused Nos. 1 to 5 after allowing the dead body to be burnt, disposed of the remnants of the dead body before dawn, i. e. before 6. 00 a. m. of 14-5- 84. It is established that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 did not even wait for Manharbas husband or her parents to arrive. They could have easily waited if they were not at fault, since the distance between Olak and Chotila could be travelled within two hours. It is therefore clear that they did not want anyone to see the body which was set aflame by them. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 after setting the body of Manharba on fire in their kitchen room kept standing in the osri of their house waiting for the dead body to burn away. It is clear that nothing could be left of that body which could have been carried by a formal funeral procession for cremation. There was no funeral procession taken out as is clear from the fact that the neighbours did not see any such procession and the evidence shows that at 6 oclock in the morning her dead body was not there. There was no funeral procession taken out as is clear from the fact that the neighbours did not see any such procession and the evidence shows that at 6 oclock in the morning her dead body was not there. The important circumstance which emanates from the record is that no one was informed about Manharbas remnants of body being taken for cremation and no one attended the funeral, not even the near relatives and persons of the same community who were accused Nos. 6 to 17. The further chain in the circumstantial evidence which is clearly established is that the information about Manharbas death was sent to her parents only after her body was disposed of by the accused persons. The death was not got registered in the death register nor was any information sent to the Police about any accidental death or suicide. The chain of circumstantial evidence stands firmly completed by the important circumstances that these accused persons have taken up a false defence that the dead body of Manharba was disposed of in the evening on 14-5-84 and that she had died in the morning by catching fire from the primus (stove) at about 5 oclock while preparing tea. ( 23 ) FROM the totality of all the above facts and circumstances established in this case, we are fully satisfied that the death of manharba was caused intentionally by these accused Nos. 1 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention during the night between 13-5-1984 and 14-5-1984 after 11. 00 p. m. and that having caused her death, they set her body on fire at midnight for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence with intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. The facts and circumstances clearly discloses that the death of Manharba was intentionally caused by accused Nos. 1 to 5 who all had participated in the crime in furtherance of their common intention. Therefore, what particular part was played by the individual accused from amongst these accused would not be significant. Under the above circumstances, the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge and his conclusions cannot be accepted. The contentions canvassed on behalf of the accused persons by their learned Counsel on the basis of the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge, as also other contentions canvassed by him cannot be accepted. We therefore hold that all the accused Nos. Under the above circumstances, the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge and his conclusions cannot be accepted. The contentions canvassed on behalf of the accused persons by their learned Counsel on the basis of the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge, as also other contentions canvassed by him cannot be accepted. We therefore hold that all the accused Nos. 1 to 5 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is also established that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 had, by setting the dead body of Manharba on fire in the kitchen and sending the remnants away in an unceremonious and clandestine way before the dawn, had caused important evidence of the offence to disappear in furtherance of their common intention. They are, therefore, guilty of the offences punishable under Section 201, read with Section 34 of the IPC. We, therefore, pass the following order: ( 24 ) THE Acquittal appeal is allowed and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 - original accused nos. 1 to 5 are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under section 201 read with Section 34 of the ipc. ( 25 ) THE accused persons will now be heard on the question of sentence and for that purpose, the learned Counsel states that the matter may be adjourned to enable him to make submissions on the question of sentence on behalf of these accused persons. The bail bonds of the respondents nos. 1 to 5 (original accused Nos. 1 to 5) are cancelled and they are directed to remain present on 28-10-1996 for hearing on the question of sentence. Dt. 23-10-1996 (R. K. Abichandani, J.) dt. 28-10-1996 (R. R. Jain, J.) ( 26 ) ALL the convicts, the original accused nos. 1 to 5, are present in Court. The accused No. 1 Tapubha states that he is abut 65 years of age doing agriculture. His wife Prabhaben accused No. 2 slates that she is a house-wife of 60 years of age. The accused No. 3 Bababa sister-in-law of the deceased states that she has been married since about 7 years and has two children one is of 4 years and the other 2 years of age. She states that she has two brothers-in-law and no sister-in-law. Her husband is a farmer. The accused No. 3 Bababa sister-in-law of the deceased states that she has been married since about 7 years and has two children one is of 4 years and the other 2 years of age. She states that she has two brothers-in-law and no sister-in-law. Her husband is a farmer. She is having her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The accused No. 4 Dolubha states that he is married and has two children one is 8 years old and the other 4 years, and that he is a farmer. The accused No. 5 Chandubha states that he is married having a child of about 8 months and that he is also a farmer. These accused persons have prayed for mercy and submitted that they may not be awarded death sentence. ( 27 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Machhi Singh v. State of punjab, reported in AIR 1983 S. C. 957 submitted that this was a fit case where all the accused persons should be imposed death sentence. He submitted that having regard to the manner of commission of murder, its motive and the socially abhorrent nature of the crime of bride-burning, extreme penalty of death sentence may be imposed on all the accused Nos. 1 to 5 who had brutally murdered the daughter-in-law of the house, who was hardly 18 years of age, burnt her dead body in the house and clandestinely disposed of the remnants of her dead body before dawn. The Supreme court has categorised in the said judgment in Machhi Singhs case, the cases of bride- burning and what are known as dowry deaths as anti-social or socially abhorrent drimes, which deserve death penalty. ( 28 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for all these convicts submits that since there has been a lapse of time by about 12 years and their acquittal is reversed after such a lapse of time into conviction and there is no clear indication as to what particular role was played by particular accused from amongst these convicts, death penalty should not be awarded. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in Ram Adhar v. State of u. P.- 1979 S. C. 702 in which six years lapse of time since the occurrence was considered to be an extenuating circumstance warranting reduction of sentence of death to imprisonment for life. In that case the accused was sentenced to death by the sessions Court which was confirmed by the high Court and the Supreme Court made the observations regarding lapse of time in context of confirming the death sentence imposed upon the accused. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, it was observed that it cannot be disputed that since six long years had elapsed since the occurrence and it would be really hard to confirm the death sentence imposed upon the appellant. In the present case the accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court and all these years they have enjoyed freedom and it is not as if they were undergoing any sentence and imprisonment. If at all, the lapse of time has worked in their favour by their having remained scot free all these years. ( 29 ) RELIANCE was also placed on the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sughar Singh, reported in AIR 1978 S. C. 191 by the learned Counsel for the convicts particularly on the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment, in which it was observed that having regard to considerable time that had elapsed since the date of occurrence and having regard to the fact that the High Court decision of acquittal in their favour was being set aside by the supreme Court, the extreme penalty of death ought not to be imposed upon the three accused persons and instead sentence of life imprisonment would be imposed. In that case, the Sessions Court had convicted the accused persons, but the High Court had reversed that decision and the Supreme court reversed the acquittal by the High court and imposed life imprisonment. That was a case of group rivalry, where five accused persons were lying in ambush on either side of the lane and when the deceased came near the place of occurrence at the exhortation of the accused Nos. 4 and 5, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 fired shots, accused Nos. That was a case of group rivalry, where five accused persons were lying in ambush on either side of the lane and when the deceased came near the place of occurrence at the exhortation of the accused Nos. 4 and 5, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 fired shots, accused Nos. I and 2 with their guns and accused No. 3 with his pistol at deceased, which shots caused several injuries resulting in his death. The lapse of time can surely be considered as one of the factors in the background of the nature of the offence, but no hard and fast proposition is laid down that whenever there is lapse of time, death penalty should not be imposed. The case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalla singh reported in AIR 1979 S. C. 368 on which reliance was sought to be placed on behalf of the convicts was also a case where initially the Sessions Court had convicted and imposed death sentence on circumstantial evidence, the High Court had reversed that decision but the Supreme court while observing that the Sessions judge was not in error in imposing the extreme penalty of death stated that justice did not require confirmation of the death sentence which was therefore reduced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court observed that as the offence was committed more than six years back, the ends of justice do not require that it should confirm the sentence of death passed on the first respondent and therefore, the Supreme court reduced the sentence of death passed on the concerned convict to one of imprisonment for life. This decision also therefore cannot help the convicts. ( 30 ) EVEN in State of U. P. v. Paras Nath and Ors. reported in AIR 1973 S. C. 1073 on which reliance was placed on behalf of the convicts, the Trial Court had imposed capital sentence on four accused persons and life imprisonment on two accused. This decision also therefore cannot help the convicts. ( 30 ) EVEN in State of U. P. v. Paras Nath and Ors. reported in AIR 1973 S. C. 1073 on which reliance was placed on behalf of the convicts, the Trial Court had imposed capital sentence on four accused persons and life imprisonment on two accused. In that context the Supreme Court having regard to the fact that murder was committed as far back as in the year 1968 and that the accused were sentenced to death by the trial Court with the result that till their acquittal by the High Court in 1970 the shadow of death, because of the capital sentence, had haunted them and since it was not possible to assign with certainty the fatal blows on the vulnerable parts of the body of the deceased to any particular accused person or persons, sentence of the accused persons to imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. In the present case these convicts were acquitted by the Trial Court and have not suffered any imprisonment or not under any shadow of death sentence. They have enjoyed the freedom to which they were not entitled because of their unjustified acquittal by the trial Court. Therefore, the said decision cannot assist them. In that case two of the accused persons were sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and two others who were also convicted under the same Sections were sentenced to life imprisonment, some of the other accused persons were convicted under sections 147 and 148 of the IPC. There was prior enmity between the parties and six persons were charged with the murder of one Suresh Singh and the theft of his gun and cartridges. As observed by the Supreme court there was a long-standing enmity between two groups and the facts of that case stand on a different footing and can never be compared with the present case of bride-burning, where as held by us, all these convicts had committed the murder of Manharba and thereafter put her dead body on fire and disposed of her remnants during the night between 13-5- 1984 and 14-5-84. Therefore, this decision cannot assist these convicts. ( 31 ) IT was submitted that accused Nos. Therefore, this decision cannot assist these convicts. ( 31 ) IT was submitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were aged persons while the other accused persons were young persons and therefore, extreme penalty of death should not be imposed. Age may be one of the factors which requires to be considered while imposing death sentence, but it cannot be put as a proposition of law that the aged and the young should never be sentenced to death. Therefore, reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Subamiya Dosmohmed 1979 Criminal Law Reporter (Gujarat) 366 and State of Gujarat v. Anwar 1987 (2) GLH 424 is wholly misconceived. ( 32 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter on the question of sentence. We are of the view that in such cases of bride burning the question of sentence cannot be lightly viewed. The Supreme Court has in machhi Singhs case (supra) classified cases of bride-burning and the cases of dowry deaths as anti-social and socially abhorrent crimes, which merit death penalty. The manner in which Manharbu who was hardly 18 years of age at the relevant time was brutally murdered by these accused nos. 1 to 5 in a heinous way at the middle of that night, within two years of her marriage and having murdered her, her body was set on fire to make a show of accidental death and her remnants disposed of clandestinely before the dawn, it is clear that all these five convicts who were directly involved in the murder of Manharba would not ordinarily merit any lenient approach. We are told by the learned Counsel for these convicts on instructions given to him by husband of Manharba, who is present in Court that he has since remarried in 1988 and has two children. Of course this aspect has no bearing on the question of sentence, but we only take note of the fact pointed out to us. It was submitted on this basis that the whole family would be ruined if all these convicts are sent to gallows. In our view ordinarily these convicts would have merited death penalty, but it appears that the accused Nos. It was submitted on this basis that the whole family would be ruined if all these convicts are sent to gallows. In our view ordinarily these convicts would have merited death penalty, but it appears that the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 all have young children and at this distant point of time death penalty to them will bring their sins on their dependents. Keeping in view all the relevant aspects pointed out to us in respect of these convicts, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met if all these convicts are sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of death penalty. We, therefore, pass the following order: ( 33 ) (A) The accused No. 1 Tapubha bhagwanji, accused No. 2-Prabhaben Wf/o tapubha Bhagwanji, accused No. 3 bababa D/o Tapubha Bhagwanji, accused no. 4 Dolubha Tapubha and accused no. 5 Chandubha Tapubha, who have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code are all hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (B) All the above accused who are also convicted for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. (C) All these convicts should be taken in custody forthwith to undergo the above sentences. Appeal allowed. .