Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 222 (UTT)

Diwani Ram and others v. State

2007-04-25

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 14-03-1990 passed by Shri Munni Lal, the then Sessions Judge, Chamoli in S.T. No. 21/1989 State Vs. Diwani Ram & others, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment under section 302/34 I.P.C. The appellants were further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and two years under section 201 I.P.C. and section 498-A I.P.C. respectively. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the marriage of Smt. Sati Devi (deceased) D/o Bachhu Das was solemnized with appellant no.1 Diwani Ram S/o Gaphloo Das. Gaphloo Das (father-in-law), Rukmani Devi (mother-in-law) and Diwani Ram (husband of the deceased) used to ill-treat the deceased. On 13-06-1989 at about 2 pm the appellant-Gaphloo Das came to the house of Bachhu Das and told him that Smt. Sati Devi went to the jungle to collect the grass, but she did not return from there. Gaphloo Das further asked him as to whether she had come to her parental house. Bachhu Das replied him that Smt. Sati Devi did not come to his house. Thereafter, on 14-06-1989 at about 10-11 a.m. Gaphloo Das again came to the house of Bachhu Das and told him that Smt. Sati Devi came to her parental house and they have concealed her their house. On this, Bachhu Das told him that his daughter did not come to her parental house and he was amazed to know that her daughter is missing from her matrimonial house. A thorough search was made. Bachhu Das had doubt on the husband and in-laws of Smt. Sati Devi. Thereafter, Bachhu Das reported the matter to the S.D.M., Chamoli but no action was taken in the matter. In the meantime, Bachhu Das also filed an application before the Gram Sabhapati, Ustoli o 20-06-1989 (Ex.ka.1). 3. When the revenue police did not proceed with investigation inspite of the application submitted to the S.D.M., an application about the incident (Ex.ka.2) was given to the District Magistrate, Chamoli on 28-06-1989 reiterating the aforesaid facts. It was further alleged in the application that the dead body of the deceased Smt. Sati Devi was found in Nandakani river on 24-06-1989 and the information to that effect was also given to the Patwari but no action was taken by him. It was further alleged in the application that the dead body of the deceased Smt. Sati Devi was found in Nandakani river on 24-06-1989 and the information to that effect was also given to the Patwari but no action was taken by him. On the said application, the District Magistrate vide order dated 28-06-1989 directed the Naib Tehsildar, Chamoli to investigate the matter either himself or by Supervisor Kanoongo. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar, Chamoli directed the Supervisor Kanoongo to investigate the matter. Since the Supervisor Kanoongo was on leave, hence the Patwari, Nand Prayag, the incharge supervisor Kanoongo investigated the matter and prepared the chick report (Ex.Ka.5) on the basis of application given to District Magistrate EX.ka.2. He made the necessary entry of the chick report in the G.D. (Ext.Ka.6). The Patwari recorded the statement of Bachhu Das and arrested the accused appellants on 01-07-1989. On 02-07-1989 the Supervisor Kanoongo joined his duties after leave. Thereafter, the investigation was undertaken by the Supervisor Kanoongo on 02-07-1989. After completing the investigation, the Supervisor Kanoongo (Investigating Officer) submitted the chargesheet (Ext.Ka.8) before the court. 4. After submission of chargesheet the appellants-accused were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges against the appellants. The appellants-accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined Bachhu Das PW 1-complainant. He is the father of the deceased Smt. Sati Devi. Dabi Das PW2 is the uncle of the complainant Bachu Das PW1. Km. Bimla PW3 is the sister of the appellant-Diwani Ram and sister-in-law of the deceased. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Dr. Vinod Kumar PW4 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. Buddhi Das PW5 is the witness who saw the appellants-accused coming with an article like a dead body kept in the basket in the morning of 13-06-1989 and throwing the same article into the river from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Jalmi Das PW6 is the father of Bachu Das PW 1. He is the grandfather of the deceased Smt. Sati Devi. K.S. Bist PW7 Patwari has investigated the matter in part. Laxman Singh Bhandari PW8, Supervisor Kanoongo is also the Investigating Officer of this case and he completed the rest investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the appellants-accused. Jalmi Das PW6 is the father of Bachu Das PW 1. He is the grandfather of the deceased Smt. Sati Devi. K.S. Bist PW7 Patwari has investigated the matter in part. Laxman Singh Bhandari PW8, Supervisor Kanoongo is also the Investigating Officer of this case and he completed the rest investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the appellants-accused. The appellants-accused did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence in their defence. 6. The appellants-accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the offence. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence held the appellants-accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them under section 302/34, 201 and 498A I.P.C. as mentioned above. 8. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate with Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Perused the record carefully. 9. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that it is not disputed that the deceased Sati Devi died on account of the injuries sustained by her. Dr. Vinod Kumar P.W4, Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Sati Devi on 25-06-1989 has found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased : (i) contusions present on forehead size 10cm x 10cm. (ii) contusion on both knee joints. The Medical Officer has categorically stated that the death occurred 10 to 14 days ago. The Medical Officer was of the opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries (head injury) sustained by the deceased. Thirty two weeks' pregnancy of the deceased was found. There is no dispute that there were injuries on the dead body of the deceased. 10. Now, we have to consider as to who is responsible for causing the depth of the deceased Smt. Sati Devi. There was no eyewitness of the incident and the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law which is fairly settled about circumstantial evidence is that it should be such as to point out only to the guilt of the accused. The evidence should exclude all other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. There was no eyewitness of the incident and the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law which is fairly settled about circumstantial evidence is that it should be such as to point out only to the guilt of the accused. The evidence should exclude all other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is often said that though witnesses may lie, circumstances will not but at the same time it must cautiously be scrutinized to see that the incriminating circumstances are such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. In order to sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence, each of the incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence should be proved by cogent and reliable evidence and the court should be satisfied that the piece of evidence taken together forge such a chain wherefrom no inference other than the guilt can be drawn. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shara Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) while dealing with circumstantial evidence, has held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence were enumerated as under : (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) The should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The above decision was also followed in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram 2003 Cri. L.J. p/3901, State of U.P. Vs. Satish 2005 SCC (Cri) 642 and Ram Singh Vs. Sonia & others 2007 (3) SCC 1. 12. The above decision was also followed in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram 2003 Cri. L.J. p/3901, State of U.P. Vs. Satish 2005 SCC (Cri) 642 and Ram Singh Vs. Sonia & others 2007 (3) SCC 1. 12. Keeping in view of the above principle of law, we will consider the circumstances projected by the prosecution against the appellants. 13. There is no dispute that the appellants Rukmani Devi and Gaphloo Das are the mother and father of the accused Diwani Ram respectively. There is no dispute that the marriage of Diwani Ram was solemnized with Sati Devi (deceased) a few years ago from the date of incident. Thus, Smt. Sati Devi deceased was the daughter of Bachu Das PW1 and was daughter-in-law of the accused Gaphloo Das and Rukmini Devi accused. Bimla Devi PW3 is the sister of Diwani Ram accused. There is no dispute that Gaphloo Das, Rukmini Devi, Diwani Ram accused-appellants and Sati Devi deceased were residing in the same house on the date of the incident. There is no dispute in between the parties that Sati Devi deceased was pregnant at the time of the incident and she had no other child at that time. Sati Devi deceased was last seen on 13-06-1989 in the house of the accused and thereafter her dead body was recovered from Nandakini river on 24-06-1989. It is also admitted case of the parties that Gaphloo Das and Diwani Ram went to the house of Bachu Das PW1 on 13-06-1989 and informed them that Sati Devi deceased had not returned to her house and inquired from Bachu Das PW1 as to whether she had come to his house. It is also admitted case of the parties that on 14-06-1989, Gaphloo Das appellant again went to the parental house of Sati Devi deceased and inquired as to whether they have concealed Sati Devi in their house. There is no dispute that there were injuries on the person of the deceased when the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the river Nanadakani. Vimla Devi PW3 has stated in her evidence that her parent used to live in one room in the house whereas in the other room her brother Diwani Ram and deceased Sati Devi used to live. Vimla Devi PW3 has stated in her evidence that her parent used to live in one room in the house whereas in the other room her brother Diwani Ram and deceased Sati Devi used to live. She used to sleep in the night with her friend Sarda's house which was adjacent to the house of her parent. There is no dispute that the deceased lived with the accused till the night of 12-06-1989. Now, we will examine the evidence of the prosecution in light of the above undisputed facts of the case. 14. The first circumstance against the appellants is that Buddhi Das P5 saw the appellants coming from their village and bringing something like a dead body in a basket wrapped with black cloth. Buddhi Das PW5 has stated in his evidence that they had thrown it into the Nandakini river. Buddhi Das PW5 had stated in his evidence that he is the resident of village Narangi which is situated in front of appellants' village Ustoli. On 12-06-1989 Buddhi Das PW5 went to Dolbagarh in Nandakani river for fishing. After affixing the net, he returned to his house. In the next morning i.e., 13-06-1989, he again went to Dolgabarh to bring the fishes from the river Nandakani where he has fenced the net. When he was at the shore of Nandakani river he saw three persons coming from Rastoli jungle on the opposite side of the river. These three persons were carrying something like a dead body in the basket and they threw it into the river Nandakani at Dolbagarh. Thereafter, they also threw the basket in which they carried the said body like thing. He recognized these three persons as Diwani Ram, Gaphloo Das and the wife of Gaphloo Das (Smt. Rukmani Devi). After throwing it into the river, they went to their village side. When Jalmi Das PW6 met him he told him about the said fact. The prosecution has also adduced the evidence of Jalmi Das PW6 who had stated in his evidence that Buddhi Das PW5 met him in the Ghat Bazar and told him about the aforesaid fact. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of Buddhi Das PW5 cannot be relied upon as he is a pet and professional witness of the police. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of Buddhi Das PW5 cannot be relied upon as he is a pet and professional witness of the police. Learned G.A refuted the contention and contended that during the cross examination Buddhi Das PW5 had only stated that he is witness in 3-4 cases. He had stated in his cross examination that Savitri Devi instituted a case against him u/s 354 I.P.C. and in the said case the compromise took place in between the parties. He had further stated that he had given evidence in 4-5 cases. The defence has not put any further question to the said witness about the details of those cases in which he appeared as witness. The defence should have categorically asked about the details of the cases in which he was a witness. It was not asked as to whether he was the witness on behalf of the police in those cases. It cannot be held, without any evidence that he had given 34 times evidence in a police case, that he was a professional witness. There was no suggestion to the witness that he appeared as witness in all 4-5 cases on behalf of the police. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Investigating .Officer Laxman Singh Bhandari PW8 has stated in his evidence that he recorded the statement of Buddhi Das PW5 on 27-08-1989 whereas the incident took place on 13-06-1989 and the body of the deceased was recovered on 24-06-1989. There was an inordinate delay in recording the statement of the witness Buddhi Das. When we go through the cross examination of the said witness, we find that the defence has not cross examined the I.O. on the delayed examination of the witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Satish 2005 SCC (Cri) 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "18. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions had held that unless the investigating officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witness the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. Satish 2005 SCC (Cri) 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "18. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions had held that unless the investigating officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witness the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version become suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion. 20. It is to be noted that the explanation when offered by the lO on being questioned on the aspect of delayed examination by the accused has to be tested by the court on the touchstone of credibility. If the explanation is plausible then no adverse inference can be drawn. On the other hand, if the explanation is found to be implausible, certainly the court can consider it to be one of the factors to affect credibility of the witnesses who were examined belatedly. It may not have any affect on the credibility of the prosecution's evidence tendered by the other witnesses." 17. The evidence of Investigating Officer clearly reveals that immediately after receiving the information from the District Magistrate on 01-07-1989, he proceeded with the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses. When he recorded the statement of Jalmi Das PW6 on 20-08-1989 he tried to contact the witness Budhi Das PW5 but he was not available inspite of his best efforts. It is the case of the prosecution that after 1 ½ month when he met with Jalmi Das PW6 he came to know that his grand daughter was missing from the house of her in-laws. Budhi Das PW5 told Jalmi Das PW6 about the fact of throwing a thing like dead body into the river by the appellants. It is revealed from the cross examination of I.O. that immediately after the interrogation of Jalmi Das PW6, the Investigating Officer tried to contact Buddhi Das PW5 but he was not available on that day, hence his statement was recorded on 27-08-1989. It is revealed from the cross examination of I.O. that immediately after the interrogation of Jalmi Das PW6, the Investigating Officer tried to contact Buddhi Das PW5 but he was not available on that day, hence his statement was recorded on 27-08-1989. Learned counsel for the appellants has categorically asked the I.O. as to whether Buddi Das has given the statement about throwing a body like thing in the Nandakani river under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the I.O. or not. The witness has stated as follows :- This fact shows that Buddhi Das PW5 has stated this fact under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his evidence recorded before the court is not an afterthought. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable. 18. The next circumstance against the appellants is that Dabi Das PW2 has stated in his evidence that he is the uncle of Bachhu Das PW1. He had stated that he went to village Ustoli in the year 1989 where the deceased was married. When the marriage party was returning from village Ustoli the deceased Smt. Sati Devi met with him and asked him to accompany her to the matrimonial house. When he tried to convince her that it would not be proper to accompany her to the matrimonial house the appellant Rukmani Devi reached there and pelted stone on the back of Smt. Sati Devi and beat her. The appellant Rukmani Devi also tried to snatch the 'bullack' (nose-pin) of Sati Devi. The villagers reached at the spot and they took them to their house and he also came back to his village. Dabi Das PW2wasaiso cross examined at length by the defence, but nothing could be elicited from his evidence by the defence. Learned counsel for the defence has assailed the evidence of Dabi Das PW2 on the ground that he had not stated in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that Smt. Sati Devi herself asked him to accompany her. The said omission was put to the witness, who had stated that if the said fact has not been written in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. he could not give any reason as to why the I.O. has not written this fact. The said omission was put to the witness, who had stated that if the said fact has not been written in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. he could not give any reason as to why the I.O. has not written this fact. This omission has not been put to the I.O. and it cannot be said that this fact was not stated by the witness while recording the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Assuming that there is an omission on the part of the witness we are of the view that it is not so material in nature which may belie the evidence of PW2 Dabi Das. As a matter of fact, the witness has not been cross examined on the point of fact which he proved about the incident of 18th Mangsir. The testimony of the said witness is totally credible and cogent. This fact leads to take inferences that Smt. Sati Devi was not happy in her matrimonial house. 19. The next circumstance which leads to the culpability of the appellants is that the autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased revealed that she was having the ante-mortem injuries on her dead body. Dr. Vinod Kumar PW4, Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Sati Devi on 25-06-1989, has categorically stated that the death occurred 10 to 14 days ago. The Medical Officer was of the opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries (head injury) sustained by the deceased. It is not disputed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the river. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to emphasize that the deceased has gone to collect the grass from the forest and while cutting the grass she might have fallen into the river, due to which she sustained injuries from the stones which was in the river. Learned G.A. refuted the contention. No suggestion was put to any of the prosecution witness that the people used to go to collect the grass from the hillock of Dolbargarh and it is full of grass for collection and the deceased also went there to cut & collect the grass and from where she slipped into the river. Learned G.A. refuted the contention. No suggestion was put to any of the prosecution witness that the people used to go to collect the grass from the hillock of Dolbargarh and it is full of grass for collection and the deceased also went there to cut & collect the grass and from where she slipped into the river. The site plan Ex.Ka.1 0 does not reveal that there was any grass nearby the shore of the river and its hillock where the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the grass could have been collected by the people. There is no evidence on record that the side of the river and its hillock was full of grass to collect it for animal. In absence of any suggestion or any circumstance available, it cannot he held that the deceased went there to collect the grass. The postmortem report clearly shows that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased. The medical officer has further stated that the injuries which were found on the head of the deceased could be caused by any blunt object like danda. The said injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course. It is apparent that if she would have fallen into the river while collecting the grass the death would have occurred due to asphyxia. Thus, this fact leads to take an inference that the death occurred due to the injuries and not by drowning in ghe river. This fact also give corroboration to the theory of the prosecution. 21. The next circumstance which goes against the appellants is motive. So far as the motive-qua the crime committed is concerned, it is borne out from the factual matrix of the case that at time of incident the deceased was pregnant. It is admitted to both parties that she had no child at the time of incident. Bachhu Das PW1 has deposed in his evidence that the appellants had a suspicion about the paternity of the child (foetus), who was in the womb of the deceased. He had also stated that the appellants were charging her about the unchaste character leading to pregnancy. He has also stated in his evidence that a panchayat was convened in the village for the same. He had also stated that the appellants were charging her about the unchaste character leading to pregnancy. He has also stated in his evidence that a panchayat was convened in the village for the same. The witness has not been cross examined on this point. The evidence of Bachhu Das PW1 remained unrebutted in the cross examination. The defence has not put any suggestion that no such panchayat was convened and there was nothing in the cross examination which leads to take an inference that the fact about Panchayat stated by Bachhu Das PW 1 was not credible and cogent. Thus, all the appellants had a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased. 22. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased Sati Devi went to the jungle to collect the grass in the morning of 13-06-1989 and she did not return till noon and thereafter her body was recovered on 24-06-1989 from the Nandakini river. Bachu Das PW1 deposed in the evidence that the appellant-accused Gaphloo Das told him about the missing of the deceased when they came to his house on 13-06-1989. It is also in the evidence that the appellant Gaphloo Das went to the house of PW1 Bachu Das, the father of the deceased at about 2:00 p.m. on 13-06-1989 on the same day when she did not return to his house instead of searching the deceased Sati Devi in the forest. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellants had not given any suggestion to any of the prosecution witness that she went to forest to collect the grass and she did not return their home. There is no case of the appellants u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to that effect. The accused appellants had taken a plea of total denial during trial. If the deceased was living with them, they should have given a plausible explanation as to how she left the company of the appellants u/s 106 of Evidence Act. There is no case of the appellants u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to that effect. The accused appellants had taken a plea of total denial during trial. If the deceased was living with them, they should have given a plausible explanation as to how she left the company of the appellants u/s 106 of Evidence Act. The appellants had not taken a plea that Sati Devi deceased went to collect the grass in the forest during trial by way of suggestion or statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that when the appellant Gaphloo Das went in the house of Bachu Lal PW1, they had stated to him that Sati Devi deceased went in the forest to collect the grass but she did not return home. The evidence of PW 4 Dr. Vinod Kumar who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased completely shatters the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The post mortem report reveals that the death occurred due to the ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased. The medical report did not support the defence version that the death occurred due to drowing in the river. We are aware that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs to prove the case. But, where the accused appellants have taken inconsistent pleas or did not give any plausible explanation which was within their exclusive knowledge it also becomes relevant for the appreciation of evidence. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the deceased disappeared from her matrimonial house on 13-06-1989 and no missing report was lodged with the police immediately. Learned G.A. refuted the contention and contended that there is no delay in lodging the missing report. Perusal of the record reveals that the family members of the deceased gave a missing report to the S.D.M., Chamoli on 17-06-1989. It is in the evidence that a missing report expressing doubt upon the appellants-accused was also submitted to the Gram Sabhapati, Ustoli on 20-06-1989. The father and grandfather of the deceased informed the Patwari, Ghat about the recovery of the dead body from Nandakani river. Patwari, Ghat prepared the inquest report and he himself gave his opinion that the death of the deceased occurred in suspicious circumstances so her postmortem was required in the case. The father and grandfather of the deceased informed the Patwari, Ghat about the recovery of the dead body from Nandakani river. Patwari, Ghat prepared the inquest report and he himself gave his opinion that the death of the deceased occurred in suspicious circumstances so her postmortem was required in the case. Though, there were persistent pleas on behalf of the appellants not to conduct the postmortem of the deceased. Zalmi Das PW6 has submitted an application to the-District Magistrate that the police is not investigating the matter. Thereafter, the District Magistrate ordered the Naib Tehsildar to conduct the investigation either by himself or through the Supervisor Kanoongo. The Naib Tehsildar directed the Supervisor Kanoongo to investigate the matter. Pursuant to the said order, the investigation was started by the revenue police. In the circumstances as stated above, it can be safely said that the family members of the deceased were vigilant, but the investigating agency was negligent in starting the investigation of the case. Therefore, it cannot be held that there was a delay in reporting the matter. This is a case of remissness on the part of the investigating agency, which does not help the appellants. Even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance. But it would not be proper to acquit an accused solely on account of the defect or delay in investigation. To do so would tantamount to playing in the hands of the investigating officer when the investigation is designedly defective. 24. It is also established from the evidence of Buddi Das PW5, who has stated that the appellants had thrown the body-like thing on 13-06-1989 and later on the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the river at the same place that the appellants knowingly tried to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence by throwing the dead body into the river. 25. In view of the above, we are completely in agreement with the findings with regard to the conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. 26. To attract the offence under section 498A IPC, it must be established by cogent and credible evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or ill-treatment in connection with the demand of dowry. 25. In view of the above, we are completely in agreement with the findings with regard to the conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. 26. To attract the offence under section 498A IPC, it must be established by cogent and credible evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or ill-treatment in connection with the demand of dowry. In the case in hand, there was no averment in the FIR and in any complaints made to the higher authorities that there was any ill-treatment or cruelty with the deceased on account of dowry demand. The prosecution witnesses had not stated in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment on account of dowry demand. The allegations of ill-treatment on account of dowry demand were made before the court for the first time during the evidence. Thus, there is no cogent and credible evidence to convict the appellants-accused under section 498A I.P.C. and as such they are entitled to get the benefit of doubt under section 498-A IP.C. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. The conviction and sentence against the appellants awarded by the trial court under sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. are confirmed. We, accordingly, acquit the appellants from the charge under section 498A IPC. The appeal is partly allowed. 28. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance. Compliance report be submitted within three months.