Judgment ( 1. ) BY this common judgment, both Crl. Appeal Nos. 684/94 (Dulesingh and Ors. v. State), and 685/94 (juwansingh v. State) are being decided. These appeals Under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 7. 10. 1994 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 88/94 thereby convicting the appellant Juwansingh for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and appellants Juwansingh, Dulesingh, Umraosingh Arjunsingh and Bherusingh for the offence Under Sections 201/302, IPC and sentencing the appellant Juwansingh to imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 1,000/- Under Section 302, IPC and appellants Juwansingh, Dulesingh, Umraosingh, Arjunsingh and Bherusingh to undergo R. I. for four years with fine Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, appellant Juwansingh shall suffer additional imprisonment for one year Under Section 302, IPC and six months imprisonment Under Sections 201/302, IPC. In default of payment of fine, the remaining appellants shall suffer additional imprisonment for six-months. The substantive sentences of appellant Juwarisingh shall run concurrently. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court were that the deceased Puribai was married with appellant Juwansingh before ten to twelve years from the date of her death in the intervening night of 14th and 15th February, 1994. After marriage, she was ill-treated by the appellants because she was sick and having stomach trouble. She lived with her parents for four to five years where she was got treated for her ailments, After her marriage till her death, she had gone 4 to 5 times on different occasions at her matrimonial home and lastly she was taken before two and a half years by her brother-in-law (Jyeshtha) Bherusingh appellant and PW 13 Savsingh. On 13. 2. 1994 PW 12 Bhairosingh father of deceased Puribai came to the house of the appellants and asked them for sending Puribai with him to which the appellants had agreed to send her on Monday. Though on Monday; BIDAI ceremony was performed, but thereafter, PW 12 Bhairosingh s/o Kachrusingh was requested to stay for one more day and to go in the next day morning. Bhairosingh agreed to this proposal and after taking meals went to sleep in the nearby house. Though on Monday; BIDAI ceremony was performed, but thereafter, PW 12 Bhairosingh s/o Kachrusingh was requested to stay for one more day and to go in the next day morning. Bhairosingh agreed to this proposal and after taking meals went to sleep in the nearby house. On the next day early in the morning appellant Dulesingh came to him and informed that Puribai breathed her last in the night because of stomach pain. Information about her death was given to Village Kotwar PW 10 Kanaji who had sent his son PW 1 Kachru to the Police Station, on the basis of which MARG intimation (Ex. P/l) was recorded. Funeral of the dead body of Puribai was performed by the appellants before arrival of the police. Police reached in the village the same day and recorded the statements of several witnesses. Thereafter ASI Pandey gave intimation to the Sub-Inspector PW 17 Kailash Nahta on 19. 2. 1994 who had again enquired into the matter and registered the offence vide Ex. P/14 {first Information Report ). ( 3. ) CHARGE-SHEET was filed Under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and, therefore, they were put on trial and the learned Trial Judge, finding them guilty, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. ( 4. ) WE have heard Mr. Jaisingh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Singh for the appellants and Mr. G. Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State and perused the entire record. ( 5. ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach problem and was taking regular treatment. There was absolutely no reason for her husband Juwansingh to commit her murder. If he wanted to do so before arrival of her father to take her when she was living in the appellants house for about two and a half months, he could have done so. Learned Counsel has further submitted that at the first instance when the witness Bhairosingh, father of the deceased, PW 11 Mansingh and PW 13 Savsingh did not disclose anything against the appellants in the MARG enquiry conducted by ASI Pandey, but the story of-urder was developed after four to five days when PW. ,17 SI Kailash Nahta against investigated about death of deceased Puribai. ,17 SI Kailash Nahta against investigated about death of deceased Puribai. Learned Counsel further putforth that she died because of stomach disease and her funeral was performed the next date in the natural course in the presence of their relations and villagers and none had objected and raised any kind of doubt about her death. According to him, there is no sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence to warrant conviction of the appellants. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. ( 7. ) IT is true that on 15. 2. 1994, PW 1 Kachru, the son of Village Kotwar Kanaji had lodged a report about the death of Puribai. This witness has been declared hostile. In para 6 of his statement, he has stated that when the deceased was taken to the cremation ground, he proceeded for police station for lodging the report about her death. He also stated that one day prior to her death, she was normal but in the night because of stomach pain she died and she was suffering from stone problem and oftenly she was having abdominal pain. ( 8. ) PW 3 Munnabai is the sister of the deceased Puribai. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that Puribai was married before 15 to 16 years from her death with appellant Juwansingh. After marriage he was beating her. This witness and her husband both were residing permanently with her father. The deceased Puribai, after her marriage, lived with them at her parents house for about four to five years. Thereafter, the appellant Bherusingh and witness Savsingh (PW 13) with promise to keep her properly took her to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, when her father went there to take her, she was murdered. This witness was not present in the village of the appellants. She has deposed about the incident as per information given to her by her father PW 12 Bhairosingh. But, PW 12 Bhairosingh nowhere stated that he had disclosed about the happening of the incident to her. Therefore, her statement in the Court about the circumstances narrated by her raising doubt about the murder of Puribai is not admissible and is hit by law of hear-say. ( 9. But, PW 12 Bhairosingh nowhere stated that he had disclosed about the happening of the incident to her. Therefore, her statement in the Court about the circumstances narrated by her raising doubt about the murder of Puribai is not admissible and is hit by law of hear-say. ( 9. ) THIS witness Munnabai (PW 3) has straightway denied in Court about illness of the deceased in para 2 of her cross-examination, but, in para 3 she has admitted that before two/three years of her death, she was brought from her matrimonial home for treatment. In para 5, she has admitted in her case-diary statement (Ex. D/1) regarding the fact disclosed before the police about deceaseds suffering from stomach pain and her treatment and also failed to disclose any reason for material and important omission i. e. when appellant Bherusingh and witness Savsingh (PW 13) came to take the deceased last time. They had promised for keeping her sister properly. In para 7, she has admitted the fact that her husband had attended the funeral of her sister Puribai. ( 10. ) AFTER going through the statement of this witness, we are of the opinion that this witness was deliberately suppressing the fact of sickness of the deceased and her suffering from stomach pain or that she was brought by her father and got treated her for about three to four years. One thing is also emerging from her statement that her husband had attended the funeral. That shows that her husband did not raise any objection with regard to the death of the deceased. Same is the case with father PW 12 Bhairosingh s,/o Kachru whowas also present and he too did not raise any objection about her death and performance of funeral though in the second statement recorded on 19. 4. 1994, he has alleged about raising of objection and murder of his daughter. ( 11. ) THIS witness PW 12 Bhairosingh is also contradicted with his earlier statement (Ex. D/2) which was the second statement recorded on 19. 2. 1994 by PW 17 SI Kailash Nahta. In para 7 he has denied about giving the statement before the police that the deceased lived for five years prior to her death and she was suffering from stomach pain, he got treated her and thereafter she was sent to her matrimonial home. 2. 1994 by PW 17 SI Kailash Nahta. In para 7 he has denied about giving the statement before the police that the deceased lived for five years prior to her death and she was suffering from stomach pain, he got treated her and thereafter she was sent to her matrimonial home. In paras 8 and 9 also he has denied about material omission and contradiction i. e. he was not willing to send his daughter, but because of promise by appellant Bherusingh and his relative witness PW 13 Savsingh, he had sent Puribai with them. The allegation levelled by him regarding not allowing him to see the dead body of his daughter and about lodging of the report at the Police Station, locking him inside the room, threatening him etc. are all missing in his case-diary statement Ex. D/2, for which he has offered no explanation. According to him, he had disclosed everything before the police. In para 12, he has stated that he was also taken to the cremation ground and participated in the funeral. ( 12. ) PW 13 Savsingh is a witness who had gone alongwith the appellant Bherusingh to bring the deceased to her matrimonial home. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that she was sent because of their promise. But, this fact is missing in his case-diary statement. In para 10, he has deposed that his statements were recorded after about eight to nine days and on the date of incident police came to the village, but his statements were not recorded by the police. On that day, he did not disclose anything before the police. ( 13. ) PW 4 Gumansingh has stated that deceased Puribai and her husband appellant Juwansingh had no dispute and oftenly the deceased used to go and come back from her parents house. She died because of stomach pain and appellant Dulesingh early in the morning came to him and disclosed that Puribai had died because of stomach pain and, thereafter, he himself with 22 to 25 villagers of the village and father of the deceased as also other relations from her parents side also assembled and participated in her funeral. Father of the deceased Bhairosingh (PW 12) came in the village two days prior to her death for meeting with her because she remained sick. This witness has not been declared hostile to the prosecution. Father of the deceased Bhairosingh (PW 12) came in the village two days prior to her death for meeting with her because she remained sick. This witness has not been declared hostile to the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution is bound by his statement. At the time of the funeral, her brother-in-law Ratansingh had also reached and had participated therein. ( 14. ) PW 11 Mansingh is the witness who has deposed that early in the morning when the villagers were going to the house of appellants because of death of Puribai, he had also reached over there and when deceased was given bath before funeral by ladies he went inside the house and saw injury at her neck and stomach. At that time, blood was not oozing from the wounds. He also attended the funeral along with the villagers. At_the time of funeral, so many persons were present, but he did not disclose about witnessing the injury at the neck and stomach of the deceased. He admits that the same day police had reached in the village and he disclosed about witnessing the injuries on the person of the deceased. In cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that 30 to 40 persons had attended the funeral of the deceased and when bath was being given inside the house after putting curtain even then he had gone inside and saw the injuries. This statement of the witness does not appear to be acceptable as correct. He would not have been allowed to enter inside the room when the ladies were giving bath to the body of the deceased. He has admitted the fact that his statement was recorded after three days by the police. ( 15. ) PW 17 Investigating Officer Kailash Nahta in para 13 of his statement has deposed that the inquest Inquiry was done by ASI Pandey and registration of inquest was also done by Pandey who had recorded the statements of PW 11 Mansingh, PW 12 Bhairosingh s/o Kachrusingh and PW 13 Savsingh the same day, but none of these three witnesses had complained about the death of deceased Puribai. Thereafter, on 19. 2. 1994, he himself had gone to village Munj i. e. after 4-5 days and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, on 19. 2. 1994, he himself had gone to village Munj i. e. after 4-5 days and recorded the statements of the witnesses. This admission of PW 17 Kailash Nahta about non-raising of objection by the witness the same day about murder of deceased Puribai is very fatal to the prosecution case. ( 16. ) THIS witness has also admitted that the statements of these three witnesses were recorded by ASI Pandey the same day, but these statements have not been filed along with the charge-sheet in the Court. (See: Para 18 ). According to him, it was not necessary to file the statements of the witnesses recorded during inquest inquiry. ( 17. ) WE find material substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that on the date of death, even after arrival of police, nobody had raised any doubt or objection about the death of deceased Puribai though they had every opportunity and their statements were recorded and the same have been withheld by the prosecution obviously because all those statements were not in the line of prosecution case which was later on builtup and placed before the Court. We are of the opinion that this conduct of the prosecution witnesses as well as the investigating agency is sufficient to discard the prosecution case especially when the post-mortem report is not available for establishing the homicidal death and there is no eye-witness of the incident regarding commission of murder of Puribai. The statement of her father Bhairosingh (PW 12) and sister Munnabai (PW 3) are clearly establishing the fact that the deceased was suffering from severe stomach problem for which she was taken by them and also got her treated for about five years. Thereafter, she was sent by them at her matrimonial home. We have no hesitation to hold that the story of murder was concocted on the basis of circumstantial evidence after about five days, though the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to lodge their grievance on the same day before the police. Because of their abnormal conduct, their testimony is not worth placing reliance [see: Muluwe S/o Binda and Ors. v. State of M. P. , AIR 1976 SC 989 ; Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab, IV (1998) CCR 103 (SC)= air 1999 SC 324 , and State of Karnataka v. Babu and Ors. Because of their abnormal conduct, their testimony is not worth placing reliance [see: Muluwe S/o Binda and Ors. v. State of M. P. , AIR 1976 SC 989 ; Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab, IV (1998) CCR 103 (SC)= air 1999 SC 324 , and State of Karnataka v. Babu and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 31 and 32]. ( 18. ) IN view of the discussion as aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. ( 19. ) IN the result, these appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants for the offences with which they have been charged, are hereby set aside. They are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if deposited shall be refunded to them. ( 20. ) LET the original of this judgment be retained in the record of Crl. Appeal No. 684/94 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of Crl. Appeal No. 685/94.