JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J. This judgment shall govern the disposal of Cr. A. Nos. 388/96 and 408/96. In Cri. A. No. 388/96, appellants have challenged their conviction u/s 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentence of 1 year R. I. with fine of Rs. 500/- each. In Cri. A. No. 408/96, appellant has assailed his convictions under sections 302, 498-A, Indian Penal Code and sentences of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and 1 year R. I. with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. In default of payment of fine, appellants have been directed to further undergo additional imprisonment for six months. In Sessions Trial No. 193/93, before HI Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, all the aforesaid three accused-appellants were tried for the offences u/s 304-B in alternative u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and also u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found the charge u/s 498-A proved against appellants Kalicharan and Ramdulari and charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code proved against appellant Ramakant and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Appellants Kalicharan and Ramdulari are husband and wife and father-in-law and mother-in-law of Umabai (hereinafter referred to as "deceased" only). Appellant Ramkant is son of appellants Kalicharan and Ramdulari and husband of deceased. Marriage of appellant Ramakant with deceased took place on 8-7-1991 at village Kolua. After marriage, deceased started residing with the accused-appellants at village Tiwari-ka-pura under P. S. Matabasiya, District Morena. The dead body of the deceased was found in the house of appellants on 16-5-1993 and the information of the same was given by village Kotwar Vidyaram (DW 1) to P. S. Matabasaiya. Shivnath Prasad Sharma (PW 1) and Shakuntala Bai (PW 2) are respectively father and mother of deceased. The prosecution story as unfolded during trial is that the deceased was wife of accused-appellant Ramakant and their marriage took place on 8-7-1991. In the marriage, father of the deceased gave cash of Rs. 30,000/- and utensils etc. All the three appellants used to reside in the same house. After marriage, deceased visited the house of her parents around six times and every time she informed them about practising of cruelty by the appellants. They used to beat her and do not provide food to her. They also used to say that why her father has not given Rs. 50,000/- and one scooter as dowry. Appellant Ramakant also used to demand these things from her. They used to beat her and do not provide food to her. They also used to say that why her father has not given Rs. 50,000/- and one scooter as dowry. Appellant Ramakant also used to demand these things from her. Her father Shivnath (PW1) and mother Shakuntalabai (PW 2) used to persuade her and send her back to her in-laws house. Deceased had informed her father that if he will not give cash of Rs. 50,000/- and one scooter to the appellants, appellants will kill her. On 16-5-1993, the dead body of deceased was found in the house of appellants. At about 2 PM, she was killed in their house. Children of the house of appellants were heard crying that 'Bhabhi has been killed". These cries were heard by Jagdish Prasad (PW 4), neighbor of appellants. At the same time appellant Ramakant came out from the house and went away. Thereafter Jagdish (PW 4) found the deceased who was lying dead. Appellant Ramdulari was also standing there. He had also seen various injuries on the body of the deceased. Intimation of the crime was given by Vidyaram (DW 1). Thereafter, crime was registered. Spot was inspected by in-charge police station Shri D. V. S. Bhadoriya (PW 8). Surendra (PW 3) who is nephew of appellant Kalicharan, came to Morena and gave information to Shivnath Prasad (PW1), father of deceased who came to the village and saw the dead body of her daughter and also injuries on her body. Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex. P/3) was prepared and dead body was referred for medical examination. Spot map was prepared. Plain and blood stained soil, pieces of broken bangles and one stone were recovered and seized from the spot vide Ex. P/6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During trial, appellants abjured their guilt. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Vidyaram (DW 1) was examined in defence. The defence of the appellants was that they are not aware of the incident. They claimed that all of them were not present in the house at the time of incident and that they have been falsely implicated. Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and the aforesaid circumstances, found that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence but chain of circumstances is complete, and therefore convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid against which they have preferred this appeal. Trial Court after considering the evidence on record and the aforesaid circumstances, found that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence but chain of circumstances is complete, and therefore convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid against which they have preferred this appeal. The sole question before us is whether the chain of circumstances is complete or not and whether the appellants are assailants or not. First of all we have examined the injuries on the body of the deceased as well as medical evidence. Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P/3) of the dead body was prepared. Shivnath Prasad (PW 1) and Jagdish Prasad (PW 4) are the witnesses of Panchayatnama Lash. It was prepared by D. V. S. Bhadoriya (PW 8). Shivnath Prasad (PW 1) has testified that he had signed over Panchayatnama Lash and Kalicharan was also present at the time of preparing Panchayatnama Lash. Kalicharan and his signatures were also obtained at C to C place. Jagdish Prasad (PW 4) was also present at the time of preparation of said document. Both the witnesses have proved it. The deceased had received injuries on the right side of jaw which was appearing to be an injury caused by stone. There was an injury on neck. Blood was oozing from nose, ear and mouth. There was also injury in the head. There was also injury in the lower abdomen by some sharp-edged weapon. The "Petticoat" of the deceased was also found torn at the point of injury. There were several other injuries of various parts of her body. There was swelling on face and in the opinion of panchas, the deceased died because of injuries in the jaw, neck, head and lower abdomen. She was also having internal injuries in head. Investigating Officer D. V. S. Bhadoriya (PW 8) has prepared Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P/3) and he has clearly stated that on receiving information, when he reached at the house of appellants, he had seen dead body of deceased Uma which was lying in their house and there were injuries thereon. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was performed by Dr. N. K. Varsana. (PW 5). He has deposed in his statement that eyes and mouth were half open and blood was deposited near nose, ear and mouth. As per post-mortem report (Ex. Post-mortem examination of the dead body was performed by Dr. N. K. Varsana. (PW 5). He has deposed in his statement that eyes and mouth were half open and blood was deposited near nose, ear and mouth. As per post-mortem report (Ex. P/7), following injuries were found on the body of deceased :- Contusion reddish coloured, 8 x 5 cm on right side face with s/c haemotoma at Mandibular region caused by hard and blunt object. Contusion and abrasions irregular in size on upper part of chest and right side of neck with s/c haemotoma caused by hard and blunt object. Abrasion 2x1 cm with clots on posterior aspect of lower 1/3 of right forearm caused by hard and blunt object. Stab wound 2.5 x 1.5 cm with 5 cm deep with blood clots, clean out margin on left supra pubic region, 5 cm away from mid line transversal in position with rupture of large vessels. Caused by sharp and pointed object. Multiple abrasion lxl cm, medial to injury No. 4 in an area of 7 cm diameter caused by hard and blunt object. Contusion 3 x 2 cm on supra pubic region caused by hard and blunt object. Contusion 6 x 6 cm in anterior aspect of right thigh caused by hard and blunt object. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on posterior aspect of elbow joint of right hand. In the opinion of doctor all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. There were s/c and s/dural hematomas 8 x 3 cm over left parietal and parieto-occipitol area of scalp. Intracranial haemorrhage was also present. Abdominal cavity was filled with blood. Doctor also found fracture of lower jaw (right and left mandible). In his opinion, cause of death was coma and haemorrhage due to head injury and sustained injury on liver and large vessels, inguinal region of left side. Duration of the death was within 24 hours of post mortem examination. Blood stained clothes of the deceased like Sari, Petticoat and bra were seized. Slide of vaginal smear and swab as also prepared and was handed over to police for chemical examination. In the cross-examination, doctor has clarified that it is their general practice to prepare slides of vaginal smear in cases pertaining to lady homicide just to ascertain whether she was subjected to rape before murder or not. Slide of vaginal smear and swab as also prepared and was handed over to police for chemical examination. In the cross-examination, doctor has clarified that it is their general practice to prepare slides of vaginal smear in cases pertaining to lady homicide just to ascertain whether she was subjected to rape before murder or not. From the post-mortem, it was apparent that she tried to protest and received injuries as a result of protest. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that two independent witnesses have proved the preparation of Panchayatnama (Ex. P/3) and presence of Kalicharan at the place of occurrence. The deceased was having serious injuries in her body. As per medical evidence, it has been found proved and we have also found it proved that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. She was beaten very cruelly and she died because of those injuries. Therefore, we hold that the deceased died because of the injuries found on her body and nature of her death was homicidal. Now, next question before us is that who caused those injuries. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness account on record. Jagdish Prasad (PW 4) who is neighbor and was knowing appellant Ramakant and deceased has clearly stated in his evidence that he was residing in an adjoining house. Apart from being the witness of Panchayatnama Lash, he is also the witness of spot map (Ex. P/5). In his presence, broken pieces of bangles, plain and blood stained soil were seized by police including one piece of stone. Though, prosecution has not asked, but in the cross-examination, he gave suo motu statement to the Court that between 11.30 to 12 when he was preparing food for cattle, he heard the noise that "I am killed". When he came out of his house, he saw Ramakant going out of the house and appellant Ramdulari standing in the room. Dead body of deceased was lying in another room. Thereafter, daughter of appellant Kalicharan came out and told that her "Bhabhi" (deceased) has been killed. Thereafter whole village came to see the house of Kalicharan. While recording the statement of Jagdish Prasad (PW 4), Court has put a note that AJP has intimated that statement of this witness is not part of charge-sheet. Thereafter, daughter of appellant Kalicharan came out and told that her "Bhabhi" (deceased) has been killed. Thereafter whole village came to see the house of Kalicharan. While recording the statement of Jagdish Prasad (PW 4), Court has put a note that AJP has intimated that statement of this witness is not part of charge-sheet. Thereafter, case-diary of the police was produced by APP and it was found that statement of Jagdish (PW 4) was recorded by the police. Copy of the same was supplied to the counsel for defence and after cross-examination, the hearing was deferred. Thereafter, he was declared hostile and APP was permitted to put questions to him. He has denied that his statement was recorded by police and he was cross-examined. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued and submitted that the statement of Jagdish (PW 4) is not at all reliable. He submitted that copy of the statement recorded u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code was not supplied to the counsel and his suo motu statement given before Court is also not admissible in evidence, but Learned Counsel for the appellant could not satisfy this Court that how the suo motu statement given by this witness is not admissible in evidence. Though, subsequently he has not supported the prosecution but later on after receiving the copy of statement recorded u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code, defence has not tried to cross-examine him and confront him with his case-diary statement. There was no cross-examination by the defence on his suo motu statement. Therefore in our considered opinion, if the witness was not confronted and there was no cross-examination on his suo motu statement, the same cannot be discarded as argued by Learned Counsel for the appellant and reliance can be placed thereon. In this regard, trial Court has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, wherein it is held as under :- In a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider, in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. It is for the Judge of fact to consider, in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in to. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also further clarified the legal position about hostile witness who had earlier supported the prosecution and later on not supported the prosecution case. In the case of Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , it is held that the evidence of hostile witness cannot be treated as affected or washed off the record altogether. Part of the evidence which is otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. Considering the factual aspect as well as legal aspect of the matter, we hold that statement of Jagdish (PW 4) is fully reliable and trustworthy. He is the witness of last seen who had seen Ramakant who just after the incident was leaving the house and mother of Ramakant, Ramdulari who was present in the house at that time. He had also heard the cries of daughter of Kalicharan that "Bhabhi" has been killed'. Trial Court has found that the evidence of daughter is not in the shape of extra judicial confession and has considered this aspect of the matter and has held that no evidence of extra judicial confession is present in the case. But, the trial Court found the following circumstances proved against appellants:- that death of the deceased took place within two years of her marriage with appellant Ramakant. As per the medical evidence, death was homicidal in nature. The death took place in the house of appellants. Jagdish (PW 4) who is neighbor of appellants saw appellant Ramakant coming out of his house just after the incident. As per the medical evidence, death was homicidal in nature. The death took place in the house of appellants. Jagdish (PW 4) who is neighbor of appellants saw appellant Ramakant coming out of his house just after the incident. No report was lodged by the appellants-accused persons that the offence has been committed by somebody else. Appellants did not furnish any explanation that how the deceased died. Appellant Ramakant remained absconding till 22-5-1993 and he has not furnished any explanation that at the time of occurrence where he was and where he remained from 16-5-1993 to 22-5-1993. Evidence of demand of dowry and motive against the appellants is fully proved. We have also examined the evidence of Shivnath Prasad (PW 1) and Shakuntala Devi (PW 2). They were also cross-examined at length but their evidence is consistent. It has been consistently proved that in the marriage sufficient amount of cash and articles of gold and silver including clothes and utensils were given to the appellants. Sufficient evidence about demand of dowry as well as cash of Rs. 50,000/- with one scooter is also available against the appellants. Thus evidence of motive for commission of crime is very much available on record. Nothing adverse has come in the cross-examination which may support the case of defence that they were not involved in the demand of said amount and scooter. Shri Gupta, Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that appellants were not present on spot at the time of commission of crime and information about the incident was given to the police by Vidyaram, Chowkidar, who is a defence witness as appellants were not present in the village. After considering the complete evidence on record, we find that the evidence of Jagdish (PW 4) is very material as he is a neighbor of appellants. Why he will tell lie against the appellants? He himself has seen appellant Ramakant going out of the house just after the incident and appellant Ramdulari present in the house at the time of commission of crime. He also heard the cries of daughter of Kalicharan saying that "Bhabhi has been killed". Why he will tell lie against the appellants? He himself has seen appellant Ramakant going out of the house just after the incident and appellant Ramdulari present in the house at the time of commission of crime. He also heard the cries of daughter of Kalicharan saying that "Bhabhi has been killed". Shri Gupta also pointed out various omissions in the statement of witnesses, but we do not find that the statements of witnesses Shivnath Prasad (PW 1) and Shakuntalabai (PW 2) are inconsistent on the point of demand of dowry or practising of cruelty or beating of deceased by the appellants. An attempt was also made to show that relations of Jagdish (PW 4) were inimical with the appellants, but there is no such evidence on record. For an offence u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code, the burden is on the appellants to prove that they have not committed the crime and were not present at the time of commission of crime in the house and the incident happened in their absence, but no such burden has been discharged by the appellants. No evidence to discharge such burden has been produced and led by them. In this regard provision of section 113-B of the Evidence Act is very much clear according to which when the question is whether a person has committed dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry, the Court shall presume that such person has caused dowry death. In the instant case, prosecution has successfully discharged the burden that the prosecutrix was subjected to cruel treatment and harassment soon before her death for want of dowry. The presumption of dowry death can be drawn and the trial Court was justified in drawing this presumption. Pieces of bangles were seized from spot. Plain and blood stained soil was also seized from spot. From FSL's reports (Exs. F717 and P/18), it is clear that blood was found on articles 'D2" (blouse), "B" (soil stained with blood), "C" (stone), "Dl" (Sari), "D3" (Petticoat) and "D4" (brassier). Appellant Ramdulari was arrested on 19-5-1993 from the village itself. Appellant Kalicharan is the witness of Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P/3). Appellant Ramakant was arrested after six days from Morena. F717 and P/18), it is clear that blood was found on articles 'D2" (blouse), "B" (soil stained with blood), "C" (stone), "Dl" (Sari), "D3" (Petticoat) and "D4" (brassier). Appellant Ramdulari was arrested on 19-5-1993 from the village itself. Appellant Kalicharan is the witness of Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P/3). Appellant Ramakant was arrested after six days from Morena. Thus, the contentions of Learned Counsel for the appellants are not helpful to him as sufficient evidence is available against the appellants for their involvement in the commission of crime. We have already discussed the circumstances which are against the appellants for their involvement in the commission of crime. Conclusively, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly found that the chain of circumstances is complete in the case. Death of the deceased took place within two years of her marriage with appellant Ramakant. As per medical evidence, death was homicidal in nature. It took place in the house of appellants in presence of Ramakant and her mother. Appellant Ramakant was last seen going out of the house just after the incident. Appellants have not furnished any explanation that how the deceased died nor any report was lodged by them that offence has been committed by somebody else. Appellant Ramakant remained absconding till 22-5-1993. He has not furnished any explanation that where he remained during that period. Evidence of motive and demand of dowry has also been found proved. The deceased was murdered brutally. She received stab wound in the pubic region by which vessels were also cut. There were multiple abrasions and contusions of the body of deceased. All the injuries were ante mortem and the death was homicidal in nature. The chain of circumstances is complete and leads to the only hypothesis of guilt of appellants. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted all the three appellants for offence u/s 498-A, Indian Penal Code. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the trial Court has acquitted all the appellants from the charge u/s 304-B, Indian Penal Code. We have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is true that the trial Court has only convicted appellants Kalicharan and Ramdulari u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them under that section, but in the judgment, the trial Court has not specifically mentioned about acquitting them u/s 304-B or 302 of Indian Penal Code. We have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is true that the trial Court has only convicted appellants Kalicharan and Ramdulari u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them under that section, but in the judgment, the trial Court has not specifically mentioned about acquitting them u/s 304-B or 302 of Indian Penal Code. Trial Court, in paragraph 51 of its judgment found the evidence of motive present against appellant Ramakant and has recorded a finding that appellant Ramakant was greedy for dowry and regularly used to practice cruelty with the deceased for bringing Rs. 50,000/- cash and one scooter and also used to beat her for that purpose. Trial Court found that the aforesaid conduct of appellant Ramakant reflects his motive for causing the murder of deceased. In paragraph 52, trial Court again has recorded a finding that though abscission alone is not sufficient to convict appellant Ramakant, but since he was practising cruelty for dowry, therefore, this evidence is also against him. In paragraph 54 of its judgment, trial Court has recorded this finding that all the three accused-appellants used to demand dowry of Rs. 50,000/- plus one scooter from the deceased and also used to harass her for that purpose and because of that appellant Ramakant committed the murder of deceased on 16-5-1993 between 11-12 AM at his house. From this finding it is clear that the Court has found appellant Ramkant, husband of deceased, liable for conviction u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code which pertains to dowry death, but, while pronouncing judgment in so many words, it missed to convict him under that section as from the judgment it is clear that the trial Court did not specifically acquit the appellants from charge u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code. This is a mistake on the part of the trial Court. Shri Gupta, Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that unless an appeal is filed by the State, such a mistake committed by the trial Court cannot be rectified. This is a mistake on the part of the trial Court. Shri Gupta, Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that unless an appeal is filed by the State, such a mistake committed by the trial Court cannot be rectified. We are aware of the fact that had it been a case of acquittal by the trial Court u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code, then unless an appeal would have been preferred by the State, this Court could not have reversed the finding of acquittal, but from the evidence on record, it is clear that the trial Court has not specifically recorded finding of acquittal of appellant Ramakant u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we hold that appellant Ramakant is also liable to be convicted u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code along with section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Since under the major offence of section 302, Indian Penal Code, the trial Court has already awarded him life imprisonment, therefore we do not award him any sentence separately u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code. His conviction and sentence u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code are also affirmed and maintained. So far as the case of appellants Ramdulari and Kalicharan is concerned, against them also, in paragraph 54 of its judgment, trial Court has recorded a finding that they used to practice cruelty and beat the deceased and also used to demand dowry of Rs. 50,000/- with one scooter and that was the reason for which appellant Ramakant committed the murder of deceased. In view of the above finding given by the trial Court, it is clear that appellants Ramdulari and Kalicharan were also liable to be convicted u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code and the trial Court has not specifically acquitted them under that section, but since the State has not preferred any appeal in this regard, we will not hold them guilty u/s 304-B of Indian Penal Code and award any sentence on that count but certainly our conscious would be satisfied if we affirm their conviction and sentence u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code awarded by the trial Court as sufficient evidence of demand of dowry is available against them on record. Thus, conviction and sentence of appellants Ramdulari and Kalicharan u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code are affirmed. Shri Gupta in the alternative submitted that appellants be released on undergone jail sentence. Thus, conviction and sentence of appellants Ramdulari and Kalicharan u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code are affirmed. Shri Gupta in the alternative submitted that appellants be released on undergone jail sentence. Considering the nature of offence as well as the brutality in which appellants killed the deceased we do not find that they deserve any sympathy from this Court. Therefore, the prayer of Shri Gupta is rejected. Consequently, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Appellant Ramakant is in jail. He is directed to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Appellants Kalicharan and Ramdulari are on bail. They are directed to surrender within fifteen days from today failing which trial Court shall have liberty to take them into custody and commit them to jail for undergoing the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court. Final Result : Dismissed