J U D G M E N T Ravula Ramesh, sole accused in S.C.No.125/98 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, though acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC, being aggrieved of the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Huzurabad filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurabad which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.125/97 and the same was committed to the Court of Session being exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge had taken the above case on file as S.C.No. 125/98. On appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-16 and also Exs.P-1 to P-18 and M.Os.1 to 4, the learned Judge recorded acquittal as far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned but however convicted the appellant/accused under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. 3. The facts in brief are as hereunder : 4. On the intervening night of 1/2-7-1997 at about 00.30 hours, the accused Ravula Ramesh killed his wife Swaroopa by strangulating her with a saree after constantly harassing her, suspecting her fidelity and later informed LW-4 and others with an intention to conceal the evidence of murder committed by him and to misguide the investigating agency that his wife committed suicide by hanging and he untied the saree and made her to sleep on the cot and she died within few minutes thereafter. This incident took place at Rangaiahpalli H/o. Vangara village which is within the limits of Vangara police station. On 2-7-1997 at 10.00 hours the complainant lodged a complaint at Vangara Police Station stating that he is the resident of Vangara village and his younger daughter Swaroopa (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was given in marriage to the accused Ravula Ramesh about 18 months prior to this incident and he is a resident of Rangaiahpalli. At the time of the marriage, he gave an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as per the demand of the accused. The accused was in the habit of drinking and was suspecting the character of the deceased. Therefore, he did not allow the deceased to do any farming work or any other works and was not even allowing her to talk with others and was beating her under the influence of intoxication. 5,000/- as per the demand of the accused. The accused was in the habit of drinking and was suspecting the character of the deceased. Therefore, he did not allow the deceased to do any farming work or any other works and was not even allowing her to talk with others and was beating her under the influence of intoxication. Due to this harassment, the deceased visited his house atleast 5 times. About 11 days prior to this incident, the accused got separated from his parents and was living in a rented house in the same village and was residing in the house of one Mamidala Ellaiah along with the deceased. On the early morning of 2-7-1997 one Sandi Sailu, resident of Rangaiahpalli village came to him and informed that on 1-7-1997, the accused picked up a quarrel in a drunken condition with the deceased by using filthy language and on that the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the house. Immediately, the complainant along with his wife and relatives went to Rangaiahpalli village and found the deceased dead due to constant harassment meted out to her by the accused. He further stated in the complaint that the deceased must have either committed suicide by hanging or the accused must have killed her and he requested the police to take necessary action. 5. On the strength of the report given by PW-1 Cr.No.6/97 was registered by the Vangara Police Station under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and the same was registered by PW-15 who had taken up the investigation and filed requisition before PW-16 for holding inquest who in turn conducted inquest before PW-12 and others. PW11 had photographed the dead body and PW-15 also had drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence and recorded certain statements. Subsequent to the conduct of autopsy PW-15 altered the Section of law from Sections 498-A and 306 IPC to Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and submitted express memos to all the concerned authorities. The Circle Inspector of Police had taken up further investigation, verified the investigation and filed charge sheet. Submissions of Sri T. Mahender Rao; 6. Sri T.Mahender Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/accused would suibmit that having recorded an acquittal in relation to the charge under Section 302 IPC, conviction recorded under Sections 201 and 498-A IPC cannot be sustained. The Circle Inspector of Police had taken up further investigation, verified the investigation and filed charge sheet. Submissions of Sri T. Mahender Rao; 6. Sri T.Mahender Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/accused would suibmit that having recorded an acquittal in relation to the charge under Section 302 IPC, conviction recorded under Sections 201 and 498-A IPC cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of PW-3 in detail and also had pointed out to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the said witnesses and had submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Judge to the effect that the information how the incident happened was not furnished to PW-3 by the accused had been taken as a ground which definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the other evidence available on record and had pointed out that PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses. The Counsel also would further submit that the Circle Inspector of Police was not examined and PW-15 had deposed about PW-9 and PW-IO stating before the Circle Inspector of Police as in Exs.P-4 and P-5. The learned Counsel concluded that on the strength of such evidence, just on suspicion conviction had been recorded and hence the said findings are liable to be set aside in the Appeal. Submissions by Sri Mohd.Osman Shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor; 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had pointed out that the evidence of PW-I and PW-2 is clear, cogent and convincing well supported even by panchayatdars relating to harassment. The acquittal as far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned had been recorded by giving benefit of doubt and that does not mean automatically the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal relating to other charges. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed strong reliance on DHIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB(1). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that the mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer may not be fatal in all cases. Reliance was placed on STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BHASKAR KUSHAR KOTHARKAR(2). 8. Heard both the Counsel. Findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge : 9. The learned Sessions Judge at para-9 had discussed the evidence of PW-I. PW-2. PW-7. PW-8. Reliance was placed on STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BHASKAR KUSHAR KOTHARKAR(2). 8. Heard both the Counsel. Findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge : 9. The learned Sessions Judge at para-9 had discussed the evidence of PW-I. PW-2. PW-7. PW-8. PW-15 and PW-16 and had recorded a finding that the charge under Section 498-A IPC, that the accused was harassing the deceased and was ill-treating the deceased with cruelty with a view to coercing her not to talk to any body and also by suspending her character, been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge at paras 10 and 11 had recorded findings on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, PW-8, PW-11 PW-12, PW-14 to PW-16 and ultimately came to the conclusion that though the evidence placed by the prosecution retarding the above charge leads to grave suspicion that the accused alone must have been responsible for the death of the deceased, but however grave the suspicion may be, it cannot replace the legal proof and hence the prosecution is not able to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused is acquitted of the charge for an offence under Section 302 IPC by giving benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge also appreciated the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-8, PW-12, PW-14 and PW-15 m relation to the third charge under Section 201 IPC and after discussing the same in detail at para-12, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 201 IPC have been satisfied in this case from the evidence which the learned Judge discussed above thoroughly and the prosecution had been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt against the accused an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC though acquitted of the main offence under Section 302 IPC and there is no legal impediment to impose conviction under Section 201 IPC in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in KALAVATHI Vs. STATE (3). Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 : 10. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. PW-2 is the brother of the deceased. PW-1 deposed about the marriage and out of Rs.50,000/- dowry agreed he paid Rs.30,000/- at the time of the marriage and he gave gold jewellery worth 1½ tola and gave household articles, a wrist watch and a cycle. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 : 10. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. PW-2 is the brother of the deceased. PW-1 deposed about the marriage and out of Rs.50,000/- dowry agreed he paid Rs.30,000/- at the time of the marriage and he gave gold jewellery worth 1½ tola and gave household articles, a wrist watch and a cycle. For one year the accused and the deceased lived amicably and thereafter the accused was beating the deceased and she was being suspected by the accused for every action, whenever she talked to anybody or goes anywhere. PW-1 deposed that the deceased was also attending to agricultural work along with the accused. The accused was living separately from his parents and the deceased died in a rented house belonging to a weaver. He observed some injury on the neck of the deceased and he gave complaint to the police. One person by name Sailu (PW-3) came to inform about the death of the deceased and he went and saw the dead body of the deceased. On the same day he gave complaint to the police regarding the death of the deceased to Vangara Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the complaint and it was scribed to his dictation. At the time of inquest over the dead body all the family members were present. PW-1 further deposed that whenever the deceased used to come to his house after her marriage she used to inform that her husband was beating her and he (PW-1) used to console the deceased and was sending her to her husband’s house. PW-1 was cross- examined. In cross-examination PW-1 deposed that he got written in Ex.P-1 that he gave a cash ofRs.30,000/- to his son-in-law/accused at the time of marriage. He stated the same fact in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also. He further deposed that it is not true to suggest that he did not give any dowry either of cash or gold jewellery and he cannot say on what dates or months the deceased came to his house and informed about the harassment. He had not informed to the police regarding any panchayat held in connection with the affair of the deceased with the accused or his family members. He had not informed to the police regarding any panchayat held in connection with the affair of the deceased with the accused or his family members. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the deceased was suffering from stomach ache and she was unable to bear the pain and that unable to bear the stomach pain the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. 11. PW-2 is the brother of the deceased who had supported the version of PW-l. In cross-examination this witness deposed that there were four or five panchayats within six months. PW-2 did not inform the police that there were panchayats for four or five times within a span of six times. The deceased did not come to their house during her stay of 11 days in a rented house and he used to go to the deceased once in five or six days after the accused and the deceased were separated from the parents of the accused and they were informed of the said fact by the deceased. After separation from the parents the accused and the deceased were alright for two or three days. This witness also denied the suggestions relating to the stomach pain of the deceased and demand of dowry. Evidence of PW-4. PW-7 and PW-8: 12. PW-4 deposed that the deceased died about two years back in a rented house. The distance between his house and the rented house of the accused is about 20 yards. The deceased and the accused were living amicably in the rented house during their stay and he learnt about the death of the deceased when the parents of the deceased were weeping. PW-7 deposed about panchayat. and the deceased informing the elders that the accused was beating her as she was not going for any work. PW-8 also deposed about the panchayat and the caste elders advising the accused and the deceased to live amicably. Evidence of PW-5. PW-6, PW-9 and PW-10: 13. These witnesses were declared hostile. Evidence of PW-11. PW-12 and PW-16: 14. PW-11 is the photographer. PW-12 was one of the inquest panchayatdars in relation to Ex.P-14. PW-16 is the M.R.O. who deposed about the conduct of inquest Ex.P-14 and this witness also deposed as per the opinion of the panchas and blood relatives of the deceased, the deceased died due to harassment of her husband/accused who was always beating her. PW-11 is the photographer. PW-12 was one of the inquest panchayatdars in relation to Ex.P-14. PW-16 is the M.R.O. who deposed about the conduct of inquest Ex.P-14 and this witness also deposed as per the opinion of the panchas and blood relatives of the deceased, the deceased died due to harassment of her husband/accused who was always beating her. He further deposed that as per the opinion of the panchas the death of the deceased might also be due to suicidal cause by hanging. Medical evidence: 15. PW-14 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who had conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and the post mortem certificate is Ex.P-15. The cause of death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation and the time of death of the deceased prior to post mortem examination is 36 to 48 hours. PW-13 and PW-15 are the Investigating Officers. PW-13 is the Police Constable who had escorted the dead body of the deceased for the purpose of post mortem examination. PW-15 is the Sub-Inspector at the relevant point of time who had registered the case. Ex.P-l is the altered F.I.R. This witness deposed about all the details of investigation and also deposed that PW-5 and PW-6 stated before him as in Exs.P-2 and P-3. This witness further deposed that PW-9 and PW-10 stated before the C.I. of Police as in Exs.P-4 and P-5. But however, it is pertinent to note that the C.I. of Police was not examined. Evidence of PW-3: 16. PW-3 deposed that he is one of the caste elders of Gowda caste. He deposed that at about 1 ‘0 clock on the date of the death of the deceased, in the night, he was informed by the accused that his wife died in his house and he did not give the particulars as to how she met her death. In the house of the accused, only the accused and the deceased were residing. The accused came to his house and informed about the death of the deceased and requested him to inform to the parents of the deceased about her death. He did not notice any injuries on the deceased and he cannot say definitely whether the deceased herself died or she was murdered by the accused. 17. PW-1 deposed that he observed some injury on the neck of the deceased. He did not notice any injuries on the deceased and he cannot say definitely whether the deceased herself died or she was murdered by the accused. 17. PW-1 deposed that he observed some injury on the neck of the deceased. PW-4 deposed that he did not observe any injury on the person of the deceased. PW-8 no doubt deposed that he observed a black scar on the neck of the deceased when he saw the dead body of the deceased. Apart from this aspect of the matter, certain findings had been recorded by the learned Judge while giving benefit of doubt as far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned. On appreciation of the evidence referred to supra, the findings which had been specified above were recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. It is needless to say that benefit of doubt had been given and acquittal had been recorded as far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned. 18. On appreciation of the evidence referred to supra, the findings which had been specified above were recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. It is needless to say that benefit of doubt had been given and acquittal had been recorded as far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned. 18. The other charge under Section 498-A IPC reads as hereunder : “That you on the intervening night of 1/2nd day of July, 1997 at about 0030 hours and prior thereto at Rangaiahpalli h/o.Vangara village being the husband of Swarupa, aged about 18 years, subjected her to harassment, ill-treatment and cruelty with a view to coercing her not to talk to anybody and not to attend farm work and beat her constantly suspecting her fidelity and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” Likewise the charge under Section 201 IPC reads as hereunder: “That you on the date, at the same time and place as mentioned in charge No.1 supra and during the course of same transaction as mentioned in charges I and 2, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence of murder of your wife by you punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed, did certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear by hanging the dead body of your wife to a beam in your house with the intention of screening yourselves from legal punishment and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” The evidence of PW-l, PW-2, PW-7, PW-8, PW-15 and PW-16 and PW-3, PW-4, PW-8, PW-12, PW-14 and PW-15 had been taken into consideration by the learned Judge while recording conviction in relation to the aforesaid charges. It is pertinent to note that PW-I and PW-2 are the relative witnesses of the deceased. The evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 in relation to the panchayatys also is not clear. Apart from this aspect of the matter, there is variation in between the evidence of PW-l and PW-2 in this regard. The evidence on record is that the accused was suspecting every action of the deceased and was harassing her. Except this evidence there is no other evidence available on record to prove harassment so as to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. The evidence on record is that the accused was suspecting every action of the deceased and was harassing her. Except this evidence there is no other evidence available on record to prove harassment so as to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. Section 498-A IPC reads as hereunder : Husband or relative of husband of a woman 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 purposes 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 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 or any person related to her to meet such demand. It is no doubt true that the Investigating Officer i.e., C.I. of Police was not examined and in the light of the fact that benefit of doubt had been given in relation to charge under Section 302 IPC, Exs.P-4 and P-5 in relation to PW-9 and PW-10may not assume much importance. In the decision referred (2) supra it was held that non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal when no serious contradictions had been pointed out in respect of the evidence of important eye witnesses. While dealing with this aspect the Apex Court observed: “It is true that as a part of fair trial the Investigating Officer should be examined in the trial cases especially when a serious sessions trial was being held against the accused. While dealing with this aspect the Apex Court observed: “It is true that as a part of fair trial the Investigating Officer should be examined in the trial cases especially when a serious sessions trial was being held against the accused. If any of the prosecution witnesses give any evidence contrary to their previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or if there is any omission of certain material particulars, the previous statement of these witnesses could be proved only by examining the Investigating Officer who must have recorded the statement of these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the present case, no such serious contradiction is pointed out in respect of the evidence of the important eye-witnesses. So also, the non- examination of Head Constable who recorded F.I. statement is not of serious consequence as PW-I was examined to prove the fact that she had given the statement before the police.” Even if it is held that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the C.I. of Police, is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case, there must be legally acceptable evidence to prove the ingredients of offences with which the accused had been charged with. Section 201 IPC reads as hereunder : Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender : Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. If a capital offence - shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If punishable with imprisonment for life - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; If punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.” Strong reliance was placed on the decision referred (1) supra wherein the Apex Court while dealing with Section 201 IPC held at para-10 as hereunder: “Reliance was placed on Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 CrI.L.J. 154) where the Court held that there was no direct evidence to show that the appellant therein was aware that an offence had been committed and there was no direct circumstantial evidence which was essential to prove the ingredients of the offence. In the instant case the glaring facts are to be noticed, Shinder Kaur sustained burn injuries. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had taken the injured Shinder Kaur to the hospital. But the defence witness examined in the case deposed that Shinder Kaur was taken initially to a private doctor and as per his instructions she was taken to another government hospital but on the way she died. The first appellant did not inform the matter to the police and the body was cremated without any information being given to the police. The second appellant was residing near the residence of the first appellant. It is also pertinent to note that PW-2, the father of the deceased gave evidence to the effect that he was not informed of the death of his daughter at all and he came to know of her death through PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh. The second appellant was residing near the residence of the first appellant. It is also pertinent to note that PW-2, the father of the deceased gave evidence to the effect that he was not informed of the death of his daughter at all and he came to know of her death through PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh. The first appellant contended that there were about 50 persons at the cremation place including PW-2 and his relatives. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the cremation was done in the presence of PW-2 or any close relative of the deceased. The failure to inform PW-2 and the police about the incident and the fact that the injured was not admitted in any hospital shows that everything was done in a clandestine and secret manner and circumstances of the case would show that the second appellant was party to the secret disposal of the dead body. Hence, knowledge can be attributed to him that he knew well that an offence had been committed and he caused disappearance of the evidence. We do not find any illegality in the conviction of the second appellant under Section 201 IPC”. In the present case except the evidence of PW-3 there is no other evidence available and it is no doubt true that PW-3 had deposed that reason had not been given by the accused but however the same was informed to PW-3 in all promptness by the accused to carry the information to the parents of the deceased. It is no doubt true that PW-3 was not cross-examined in relation to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement wherein it is stated that the reason of the death of the deceased also had been furnished to PW-3. In the absence of cross-examination of PW-3 in relation to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, what had been said to have been said by PW-3 before police and recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement cannot be taken into consideration. It is no doubt a lapse on the part of the Counsel in not putting such questions to PW-3. At the best this can be said to be a suspicious circumstance but definitely cannot be said to be a circumstance of such a nature which would point out the guilt of the accused and the guilt of the accused alone so as to attract the charge under Section 201 IPC. At the best this can be said to be a suspicious circumstance but definitely cannot be said to be a circumstance of such a nature which would point out the guilt of the accused and the guilt of the accused alone so as to attract the charge under Section 201 IPC. On a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded by the learned Judge and also the evidence available on record, in view of the fact that the evidence of PW-1. PW-2 and the other alleged panchayatdars who deposed about the harassment not being sufficient so as to attrach the guilt of the accused under Section 498-A IPC and also in view of the fact that the only circumstance explained by PW-3 may not be sufficient so as to sustain the conviction under Section 201 IPC and in the absence of any other evidence pointing out the guilt of the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that on such evidence, having recorded benefit of doubt relating to the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicting the appellant/accused under charges of offences under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC, definitely cannot be a he said to be in accordance with law. Mere suspicion cannot be a substitute to proof and in the absence of proof in accordance with law, it would be unsafe to convict the accused on the strength of such evidence. Hence the said findings recorded by the learned Judge are hereby set aside and acquittal is recorded. 19. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. --X--