Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 97 (HP)

NARESH KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-05-14

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This Jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby the appellant/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 201 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 498-A IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Sita Devi (since deceased and referred to as such hereafter) daughter of Dropti Devi (PW-2) and sister of Santoshi Devi (PW-7) was married to the accused 14/15 years before. One daughter and one son were born out of the wedlock. The deceased was kept by the accused nicely for about 2/3 years but then he started beating her. This fact was brought to the notice of PW-2 and PW-7 by the deceased, who was advised by them to stay in the matrimonial house because she had been blessed with children. The deceased used to visit her mother after 3 or 4 months and on such visits had been complaining about the harassment and beating by the accused. Once the acts of harassment and cruelty by the accused to the deceased were reported to the police vide complaint Ext. PO but because of a compromise complaint was filed by HC Lal Chand (PW-11) vide endorsement Ext. PP. About a year before her death, the deceased had come to her mothers house and was staying there when the accused came and took her to his house. On 1.4.2000 PW-2 initially learnt that the deceased was seriously ill and later came to know that she had died. On coming to know about the death of the deceased PW-2 went to the house of the accused where Sita Devi (PW-3) Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and Ashok Kumar (PW-4) were also present. On inquiries, the accused had claimed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. PW-2 being suspicious lodged report Ext. On coming to know about the death of the deceased PW-2 went to the house of the accused where Sita Devi (PW-3) Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and Ashok Kumar (PW-4) were also present. On inquiries, the accused had claimed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. PW-2 being suspicious lodged report Ext. PS asking for inquiry into the matter. Subsequently her statement Ext. PH was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PN under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC, was recorded at Police Station, Jogindernagar and investigation followed. ASI Bishan Dass (PW-13) after visiting the spot got the dead body photographed by Bhagirath (PW-8) negatives whereof are Exts.PM/9 to PM/16 and the developed photographs are Exts.PM/1 to PM/8. Two tied Dupatas produced by the accused from the spot were taken in possession vide memo Ext. PA. PW-13 prepared the inquest reports Exts. PB and PC and sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by a team of three Doctors in Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar and one of the members of such team was Dr. Ashwani Kumar (PW-1). As per the post mortem report Ext. PE, it has been opined that the deceased died of suffocation caused by asphyxia as a result of smothering. Viscera of the deceased and her wearing apparels were preserved and sent for chemical analysis and as per the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PF poison or alcohol were not detected in the said articles. At the time of conducting the post mortem examination photographs of the dead body were also got taken negatives whereof are Exts.PD/3 and PD/4 and the photographs are Exts.PD/1 and PD/2. While in custody the accused on interrogation by S.I. Parkash Chand (PW-14) made a disclosure statement Ext.PL about having kept concealed a pillow in the room of his house and pursuant to such statement he got recovered a pillow from the room i.e. the place of occurrence which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PK. During investigation, the complaint lodged by the deceased against the accused to the police about her beating Ext. PO alongwith the statement of the deceased Ext. PQ and endorsement by PW-11 Ext. PP were taken in possession vide memo Ext. PR. PK. During investigation, the complaint lodged by the deceased against the accused to the police about her beating Ext. PO alongwith the statement of the deceased Ext. PQ and endorsement by PW-11 Ext. PP were taken in possession vide memo Ext. PR. Because of the medical opinion and recovery of pillow vide memo Ext.PL the offence under Section 306 IPC was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. On being satisfied of the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime, a charge-sheet was submitted against him by the S.H.O. concerned and the accused, thus, came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on a charge under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC. 3. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed that on 1.4.2000 during recess period his daughter Mamta Devi (DW-4) informed him in the Post Office where he was on duty that the deceased was hanging with Dupata in the house. He came to the house and found the deceased hanging. He removed her to the ground and informed Up-Pradhan Ashok Kumar (PW-4), who, alongwith Ramesh and others, came to the spot. It is further claimed by the accused that he informed telephonically his father and mother-in-law about the death of the deceased on the same day. It is further claimed that Dharam Singh (PW-5) had given beatings to the deceased on the previous night i.e. the night of 31.3.2000 and he might have committed the murder of the deceased and that he never maltreated or beat the deceased and is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The accused led defence evidence and examined 7 witnesses in his defence. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 5. It is not in dispute that deceased died of an unnatural death. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 5. It is not in dispute that deceased died of an unnatural death. The point of controversy, however, is that according to the prosecution the death of the deceased was homicidal as she died of suffocation caused by asphyxia as a result of smothering by the accused whereas according to the defence the death of the deceased was suicidal caused by hanging. Therefore, the following questions arise for determination in this appeal :— (1) Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal? (2) In case the death of the deceased is found homicidal, whether her death was caused by the accused? Question No. 1 : 6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that a perusal of the F.I.R. Ext. PN and its basis statement of PW-2 Dropti Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PH reveals that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. Recovery of two tied Dupatas used as ligature vide memo Ext. PJ and statement of Kumari Mamta (DW-4) daughter of the deceased and that of the accused (DW-5) fully prove that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with the Dupatas found on the spot. It was further contended that Dupatas are a soft article and because of hanging with them ligature marks on the neck of the deceased might not have been caused. The learned Counsel referred to Page-132 of Coxs Medico Legal Court Companion (4th Edition) wherein it has been observed that absence of a ligature mark round the neck does not absolutely negative hanging. A sheet or other soft material used may leave no mark at all. The learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to the photographs Exts.PM/1 to PM/8 and submitted that a bare look at Exts.PM/2 to PM/4 shows that there are certain marks on the neck of the deceased which can be marks caused by soft ligature like Dupata. On the strength of the above contention the learned Counsel urged that the medical opinion given by PW-1 is unreliable and cannot form basis for holding that this is a case of homicidal and not of suicidal death. On the strength of the above contention the learned Counsel urged that the medical opinion given by PW-1 is unreliable and cannot form basis for holding that this is a case of homicidal and not of suicidal death. 7. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the reasonings and conclusions in the impugned judgment, contended that in view of the medical opinion given by PW-1 it is firmly established that it is a case of death by suffocation due to asphyxia caused by smothering, hence, homicidal. 8. It is true that vide Ext. PH the version about the cause of death of the deceased is that she committed suicide by hanging. This is the initial version given by PW-2. It is not in dispute that PW-2 is not an eye witness of the occurrence. She visited the house of the accused only after having came to know about the death of the deceased. Whatever was then stated by her is based on the past conduct of the accused, the information given by the deceased and whatever she learnt and assumed before the making of statement Ext. PH. Therefore, her version regarding cause of death of the deceased being presumptive cannot be said to be true to her personal knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased and has to be appreciated in view of the other facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As per the medical opinion formed by three medical officers vide post mortem report Ext. PE proved by PW-1 the deceased died of suffocation caused by asphyxia as a result of smothering. This expert opinion is reaffirmed and possibility of the death caused by hanging is specifically ruled out by PW-1 in his evidence when he states in his cross - examination that the opinion given is after ruling out the possibility of suicide. He claims to have formed the opinion because of absence of ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, absence of any foreign material or food in the respiratory track particularly in larynx and the wind pipe being highly congested which is suggestive of suffocation. 10. It may also be pointed out here that in certain eventualities, as is the opinion of some of the authors of treatises on medical jurisprudence including Dr. 10. It may also be pointed out here that in certain eventualities, as is the opinion of some of the authors of treatises on medical jurisprudence including Dr. Modi, ligature mark may not be present on the neck of the deceased even in the case of hanging but this opinion cannot be read in isolation. As per Dr. Modis Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (22nd Edition), one can safely say that death was due to hanging if in addition to cord mark, there was dribling of saliva from the angle of the mouth, ecchymoses and slight abrasion around the ligature mark, laceration of the intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood within their walls and the post-mortem signs of asphyxia and there is absence of any other cause of death like fatal injury or poisoning (See P.257) and neck will be stretched and elongated (See P.255). This is indisputably not a case of death by fatal injury or poisoning. But apparently the signs indicative of a death by hanging except asphyxia as aforesaid were not noticed at the time of post mortem examination which rules out hanging in this case and lends further credibility to the medical opinion. 11. The above conclusion is further fortified by the defence suggested to witnesses and stated by the accused. Sita Devi (PW-3), Ashok Kumar (PW-4) and Dharam Singh (PW-5) had been questioned in their cross-examination for the accused if they knew that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. Thus the trend of cross-examination shows that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. This aspect becomes more clear from the cross-examination of PW-5 to whom the accused suggested that he was the cause of the marital discord between the accused and the deceased and he is the cause of death of the deceased, since she had gone to his house on the previous night, that he was having friendship with the deceased and that he is responsible for the death of the deceased since he wanted to save himself from being defamed. It has put to the Investigating Officer (PW-14) whether he investigated the case from the angle that some other person was involved in the "murder" of the deceased. It has put to the Investigating Officer (PW-14) whether he investigated the case from the angle that some other person was involved in the "murder" of the deceased. In answer to question No. 48 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that "Dharam Singh (PW-5) had given beating to my wife on the previous night i.e. 31.3.2000 and he may have committed murder of my wife." Even Ramesh Chand (DW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination that wife of the accused (the deceased) was murdered on 1.4.2000. 12. The aforesaid suggested and admitted defence of the accused though tends to hold PW-5 responsible for the murder of the deceased but nonetheless it reveals that accused himself claims the death of the deceased as homicidal because of the relations between PW-5 and the deceased and thus lends full credence to the medical opinion about the cause of death of the deceased. 13. Kumari Mamta (DW-4) daughter of the deceased and the accused no doubt has stated that on 1.4.2000 when she came back from the school at about 1.30 p.m. she saw her mother hanging and called the accused. The accused while appearing as his own witness as DW-5 corroborates this version. However, their evidence is not reliable and confidence inspiring for various reasons. DW-4 admittedly resides with her Bua (sister of the deceased) who herself had appeared as DW-1 to state that there was no dispute between the accused and the deceased and they were living happily which is not true as we will be discussing a little later. DW-4 had admittedly met the accused outside the Court on the day she was examined before making her statement in the Court. Though she has denied the suggestion that she gave her evidence on being tutored by her Bua and the accused but in the facts and circumstances of the case her brief statement in the examination in chief appears to be tutored. DW-4 is a girl of about 13 years of age residing with her Bua, therefore, she can be legitimately expected under her influence. Her mother is no more, therefore, she can be prompted to save her father the accused. The accused at the relevant time was admittedly an employee in the Post Office. DW-4 is a girl of about 13 years of age residing with her Bua, therefore, she can be legitimately expected under her influence. Her mother is no more, therefore, she can be prompted to save her father the accused. The accused at the relevant time was admittedly an employee in the Post Office. As per his version in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he was informed by DW-4 about the hanging of the deceased on 1.4.2000 during recess time when he was on duty in the Post Office. However, quite contrary to this, the evidence of DW-4 is that she returned home at about 1.30 p.m. after the school hours were over and she informed the accused about the hanging of her mother on the road where he was working as a coolie. These diametrically opposed versions cannot be attributed to loss of memory and/or individual conceptions/ perceptions. The corroboration of the statement of DW-4 by DW-5 is of no help to believe DW-4 because the corroborative statement of DW-5 itself is unreliable and untrustworthy being an afterthought and contrary to the defence as suggested to the material PWs and as stated in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Moreover, evidence of Partap Singh (DW-7) totally belies their statements because DW-7 has clearly and unambiguously admitted that the accused had informed that at the relevant time the children had gone to the school and he was sleeping. In view of these admissions by DW-7 on the basis of information given by the accused it is established that at the time of death of the deceased, accused was in the house and his children, including DW-4, had gone to the school. 14. The recovery of the Dupatas from the place of occurrence in the face of the aforesaid conclusions cannot support the theory of suicide by the deceased and the possibility of having been planted by the accused to create defence cannot be ruled out. 15. We have carefully seen the photographs Exts.PM/2 to PM/4 and even other photographs including Exts.PD/1 and PD/2 and we do not find anything therein which may support the contention that ligature marks are visible on Exts.PM/2 to PM/4. 16. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was not suicidal but homicidal because of suffocation caused by asphyxia as a result of smothering as opined vide Ext. PE. 16. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was not suicidal but homicidal because of suffocation caused by asphyxia as a result of smothering as opined vide Ext. PE. QUESTION NO. 2 : 17. Since the death of the deceased has been found homicidal, therefore, this question calls for determination. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. 18. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence at all to connect the accused with the commission of the offence of murder of his wife. The accused had no motive to kill his wife and even if it is found that the death of the deceased was homicidal, the circumstance is not incompatible with the innocence of the accused and there is no complete chain of the circumstances to lead to the only conclusion that the accused is guilty of the commission of murder of the deceased. It was further contended that the evidence of the prosecution is fragile and in any case the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted. To substantiate his contention the learned Counsel relied on various judgments. 19. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General supporting the reasoning of the learned trial Judge for convicting the accused submitted that the deceased as per his own suggestion to the prosecution witnesses suspected the fidelity of his wife and her going to the house of PW-5 on 31.3.2000 was the cause which led the accused to murder the deceased in a planned manner and to cook up a fake version of the deceased having committed suicide. 20. The principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence are well settled and the well settled legal position is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of the accused is drawn must be fully proved and must be of conclusive nature. Further the circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Therefore, the decisions cited in support of this settled position in law need not be set out here. 21. Further the circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Therefore, the decisions cited in support of this settled position in law need not be set out here. 21. It is also well settled that when the evidence is capable of two interpretations the one favourable to the accused must be accepted and benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Being the settled position in law, the decisions cited in this regard also need not be set out here. 22. It is not in dispute that only the accused, the deceased and their children used to reside in the house where the dead body of the deceased was found. It is nobodys case that any stranger was noticed in or outside the house of the accused around the material time. 23. The case of the accused is that he came to the spot on receipt of information about the hanging of the deceased from his daughter (DW-4) but this version has not been suggested to any of the material prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, therefore, is a mere afterthought. Pratap Chand (DW-7) had clearly and unambiguously admitted in his evidence that on inquiry the accused had informed that the children had gone to the school and he was sleeping and the deceased hanged herself which clearly shows that at the relevant time the children of the deceased and the accused had gone to school and only the accused and the deceased were present in the house. In these circumstances the accused is expected to truthfully state about the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased which he has failed to do. 24. As already stated hereinabove the defence taken by the accused in the initial stages of the trial till the recording of his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, is that he was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased who had friendship with PW-5, therefore, PW-5 with a view to save himself from being defamed is responsible for the death of the deceased. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, his defence is that PW-5 had beaten the deceased on the previous night and might have committed her murder. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, his defence is that PW-5 had beaten the deceased on the previous night and might have committed her murder. At the stage of leading defence, the accused had led evidence to prove that he had cordial relations with the deceased who committed suicide by hanging. In any of the eventualities it was for the accused to have reported the death of the deceased to the police which he never did. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the accused, who allegedly informed a few persons of the death of the deceased, had not informed the police about the occurrence. This unusual conduct of the accused coupled with his pleas that his wife committed suicide and she might have been murdered by PW-5 raises an accusing finger towards the accused. 25. Motive is a mental state of a human being and no direct evidence thereof can be led unless the person entertaining the suspicion states about it. The accused by putting the suggestions to the material witnesses about his suspecting the fidelity of the deceased had himself made it known that he was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. Keeping in view the ordinary course of human conduct a suspecting husband, if satisfied that what he was suspecting is a reality, can be legitimately said to have motive to eliminate the wife. 26. PW-5 has clearly and unambiguously stated that on 31.3.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased had come to him and informed that the accused who was drunk was beating her and he (PH-5) should advise him. It is further stated by PW-5 that he refused to accompany the deceased in late hours of night but assured her that he would enquire from the accused in the following morning. It is further in his evidence that on the following morning when the accused was going to his place of duty and was passing by the side of his shop he enquired from the accused about the occurrence of the previous night as reported by his wife. The accused then went to his house and brought the deceased to the shop and enquired from her as to why she had come to the shop, on the previous evening. The accused then went to his house and brought the deceased to the shop and enquired from her as to why she had come to the shop, on the previous evening. The deceased, out of fear remained silent and accused gave her two slaps and then left towards the place of his duty and the deceased went to her house. This version of PW-5 has not been challenged in the cross-examination. The version about the happenings on the morning of 1.4.2000 is not only corroborated by PW-4 but even DW-4 has admitted that on the morning of 1st April her parents had a quarrel with PW-5. The accused while deposing as DW-5 had blown hot and cold about this occurrence. His statement in this regard reads as under: "I do not know that Sita Devi left the house at about 9.30 p.m. to the house of Dharam Chand. I also do not know whether my wife Sita after some time about 10 or 10.30 p.m. returned back. I do not know whether my wife reported to Dharam Chand about the beatings given by me. It is incorrect that Sita Devi got annoyed as a result of beatings and she was reluctant to do any household work. I do not remember that my children left for school on 1.4.2000 at about 9 or 9.30 a.m. I had gone to bazar side at about 9.30 or 10.00 a.m. It is correct that the shop of Ashok Up Pradhan is situated opposite to the shop of Dharam Chand. It is correct that Dharam Chand met me outside his shop. It is correct that Dharam Chand told me that my wife had come to him on the previous night at about 9.30 or 10 p.m. It is incorrect that Dharam Chand also told me that my wife Sita Devi had complained with him about beatings by me to her. It is incorrect that Dharam Chand told me that he said to my wife that he cannot do anything in the odd hours of the night. It is incorrect that I got enraged and I went back to my house and brought my wife to the shop of Dharam Chand. It is incorrect that in presence of Dharam Chand and Ashok Kumar I enquired from my wife that why she had come on the previous night to Dharam Chand. It is incorrect that I got enraged and I went back to my house and brought my wife to the shop of Dharam Chand. It is incorrect that in presence of Dharam Chand and Ashok Kumar I enquired from my wife that why she had come on the previous night to Dharam Chand. Again stated that it is correct that Dharam Chand told me about visiting of my wife on the previous night in presence of Ashok Kumar I came back to my house and after taking meals I went again. At that time my wife also accompanied me to the shop of Dharam Chand. It is incorrect that when I enquired from my wife in the presence of Ashok Kumar why she had visited previous night she got perplexed and kept mum. Self stated that Dharam Chand asked my wife about her visit. It is also incorrect that when my wife did not give any satisfactory reply, I gave her 3 or 4 slaps. It is correct that thereafter my wife left for the house and I also went to the place of my working.” 27. It is evident from the above quoted portion of the statement of the accused that despite once denying the version he has at one stage or the other admitted the material particulars of the version. The version of the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, is that PW-5 had given beating to the deceased on the night of 31.3.2000 but it is not his version in his statement on oath. It has been suggested to PW-5 that he was the cause of discord between the deceased and the accused and was responsible for the death. This clearly shows that the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and the visit of the deceased to PW-5 on the night preceding the date of occurrence added fuel to the fire leading to a situation wherein a motive to kill his wife by the accused is clearly revealed. 28. One of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that pillow Ext. P-l was got recovered by the accused vide Memo. Ext. PK in the presence of Ashok Kumar (PW-4) and Ramesh Chand (DW-2) pursuant to the disclosure statement Ext. PL made to SI Prakash Chand (PW-14) in the presence of Khem Singh (PW-6) and Balak Ram. 29. 28. One of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that pillow Ext. P-l was got recovered by the accused vide Memo. Ext. PK in the presence of Ashok Kumar (PW-4) and Ramesh Chand (DW-2) pursuant to the disclosure statement Ext. PL made to SI Prakash Chand (PW-14) in the presence of Khem Singh (PW-6) and Balak Ram. 29. PW-14 has stated that on interrogation by him the accused had made a disclosure statement Ext. PL about the pillow in the presence of PW-6 and Balak Ram. PW-6 has fully corroborated the statement of PW-14 regarding making of the statement Ext. PL by the accused and there is nothing in his cross-examination to doubt his evidence. The accused (DW-5) has admitted his signatures on the statement Ext. PL. 30. PW-14 has further stated that thereafter alongwith the accused he went to Panjlog where the accused in the presence of Ashok Kumar (PW-4) and Ramesh Chand (DW-2) got recovered the pillow from a bed in the room in upper storey of the house which was sealed and seized vide Memo. Ext. PK. PW-4 has fully corroborated the statement of PW-14 about recovery of pillow Ext.P-1 at the instance of the accused vide Memo. Ext. PK. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW-4 to suspect his version. 31. The making of the statement Ext. PL and recovery had been assailed by the learned Counsel for the accused on the grounds that it was effected after 7 days of the occurrence by an Investigating Officer who took over the investigation on that very day and it is not probable that what was not disclosed for 7 days, would be disclosed within hours of taking over the investigation by PW-14. It was also contended that DW-2 one of the alleged recovery witnesses has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that the Investigating Officer (PW-14) had brought the pillow Ext.P-5 at the shop of Duni Chand and it was sealed there vide Ext. PK and the Thanedar (PW-14) did not visit the house of the accused and was at the shop where the pillow was brought and sealed. This defence has been suggested to PW-14 in his cross-examination as well, therefore, the recovery of a very common item like pillow is false. PK and the Thanedar (PW-14) did not visit the house of the accused and was at the shop where the pillow was brought and sealed. This defence has been suggested to PW-14 in his cross-examination as well, therefore, the recovery of a very common item like pillow is false. It was also urged that the accused (DW-5) has categorically stated that his signatures on the disclosure statement were taken forcibly. Therefore, this circumstance is not proved. 32. As per the evidence on record the disclosure statement Ext. PL had been recorded and recovery of pillow Ext. P-5 effected on the 6th day of arrest of the accused by PW-14 who took over investigation on the same day, therefore, the prosecution evidence has to be appreciated with care and caution. As stated hereinabove the statement of PW-14 about the making of statement Ext. PL by the accused is fully supported by PW-6 who is not shown interested in the case of the prosecution or biased against the accused in any manner. The accused himself while appearing as his own witness has on oath admitted presence of the witnesses and his signatures on Ext. PL. Though he states that such statement was forcibly obtained but it has not been suggested to PW-14 or PW-6. It is not in dispute that the accused as and when produced before the Magistrate for remand had never complained to the concerned Magistrate of any torture or use of force against him to secure his signatures on Ext. PL. Making of disclosure on the 6th day when PW-14 took over investigation may be attributable to the degree of efficiency of the Officers interrogating the accused. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the making of disclosure statement by the accused voluntarily cannot be doubted. 33. To shake the prosecution evidence about recovery of pillow vide Ext. PK much reliance has been laid on the testimony of DW-2. This witness had signed the recovery Memo, admittedly after its contents were read over by PW-4 the other witness of recovery. It is not his evidence that he was under pressure, threat or fear and was forced to sign Ext. PK. Once he had heard the contents of Ext. PK much reliance has been laid on the testimony of DW-2. This witness had signed the recovery Memo, admittedly after its contents were read over by PW-4 the other witness of recovery. It is not his evidence that he was under pressure, threat or fear and was forced to sign Ext. PK. Once he had heard the contents of Ext. PK and if found that those were not correct he could have refused to sign the document but it is also not his case that he had ever refused to sign Ext. PK. PW-4 who has fully supported the recovery of pillow Ext. P-5 at the instance of accused as is the case of the prosecution, is an independent witness and the first person whom the accused informed about the death of his wife. The trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence of PW-4 is not capable of being ignored for any reason. The prosecution has proved the disclosure statement Ext. PL and recovery of pillow Ext. P-5 beyond any reasonable doubt. As per the opinion of PW-1 the death of the deceased could be caused by pillow Ext. P-5. 34. As already held hereinabove, the death of the deceased was homicidal. The initial version of the accused about the cause of death of his wife as disclosed by him to PW~3, an independent witness, PW-5 and defence witness Pratap Singh (DW-7), is that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The accused admitted in his statement as DW-5 that he had told two persons accompanying PW-4 that the deceased died as a result of hanging but at a latter stage claimed that PW-5 was responsible for the death of the deceased and might have committed her murder. It is firmly established as we shall discuss a little later that the accused had been beating and harassing the deceased after 3 or 4 years of their marriage but the accused on this count defended himself on the false plea that the relations between him and his wife were cordial. In addition to the above circumstances against the accused his putting up a false defence is yet another circumstance to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances against him. 35. In addition to the above circumstances against the accused his putting up a false defence is yet another circumstance to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances against him. 35. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, the following circumstances are found established: (I) that at the relevant time, the accused was not on duty but was present in his house; (II) that the deceased was found dead in the house; (III) that the accused knowing that the deceased had died of an unnatural death, did not report the matter to the police; (IV) that the death of the deceased was not suicidal but homicidal; (V) that the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and used to beat and harass her; (VI) that the deceased had visited PW-5 in night hours preceding the day of occurrence and failed to explain the reason for doing so when asked by the accused, thus the accused had the motive to commit the crime; (VII) that the pillow Ext. P-5 capable of being used for smothering as in this case was recovered at the instance of the accused; and (VIII) that the accused led false defence. 36. In Phundi v. State of M.P., [1993 Cri.LJ 1881] the accused was found present in the house when the crime was committed, the victim was found to have been murdered in the house, post-occurrence behaviour of the accused was found incriminating, the accused had the motive to commit the crime and had no explanation for the killing of the victim, therefore, the M.P. High Court held as under: "13. When all the above circumstances are considered cumulatively or are joined together, they form a complete chain so as not to leave any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused-appellant. The chain of circumstances is not only consistent with the guilt of the accused/appellant but is also inconsistent with his innocence. It leads to an irresistible (sic) all event a prime perpetrator of the crime which resulted in the murders of his daughters." 37. In the case in hand the circumstances which have been found established as aforesaid are more or less akin to the circumstances established in the above case and constitute a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused and there is no escape from the conclusion that he caused the death of the deceased by smothering. 38. In the case in hand the circumstances which have been found established as aforesaid are more or less akin to the circumstances established in the above case and constitute a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused and there is no escape from the conclusion that he caused the death of the deceased by smothering. 38. It is case of the prosecution that the accused had been beating the deceased. While supporting this version PW-2, mother of the deceased, has stated that after about 3 years of the marriage when the deceased came to her house, she narrated about her being beaten and harassed by the accused, and after every 3 or 4 months of each visit the deceased used to visit her and used to complain about the beating/harassment met out to her by the accused and the matter was reported to the police and the Pradhan. It is further in the evidence of PW-2 that she lodged oral complaint with Pradhan Sita Devi (PW-3) and also advised the deceased, who had been blessed with children to live in the house of her in-laws and also advised the accused not to beat and harass the deceased. Santoshi Devi (PW-7), sister of the deceased, has stated that as and when the deceased met her after 2 or 3 years of her marriage the deceased used to complain about maltreatment, harassment and beatings by the accused after taking liquor. 39. Sita Devi (PW-3), who was the Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat at the relevant time, has stated that PW-2 and the deceased had come to her about 6 months before the death of the deceased and orally complained about maltreatment and beatings given to the deceased by the accused. She consoled the deceased and advised her to live for some time in her parents house and as and when the accused would come to call her, she would come to her and prepare some document and thereafter leave her (the deceased) at her matrimonial house. 40. HC Lal Chand (PW-11) has stated that when he was posted as Investigating Officer at Police Post Ladbharol, Sita Devi deceased lodged a complaint in writing Ext. PO on 14.12.1999 about beating and harassing her by the accused. 40. HC Lal Chand (PW-11) has stated that when he was posted as Investigating Officer at Police Post Ladbharol, Sita Devi deceased lodged a complaint in writing Ext. PO on 14.12.1999 about beating and harassing her by the accused. On 15.12.1999 when he was about to go to the spot for inquiry, the deceased came to the Police Post and informed him that compromise had been arrived at between her and the accused, therefore, she did not want to pursue the complaint. He recorded her statement Ext. PQ and filed the complaint vide his endorsement Ext. PP. 41. PW-2 and PW-7 though are near relatives of the deceased but being the mother and sister of the deceased, in the natural course of human conduct, the deceased must have narrated her miseries to them and thus the version of PW-2 and PW-7 is relevant and reliable. There is nothing material in their cross-examination which may raise any doubt about their truthfulness. Moreover, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-11 read with Exts. PO, PP and PQ leads full corroboration to their version on material particulars of the allegations of beating and harassment of the deceased by the accused. PW-3 and PW-11 are independent witnesses and are not shown interested in the cause of the prosecution or biased against the accused for any reason whatsoever. 42. The accused led defence evidence and examined his sister Manorma Devi (DW-1), his aunt Gauri Devi (DW-3), his ex-undlvorced wife Maya Devi (DW-6), and Pratap Singh (DW-7) in addition to his own statement as DW-5 to prove that he had never beaten/harassed the deceased. All these DWs are closely related to the accused and their statements are not trustworthy and reliable and are not corroborated by any independent evidence on the record. Therefore, the defence evidence in no way rebut the reliable and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecution on this count. Thus, the allegation of beating/harassment met out to the deceased by the accused is proved. Nevertheless, conviction of the accused under Section 498-A, IPC, cannot be sustained on its basis. 43. Therefore, the defence evidence in no way rebut the reliable and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecution on this count. Thus, the allegation of beating/harassment met out to the deceased by the accused is proved. Nevertheless, conviction of the accused under Section 498-A, IPC, cannot be sustained on its basis. 43. Section 498-A, IPC, reads as under: "498-A. 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." 44. It is clear on a bare reading of the above provisions that to constitute an offence under Section 498-A, IPC, it should be established that the conduct of the accused alleged to have committed cruelty must be wilful and of such a nature which is likely to derive the victim to commit suicide or grave injury or danger to her life, limb or mental or physical health or the harassment met out to the victim must be with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or on account of failure to meet such demand. 45. In the case in hand none of the aforesaid ingredients of Section 498-A, IPC, is proved. Therefore, the accused could not have been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A, IPC. 46. It was contended for the accused that the head of charge under Section 201, IPC, was not established and conviction of the accused under this head is bad in law. 47. The material part of Section 201 constituting an offence thereunder reads as follows: "201. 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 the intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false." 48. In view of the aforesaid provisions, to constitute an offence punishable under Section 201, IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (a) that an offence has been committed, (b) that the accused knew or has reason to believe that such offence has been committed, (c) that the accused caused evidence of the commission of offence to disappear or gave any information regarding the offence which he knew or believed to be false, and (d) that the accused did so with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. 49. In the case in hand it has been found established that the deceased was smothered to death by the accused and he knew it. However, he admittedly informed on enquiries made by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat (PW-3) that his wife had committed suicide by hanging. The only intention of the accused in such circumstances could be to screen himself from legal punishment for the offence of murder of the deceased committed by him. 50. To sustain a charge of giving false information in respect of commission of an offence knowing it to be false with the intention to screen the offender who may be the informant or any other person from legal punishment, it is not necessary that such information should be given to the police or the Magistrate. It is immaterial whether such information is given voluntarily or in answer to enquiries. Thus, in view of the above conclusions the conviction of the accused under Section 201, IPC, is in conformity with the evidence and law. 51. For the reasons stated and the conclusions arrived at hereinabove the conviction of and sentence awarded to the accused under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, call for no interference but his conviction and sentence under Section 498-A, IPC, cannot be sustained. 52. As a result, this appeal is partly allowed and conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 498-A, IPC, are set aside. The conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, are, however, maintained and the appeal qua such conviction and sentence is dismissed.