Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 04/1999 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant Jai Narayan as under:- 498-A, IPC Imprisonment for the period already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs. 500/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days. 302, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 201, IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The other accused persons, namely Rama Kishan, Jagdish and Smt. Ram Kanwari were convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A, IPC to the period already undergone in judicial custody and a fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days each. The aforesaid three accused persons were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted for the offence under Section 302 and 201, IPC whereas accused-Bhanwar Lal was acquitted for the offence under Section 201, IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Chennis (deceased) marriage was solemnized with Jai Narayan S/o. Rama Kishan about 1 and ½ years prior to the date of incident. Rama Kishan, Smt. Ram Kanwari and Jagdish respectively are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jeth (elder brother of husband) of Smt. Chenni, Bhanwar Lal is brother in distant relation of her husband. On 111.1998 at 4.15 PM Bhanwar Lal lodged a report at P.S. Kuchera, District Nagaur (Exhibit-P/10) to the effect that his uncles son Jai Narayans wife Smt. Chenni, while she was taking out water from water tank situated in the house at Village Paldi Jodha, District Nagore, accidentally fell in the tank containing 7-8 feet water and died. The deceased was aged about 20-22 years. On the basis of said information, a Mirg (inquest) Report No. 5/98 under Section 174, CrPC was drawn and the inquiry commenced. Thereafter, on 111.1998 at 2.00 PM Sita Ram (father of deceased) lodged a written report (Exhibit-P/1) at P.S. Kuchera, District Nagaur alleging inter alia that marriage of his daughter Chenni was solemnized with Jai Narayan S/o Rama Kishan about 1 and ½ year prior. Thereafter, on 111.1998 at 2.00 PM Sita Ram (father of deceased) lodged a written report (Exhibit-P/1) at P.S. Kuchera, District Nagaur alleging inter alia that marriage of his daughter Chenni was solemnized with Jai Narayan S/o Rama Kishan about 1 and ½ year prior. At the time of marriage, he gave sufficient dowry as per his status but Jai Narayans father, mother, sister and elder brother etc., had a greed for dowry and they often used to beat, harass and maltreat his daughter for bringing more dowry. He was unable to fulfill their demands, he alongwith Swaroop Ram Ji Tandi, Gaaju, Mani Ram Ji went to in-laws of Smt. Chenni and with folded hands requested them that he being a poor man was unable to satisfy their demand and that they should refrain from beating his daughter. He further alleged that his daughter Chenni has been done to death by her husband Jai Narayan, father-in-law Rama Kishan, mother-in-law Smt. Ram Kanwari and Jeth-Jagdish and after murdering, her dead-body was been dropped into water tank thereby showing it to be a case of suicide. He further alleged that it is an instance of murder and not of suicide. The aforesaid accused persons had earlier murdered Jagdishs wife and in that incident they had been convicted. The accused-appellants are habitual offenders and are greedy persons. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report FIR No. 133/98 (Exhibit P-2) under Section 304-B, IPC was registered at P.S. Kuchera, District Nagore and the investigation commenced. After completion of detailed investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellants Jai Narayan, Rama Kishan, Jagdish and Smt. Ram Kanwari for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201, IPC and against accused-Bhanwar Lal for the offence under Section 201, IPC in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagore from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagore where charges under the aforesaid sections were framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, PW. 1 Sita Ram, PW. 2 Mani Ram, PW. 3 Mool Singh, PW. 4 Sanwata Ram, PW. 5 Swaroop Ram, PW. 6 Ram Kishore, PW. 7 Amar Singh, PW. 8 Sukh Ram, PW. 9 Dev Karan, PW. 10 Smt. Kanwarai PW. 11 Smt. Kamla, PW. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, PW. 1 Sita Ram, PW. 2 Mani Ram, PW. 3 Mool Singh, PW. 4 Sanwata Ram, PW. 5 Swaroop Ram, PW. 6 Ram Kishore, PW. 7 Amar Singh, PW. 8 Sukh Ram, PW. 9 Dev Karan, PW. 10 Smt. Kanwarai PW. 11 Smt. Kamla, PW. 12 Nathu Ram, PW. 13 Bhagwan Singh, PW. 14 Dr. Narendra Kumar Mohanpuriya and PW. 15 Laxmi Narayan and got exhibited certain documents as Exhibit-P-1 to Exhibit-P-11. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC denied the correctness of prosecution evidence appearing against him. He stated that on the night preceding the date of incident, only he alongwith his wife-Chenni and his mother were there in the house. He further stated that when he got up late in the morning, he did not find Chenni, upon which, he went here and there in search of Chenni and finally he saw the slippers of Chenni near the water tank. The gate of water tank was found open. On having suspicion, he saw inside the water tank and found the dead body of Chenni. Thereupon, Jagdish, Rama Kishan and Bhanwar Singh came there and with the help of those persons, he took out the body of Chenni from the water tank. He further stated that he has been wrongly roped in this case. His wife was suffering from epilepsy. The death has been caused by drowning. He has not committed murder. The other accused persons also denied the correctness of prosecution story and claimed to be innocent. The accused persons examined six witnesses in defence, namely, DW. 1 Ram Chandra, DW. 2 Ram Niwas, DW. 3 Bhanwar Singh, DW. 4 Ram Prasad, DW. 5 Kana Puri and DW. 6 Om Prakash and got exhibited certain documents as Exhibit-D-1 to Exhibit D-6. 5. After having heard the parties, the learned trial Court found the prosecution case proved, turned down the defence version and convicted the accused-appellant and other accused persons in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Jai Narayan with a prayer to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded. 6. We have heard Mr. S.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. V.R. Mehta for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. Hence, this appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Jai Narayan with a prayer to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded. 6. We have heard Mr. S.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. V.R. Mehta for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 7. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has not properly considered and appreciated the material on record and has erroneously held the accused-appellant Jai Narayan guilty for committing the murder of Smt. Chenni and for other offences. 8. The learned Counsel further contended that in the present case there is no direct evidence of occurrence and the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused-appellant beyond doubt. It is settled position of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should place a strong case and prove each circumstance on which one conclusion can be drawn. Mere suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of legal proof . It was urged that in the present case, the circumstances are not of such a clinching nature so that the conviction can be based on it. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the authorities cited in (1) State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 (2) Mulak Ram vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 2868 , (3) Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79 , (4) Mala S/o. Mana Jat vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 CrLR 281 (Raj), (5) Vinod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CrLR 393 (Raj.) and (6) Bhanwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1987 CrLR 573 (Raj.). 9. It was also contended that in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to prove by strong evidence that Smt. Chenni was killed first and thereafter her body was dropped into the water tank. There were no marks of strangulation as stated by the witnesses. Merely on the opinion of doctor, no conclusive inference can be drawn. In that case possibility of slipping in water tank while taking out water from the tank of committing suicide by jumping in tank cannot be ruled out. There were no marks of strangulation as stated by the witnesses. Merely on the opinion of doctor, no conclusive inference can be drawn. In that case possibility of slipping in water tank while taking out water from the tank of committing suicide by jumping in tank cannot be ruled out. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to rule out all possibilities. Further it was urged that the prosecution has no stand on its legs and cannot take benefit of defence. The learned Counsel relied on the authorities Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 755 and Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 1985 CrLR 324 (Raj.) and urged that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the contentions placed in this respect and passed the order on assumption and presumption, that is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. .10. It was also contended that from the evidence it is revealed that father and maternal uncle (maama) of the deceased were present when the police was doing enquiry under Marg Report. At that time, no complaint or report was made by them. They signed on the Panchnama (Exhibit D-1), however, later on Sita Ram lodged report (Exhibit P-1) at 2.00 PM on the next day i.e., on 111.1998. No satisfactory explanation has been given for delayed report. It was contended that the report has .been made after consultation with doctor with a view to falsely implicate the members of family. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Thavra vs. State of Rajasthan, 1998 CrLR 822 (Raj.) in this respect. It was also contended that the prosecution made allegation of murdering Smt. Chenni on the accused-appellant and also on others, namely, Rama Kishan, Jagdish and Smt. Ram Kanwari but they have been acquitted, thus on the same material accused-appellant cannot be held for committing the murder of Smt. Chenni. Merely because he is the husband, he cannot be held guilty. It was submitted that in the instant case the witnesses are close relatives and no independent witness has been produced to establish the motive of crime. It was urged that no demand of dowry was made nor any independent witness was examined. The police has not filed charge-sheet under Section 304-B, IPC. In that case the prosecution cannot take benefits of 113-B Evidence Act. It was urged that no demand of dowry was made nor any independent witness was examined. The police has not filed charge-sheet under Section 304-B, IPC. In that case the prosecution cannot take benefits of 113-B Evidence Act. Thus, it was urged that the Judgment of learned trial Court may kindly be quashed, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be set free. 11. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment and submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge by placing reliable evidence. It was contended that from the material placed on record, the possibility of slipping of foot or committing suicide does not exist. PW. 14 Dr. Narendra Kumar Mohanpuriya has stated that such state of body could not exist from slipping and it was not a case of drowning but its a case of strangulation. The mark of strangulation was found present on the neck of deceased. His version cannot be discarded. His version is supported by other material also and, thus, the appellant has rightly been convicted in the circumstances of case the authorities cited do not support their contentions and the appeal may be dismissed. 12. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be proper to briefly survey the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. 13. PW. 1 Sita Ram is the father of deceased Smt. Chenni. He stated that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Jai Narayan S/o. Rama Kishan of village Paldi Jodha, Nagore and in marriage he gave Rs. 21,000/-cash and a gold Bitti (ring) to his son-in-law. He further stated that his daughter was being harassed by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Jeth (elder brother of husband) for brining more dowry. He further stated that four years ago, wife of Jagdish died unnaturally and as such a case was initiated against them. The family of Rama Kishan was outcasted on this count by the cast Panchayat and a penalty of Rs. 2,12,000/-was imposed on them. He further stated that though as a matter of fact his daughter Chenni was engaged with Jai Narayan about 10 years ago, but since the family of Rama Kishan was outcasted, therefore, he asked them for re-entering into caste and after paying penalty amount by them, he got married his daughter with Jai Narayan. 2,12,000/-was imposed on them. He further stated that though as a matter of fact his daughter Chenni was engaged with Jai Narayan about 10 years ago, but since the family of Rama Kishan was outcasted, therefore, he asked them for re-entering into caste and after paying penalty amount by them, he got married his daughter with Jai Narayan. His daughter used to say that her in-laws were pressing her to bring the said amount which they had to spend for marrying their son. His brother-in-law Mani Ram and Swaroop Ram Gaju with a view to persuade Rama Kishan went to the in-laws house of Chenni and Chenni was taken back by her father-in-law seven days prior to her death in his house. He stated that his daughter used to complain that her in-laws are harassing and mal treating her and she may be done to death. He stated that Exhibit-P-1 and Chak FIR (Exhibit-P-2) bear his signature A to B. In cross-examination he stated that Exhibit P-1 was written at his instance by another person. He has denied that he persuaded doctor for giving false report and also denied that the FIR was lodged after getting knowledge of manipulated postmortem report. It was denied that Jagdish was living separately. He was confronted with his previous statement and Panchnama (Exhibit D-1) and other documents, but he stated that the police got his signatures on some papers. .14. PW. 2 Mani Ram is the brother-in-law of Sita Ram and maamaa (mothers brother) of Smt. Chenni. He stated that he went to village Tankala where his sister told him that Chenni was being harassed by her-in-laws. Chenni complained about her in-laws demanding money from her and harassing her on that count, upon which, Mani Ram and Swaroop Ram Gaju went to village Paldi Jodha (i.e., in-laws house of Chenni) to persuade Rama Kishan not to raise any demand and beat Chenni on that count. Thereafter, Chenni was taken back to her in-laws house by Rama Kishan but thereafter Chenni had been killed by Rama Kishan, Jagdish, Jai Narayan and her mother-in-law. Smt. Ram Kanwari. Thereafter, Chenni was taken back to her in-laws house by Rama Kishan but thereafter Chenni had been killed by Rama Kishan, Jagdish, Jai Narayan and her mother-in-law. Smt. Ram Kanwari. Fard Muyana Lash of deceased Smt. Chenni Exhibit-P-3 and Exhibit P-4 site plan bear his signature A to B. Exhibit-D/1 Panchnama-Chenni also bear his signature C to D. He has also stated that Jagdish S/o. Rama Kishan who was married at Mundava, killed his wife, so he was sent to jail, and the caste Panchayat imposed fine of Rs. 2,12,000/-on Rama Kishan and his family was outcasted .from village. Rama Kishan wanted to recover the said amount from Sita Ram and, therefore, he insisted for paying the said amount and demanded Rs. 2,12,000/-as dowry from Sita Ram but as Sita Rams financial position was not sound, he paid Rs. 21,000/-at the time of marriage of his daughter. In cross-examination, he has denied that while drawing Exhibit-D-1, the Inspector had asked him as to how Chenni died and he told that she died due to drowning in water tank. He further denied that the FIR was got lodged after receiving the post-mortem report wherein the factum of deceased having died due to strangulation came to light. He denied that at his instance the doctor had reported in post-mortem report that the deceased died due to choking of neck of deceased. He was confronted with his police statement (Exhibit-D-3) and Panchnama (Exhibit D-1). 15. PW. 3 Mool Singh is the motbir witness of Panchnama. He further stated that he did not see any marks of strangulation on the neck of deceased. He stated that Panchnama (Exhibit D-1) bears his signature as E to F. He further stated that the ornaments of Smt. Chenni which were taken out by police and were handed over to Rama Kishan vide receipt (Exhibit-P-5), which bear his signature A to B. 16. PW. 4 Sanwata Ram has stated that his well is situated on Kuchera-Gaju road. He has stated that niece of Mani Ram had been married at Paldi. Swaroop and Mani Ram came to his well and he accompanied them and went to the site and saw dead-body lying in chowk. 17. PW. PW. 4 Sanwata Ram has stated that his well is situated on Kuchera-Gaju road. He has stated that niece of Mani Ram had been married at Paldi. Swaroop and Mani Ram came to his well and he accompanied them and went to the site and saw dead-body lying in chowk. 17. PW. 5 Swaroop Ram stated that one and half year after the marriage of Chenni, Mani Ram came to his village and stated that his Bhanji (Sisters daughter) is being harassed by her in-laws for bringing Rs. 2,12,000/-the amount which they had to spent for re-entering into caste for marrying their sonJain Narayan with Chenni. He alongwith Mani Ram went to Village Paladi Jodha (in-laws house of Chenni), where they met Rama Kishan. At that time, Chenni was at her fathers house at Tankala. Mani Ram asked in his presence to Rama Kishan not to harass the girl, upon which he assured that Chenni would not be harassed any longer. 18. PW. 6 Ram Kishore and PW. 7 Amar Singh are the motbir witnesses of arrest, in whose presence police arrested the accused persons vide different arrest memos Exhibit-P-6,7,8, and 9 pertaining to the arrest of accused-appellant. 19. PW. 8 Sukh Ram stated that his house is situated near to the house of Sita Ram in village Tankala. He stated that when Rama Kishan (the father-in-law of Chenni) came to take back Chenni, at that time Sita Ram and his wife were not inclined to send their daughter back because she was alleged to be harassed by her in-laws, however on his intervention they agreed to send back Chenni to her in-laws house. On his saying, Sita Ram sent Chenni to her in-laws house and later on he came to know that she was killed by her-in-laws. In cross-examination he has also stated that he was present on the day when Jhujhula cast Panchayat meeting was held and Ram Kishan was penalised. 20. PW. 9 Dev Karan stated that his house is located on southern side of Sita Rams house. He stated that when Chenni came from her in-laws house, she used to complain of her being harassed and maltreated on count of demand of dowry by her Jeth, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Chenni herself and her father narrated him the facts relating her being harassed and beaten by her in laws. 21. PW. He stated that when Chenni came from her in-laws house, she used to complain of her being harassed and maltreated on count of demand of dowry by her Jeth, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Chenni herself and her father narrated him the facts relating her being harassed and beaten by her in laws. 21. PW. 10 Smt. Kanwari is the mother of deceased. She stated that in all Chenni visited six times to her house. For the initial six months there was no compliant but thereafter whenever Chenni came to her house, she used to weep and say that her father-in-law Rama Kishan, Mother-in-law Ram Kanwari, Jeth-Jagdish and husband Jai Narayan were harassing and taunting her for bringing less dowry and were pressing her to bring the amount which they had to pay to Panchayat for re-entering into caste at the time of her marriage. She narrated the whole incident to her husband Sita Ram, upon which her brother Mani Ram, Swaroop Ram Tandi went to Chennis in-laws house for persuading them. Further she stated that Chenni had been killed by her in-laws. 22. PW. 11 Kamla stated that Chenni is her elder brother-in-laws daughter (Jethuti). She has stated on the same line, as has been stated by PW. 10 Smt. Kanwari. She has further stated that Chenni used to tell her that her in-laws are harassing and beating her on count of demand of dowry and money. 23. PW. 12 Nathu Ram is the uncle (fathers brother) of Chenni. He has stated that she was harassed by her in-laws as stated by other witnesses. 9.24. PW. 13 Bhagwan Singh is the Investigating Officer. He stated that he was posted as SHO of Police Station, Kuchera. On 111.1998 Bhanwar Lal lodged a report (Exhibit-P-10), which bears his signature A to B, on the basis of that report, a Mirg Report (inquest) No. 5/98 was initiated. He went to site, prepared Fard Muyana Lash (Exhibit-P-3) and site plan (Exhibit-P-4). The height of water tank has been stated to be 9 feet, in which water level upto six feet was there. He had given the measurement of gate of water tank as East to West = 1 Feet and 9" and from North to South = 1 Feet and 4". The height of water tank has been stated to be 9 feet, in which water level upto six feet was there. He had given the measurement of gate of water tank as East to West = 1 Feet and 9" and from North to South = 1 Feet and 4". The Panchnama (Exhibit-D-1) was prepared and bears his signature J to H. He got conducted the post-mortem of dead-body of Chenni through a Medical Board. He collected and handed-over the ornaments worn by Chenni to Rama Kishan vide memo (Exhibit P-5). After the post-mortem he handed dead-body of Chenni to Rama Kishan vide receipt (Exhibit-D-2). He has further stated that a written report (Exhibit-P-1) was submitted by Sita Ram on 111.1998, on the basis of that FIR No. 133/98 was registered for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC. The chak-FIR is Exhibit-2. Thereafter the investigation of case was done by Circle Officer, Merta. After completion of investigation, he received the case diary and filed charge-sheet against the accused Jai Narayan, Jagdish, Rama Kishan and Smt. Ram Kanwari for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201/34, IPC and against accused-Bhanwar Lal for the offence under Section 201, IPC. In cross-examination he stated that when he saw deceased-Chenni, there was no marks of any external injury on her neck. Sita Ram and Mani Ram were also present there at that time and they did not make any suspicion nor they made any complaint. They put their signatures on Fards. 25. PW. 14 Dr. Narendra Kumar Mohanpuriya being the Chairman of Board, conducted post-mortem of deceased Chenni. As per the opinion of Board Chenni died due to Asphyxia caused by strangulation. He stated that during examination, rigor mortis was present and from both the nostrils and right ear blood-stained froth was coming out. The palm and foot were not corrugated. Faecal (stool) was present at anus. In cross-examination he has further explained that in case the death is caused by drowning, then blood-stained froth would not have come out from the ear. He has denied the suggestion that there was no injury on the dead-body and that he has given false report under pressure. Following injuries were noticed by the doctors mentioned in post-mortem report (Exhibit-P-11):- “(1) Blood stained froth in coming from both the nostrils and right ear. On pressing chest, blood-stained froth came out. Palm and foot not corrugated. He has denied the suggestion that there was no injury on the dead-body and that he has given false report under pressure. Following injuries were noticed by the doctors mentioned in post-mortem report (Exhibit-P-11):- “(1) Blood stained froth in coming from both the nostrils and right ear. On pressing chest, blood-stained froth came out. Palm and foot not corrugated. Faecal (stool) present at Anus. (2) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ " at right side of neck 2" above right clavicle at mid. Redness of eye-ball and conjective cornea. Bluish and Hazzy pupil dilated. Neck dissection subcutaneous clottes of blood present. Muscles of neck are ruptured, Trachia, Hyoid bone and crecord cartilage are fractured.” He further stated that the post-mortem was conducted by a Board and he was the Chairman and other two doctors, namely, Dr. S.K. Meena and Dr. S.K. Kashyap were the members of post-mortem team. The post-mortem report (Exhibit-P-11) bears his signature A to B. He has further stated that there was injury on right side of neck 2" above right clavicle at mid. On the dissection of neck, subcutaneus clottes of blood was present and the muscles of neck were ruptured, Trachia, Hyoid bone and crecoid cartilage were fractured. He has stated that all these injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination, he has stated that the death of deceased was due to strangulation. He has also narrated that there was mark of legature on the one side of neck. He has denied the suggestion that the injury was post-mortem but stated that it was ante-mortem in nature. 26. PW. 15 Laxmi Narayan is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that on 111.1998, he received the case diary of FIR No. 133/98 of P.S. Kuchera for further investigation. The inquest report No. 5/98 was also with him. He inspected the site and also saw the dead-body which was lying on the floor. He has further stated that the site plan and Haalat Moka (Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/4 respectively) prepared by Bhagwan Singh were attested by him. The inquest report No. 5/98 was also with him. He inspected the site and also saw the dead-body which was lying on the floor. He has further stated that the site plan and Haalat Moka (Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/4 respectively) prepared by Bhagwan Singh were attested by him. He has also inspected the water tank situated in the house of Jai Narayan and found that the gate of water tank was so small that if anybody fell accidentally, there was every likelihood of abrasion and injury being caused on his person, however, nothing of that sort of injuries were present on the body of deceased. He further stated that he received the post-mortem report and recorded the statements of witnesses and on the basis of the material collected by him, found involvement of the accused persons in the crime. He arrested the accused persons (including the appellant) in presence of motbir witnesses and after completion of investigation, he handed over the file to the SHO concerned. In cross-examination, he has stated that on 111.1998 he reached on the spot in the morning. The case was registered by SHO, Bhagwan Singh. He has denied the suggestion that he never visited the site and all the investigation was completed by Bhagwan Singh. He stated that the gate of water tank was too small but if somebody died to enter inside the water tank, he could enter into, however, accidental fall into the tank was not possible. 27. From the side of defence, following six witnesses were produced. We have also perused their statements:-“DW. 1 Ram Chandra is the witness of Panchnama (Exhibit-D/1). He stated that he saw the dead-body of Smt. Chenni but he did not see any mark of injury on her person. Police prepared Exhibit-D/1, which bear his signature I to J. He has further stated that the police asked Rama Kishan about death of Chenni and on the basis of the answer given by him he stated that Chenni died due to fall in tank. DW. 2 Ram Niwas stated that he rushed to the spot on hearing commotion. At that time, Bhanwar, Jagdish and jai Narayan were present. The dead body of Chenni was taken out from water tank by Jagdish. He has further stated that he did not see any marks of injury on the dead body. DW. 2 Ram Niwas stated that he rushed to the spot on hearing commotion. At that time, Bhanwar, Jagdish and jai Narayan were present. The dead body of Chenni was taken out from water tank by Jagdish. He has further stated that he did not see any marks of injury on the dead body. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he is the real nephew of Rama Kishan. DW. 3 Bhanwar Singh also stated that he was present when the dead-body was taken out from the water tank but he did not see any mark of injury on the dead-body. DW. 4 Ram Prasad is the neighbour of the house of the deceaseds in-laws. He has stated that he never heard noise of beating nor he ever heard of any sort of harassment or cruelty being meted out to Smt. Chenni with regard to dowry. DW. 5 Kana Puri stated that when he reached at the house of Rama Kishan, Jagdish, Jay Narayan, Ram Niwas and Bhanwar Singh, all the four were already present there. On the request of Bhanwar Singh, he call Rama Kishan and Bhanwaroo. DW. 6 Om Prakash stated that on111.1998 in the morning, he was at his house. At that time, he heard commotion coming from Rama Kishans house. He reached on the spot and saw dead-body of Chenni lying on the floor. He asked the accused persons, then they replied that Chenni fell into water tank and died. He further stated that he being the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat at the relevant time, suggested to lodge police report. On the report being made, police came on the spot. He stated that he did not see any marks of injury on the dead-body of Smt. Chenni. 28. Considering the contentions of the accused-appellant, it is revealed from the evidence as stated above, in the instant case, there is no direct evidence of occurrence and the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. We have perused the Judgment of the lower Court. The learned trial Court has mainly relied upon the following circumstances:- 1. On account of demand of dowry, the relations were strained. 2. Smt. Chenni (deceased) was lastly in the custody of accused-appellant. 3. Her death was found to be un-natural and homicidal. 4. The plea of accidental fall in water tank was found to be false. 29. Now we shall discuss the circumstances. On account of demand of dowry, the relations were strained. 2. Smt. Chenni (deceased) was lastly in the custody of accused-appellant. 3. Her death was found to be un-natural and homicidal. 4. The plea of accidental fall in water tank was found to be false. 29. Now we shall discuss the circumstances. It is a settled position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish a strong case on which only one conclusion can be drawn. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Jaiswal & Anr., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1418 , the Honble apex Court held that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A, IPC and Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act. It was a case of mal-treatment by in-laws with the newly wed and she committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband within a year of marriage. The Honble Court convicted the accused under Section 498-A, IPC but gave benefit of doubt so far as the charge under Section 306, IPC was concerned. In Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1996 SC 755 , it was held that in criminal trial, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it cannot fall back upon the evidence adduced by the accused in defence. In Mulak Raj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2868 , the Honble apex Court held that, however, strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof . In that case, the deceased died a homicidal death two months after her marriage and there were allegations of demand of dowry articles, her dead-body was found in kitchen with post-mortem burns. The Court held that by itself would not connect the accused with the crime. In that case, the deceased died a homicidal death two months after her marriage and there were allegations of demand of dowry articles, her dead-body was found in kitchen with post-mortem burns. The Court held that by itself would not connect the accused with the crime. The relevant portion is quoted below:- “Merely because deceased Krishna Kumari who was staying with the accused has died a homicidal death in their household and her dead-body was found in the kitchen with post-mortem burns, it cannot be said that the said circumstances by itself would connect all the accused or any one of them with the crime.” In the case of Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 79 , the Honble apex Court following the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 held that strong suspicion against accused cannot take place of legal proof . It was a case of circumstantial evidence and the Honble Court held that in such a case, evidence must satisfy the (1) the circum