JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Eleven persons faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge Puri by Judgment dtd. 23.8.1998 convicted Sarbeswar Parida (Appellant No. 1) for commission of offence u/s 304 Part-II I.P.C. and also convicted the said Appellant and eight other accused persons for commission of offence u/s 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced Sarbeswar to undergo R.I for three years and others to R.L for one year. The sentence was directed to run concurrently. The Sessions Judge however acquitted Rukuna Parida and Niru @ Nirupama Parida. Being aggrieved the Appellants have approached This Court. 2. The criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed by P.W. 16, at Tangi Police Station on 24th April, 1986, inter alia, alleging that Sarbeswar had married Chanchala, the deceased, who happened to be the sister of P.W. 16 on 5th of March, 1984. Appellant No. 2, Binod Parida, Appellant No. 3, Makar Parida and Appellant No. 4, Padma Parida were the father and brothers of Appellant Sarbeswar Parida respectively. Appellant No. 8, Subal Swain and Appellant No. 7, Krushna Ch. Swain were the maternal uncles of Appellant Sarbeswar and Appellant No. 9, Bhagirathi was the son of Appellant No. 8. Appellant No. 6, Okila, was a relation of Appellant No. 5, Rabindra and was a friend of Appellant No. 1. It was alleged that at the time of marriage a cash of Rs. 7,000/-, four Tolas of gold and other utensils and furniture were given to Appellant No. 1. After the marriage Sarbeswar and Chanchala lived happily for about six months. Thereafter, Appellant No. 1 developed illicit relationship with one Sabitri Mandal, a Bengali refugeee. He used to spend most of his time with her and neglect Chanchala. Apart from ill-treating Chanchala he occasionally assaulted her. While his in-laws tried to intervene he misbehaved with them. It is further alleged that the family members of Appellant No. 1 hatched a plan to get rid of Chanchala. They tried to send Sarbeswar and Chanchala to Calcutta. But then Chanchala did not agree to the said proposal and at the intervention of villagers the matter was dropped. While his in-laws tried to intervene he misbehaved with them. It is further alleged that the family members of Appellant No. 1 hatched a plan to get rid of Chanchala. They tried to send Sarbeswar and Chanchala to Calcutta. But then Chanchala did not agree to the said proposal and at the intervention of villagers the matter was dropped. On 23rd of April, 1986 morning the father of the deceased Udayanath, P.W.8 came to her house and the deceased complained before him that she was assaulted by her husband. After departure of P.W.8 all the Appellants being enraged, assaulted Chanchala severely inside the Court yard and she succumbed to the injuries caused. In the night the Appellants carried the deadbody of Chanchala and threw it on the Railway Track which was near the village. On the next day one Hati Swain, Gangman, found the deadbody of a female being run over by train. After getting the news the informant, his father and other villagers went to the spot. The informant identified the deadbody to be that of his sister Chanchala. He alleged that neither Appellant No. 1 nor any members of his family came to see the deadbody. After inquest the deadbody was taken to Khurda Hospital for post mortem and thereafter it was handed over to the informant. None of the Appellants was present at the time of inquest or post mortem, nor were they present when the body was cremated. All of them were found absent in their house. After investigation by the local Police the matter was handed over to Crime Branch. During investigation the I.O., P.W.29, seized six letters said to have been written by Chanchala to her mother and brother which were marked as Ext. 4 series. He also seized some letters marked 'X'. On 22nd September, 1986 P.W.29 handed over charge of the investigation to P.W.26 of the Crime Branch. In course of investigation Appellants Sarbeswar, Bhagirathi and Nirupama surrendered and forwarded to Court. The investigation report also reveals that there was a further demand of dowry and Rs. 2,000/- besides a wristwatch and a radio-by Sarbeswar and as the informant's father did not comply with the same, Chanchala was put to severe torture. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. The plea of defence was complete denial. The investigation report also reveals that there was a further demand of dowry and Rs. 2,000/- besides a wristwatch and a radio-by Sarbeswar and as the informant's father did not comply with the same, Chanchala was put to severe torture. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. The plea of defence was complete denial. Sarbeswar denied to have demanded any dowry and took the plea that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution got 30 witnesses examined. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.3 was a witness before whom Chanchala was stated to have complained with regard to ill-treatment and assault by her husband and others and through whom was sending letters, vide Ext. 4 series, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were the witnesses regarding illicit relationship between Sarbeswar and Sabitri, P.W.7 was declared hostile, P.W.8 was the father of the deceased, P.Ws.9 and 10 spoke about concealment of Appellant Sarbeswar in the house of accused Okil Parida for four days after the occurrence, P.Ws. 11 and 13 were the witnesses to the accused persons carrying the deadbody in the night near the Railway Track, P.W.12 spoke about illicit relationship between Sarbeswar and Sabitri, P.W.14 proved the handwriting of Chanchala and letter Ext. 11 and 13 were the witnesses to the accused persons carrying the deadbody in the night near the Railway Track, P.W.12 spoke about illicit relationship between Sarbeswar and Sabitri, P.W.14 proved the handwriting of Chanchala and letter Ext. 4 series, P.W.15 was declared hostile, P.W.16 was the informant and the brother of the deceased, P.W.17 was an eye-witness to the dead body being carried in the night near the Railway Track, P.W.18 was a Junior Engineer who had drawn the site plan, P.W.19 was the Railway Guard who stated to have seen the deadbody of the deceased on the Track, P.W.20 had accompanied the deadbody for post mortem, P.W.21 had accompanied the informant to the P.S. to lodge F.I.R. and he had taken the photographs of the deadbody of the deceased at the instance of I.O. He was also a witness to the inquest, P.W.22 was the mother of Chanchala, P.Ws.23 and 24 were the doctors who had conducted post mortem of the deceased, P.W.25 had produced the viscera examination report, P.W.26 was the I.O., P.W.27 was the doctor, who gave a report regarding the cause of death of the deceased, P.W.28 was the C.I. of Balugaon who had taken up investigation of the case, P.W.29 was the Inspector of Crime Branch and the I.O. and P.W. 30 was the I.O. who had later on taken over charge of the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. It is pertinent to note that the accused persons did not adduce any evidence, but filed some documents. The Sessions Court after vivid discussion of the evidence and after perusing the post mortem report, injury report and the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, came to the conclusion that the cause of death was not suicidal but was homicidal. After going through the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 11, 13 and 17 who clearly deposed that they had seen the accused persons carrying the deadbody of Chanchala around at 11 P.M. in the night on 23.4.1986 towards Railway line and other evidence, held that deceased Chanchala had died in the house of Appellant Sarbeswar and due to assaults and throttling of the neck. 2, 11, 13 and 17 who clearly deposed that they had seen the accused persons carrying the deadbody of Chanchala around at 11 P.M. in the night on 23.4.1986 towards Railway line and other evidence, held that deceased Chanchala had died in the house of Appellant Sarbeswar and due to assaults and throttling of the neck. But then he observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.Ws.1 and 2 was not sufficient enough to show that the Appellants caused the death of Chanchala, though there was no material to reveal that Appellant No. 1 gave some blows with iron plough-share on the deceased. Perusing the conclusions arrived at by the doctors who had conducted post mortem that the death was due to asphyxia by throttling and as there was no evidence as to throttling, the Sessions Court held that the accused could not be found guilty of commission of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. Analyzing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other evidences, the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to establish that Appellant No. 1 was guilty of the offence u/s 304 Part-II I.P.C. and u/s 201 of I.P.C. and the other Appellants were guilty of the offences u/s 201/34 I.P.C. and convicted all of them thereunder. As stated earlier, the said order is assailed before the Court. 5. According to learned Counsel for the Appellants there was no cogent evidence basing upon which the conviction can be sustained. It is forcefully submitted that all the witnesses were examined, after considerable amount of delay for which it would not be safe to rely upon their evidence. Learned Counsel for the Appellants however submitted that there was no evidence at all to connect the Appellants with the alleged crime, inasmuch as the post mortem report does not support the prosecution case. All the injuries found on the dead body were opined to be post mortem. Thus, the Sessions Court acted illegally in convicting Appellant No. 1 for commission of offence u/s 304 Part-II I.P.C. In short, it is submitted that all the witnesses were relatives and there were a lot of discrepancies in the evidence which were recorded after lapse of considerable delay from the date of occurrence. Thus, the Sessions Court acted illegally in convicting Appellant No. 1 for commission of offence u/s 304 Part-II I.P.C. In short, it is submitted that all the witnesses were relatives and there were a lot of discrepancies in the evidence which were recorded after lapse of considerable delay from the date of occurrence. The Sessions Court having acted illegally and with material irregularity in convicting the Appellants the impugned order of conviction and sentence is to be set aside. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. To appreciate the submissions made, learned Counsel for the Appellants took This Court through the entire evidence. So far as relationship between Appellant No. 1 and deceased Chanchala was concerned there was no dispute. Admittedly they were married and were leading a blissful married life for quite some time. The dispute, as it appears, cropped up when Appellant No. 1 allegedly developed illicit relationship with a Bengali refugee. There were also some allegations with regard to demand of dowry and torture mitigated out to Chanchala. The only material available on record was that an attempt was made to take Chanchala to Calcutta, but then the same failed. P.W.8, the father of the deceased as would be evident from his evidence visited the house of his daughter Chanchala soon before the unfortunate date. It appears from his evidence that Chanchala narrated before him that P.W.1 and other accused persons had assaulted her brutally and were demanding more dowry. After hearing such facts, he returned back and the unfortunate incident occurred soon thereafter. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were eye-witnesses to the occurrence, it appears that Chanchala was brutally assaulted by her husband, Appellant No. 1 and others and she had sustained grievous injuries. The evidence reveals that they had seen Appellant No. 1 assaulting his wife Chanchala by means of a plough-share on her back in courtyard of his house. They also found other assaults being present at the spot. After assault, it is stated, Chanchala fell down and cried for water. Instead of giving water to injured Chanchala, it is alleged, Appellant No. 1 pressed her neck with both his hands. The other accused threatened P.W.1 and directed him to leave the spot. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited from his statement to disbelieve his statements made in examination-in-chief. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2. Instead of giving water to injured Chanchala, it is alleged, Appellant No. 1 pressed her neck with both his hands. The other accused threatened P.W.1 and directed him to leave the spot. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited from his statement to disbelieve his statements made in examination-in-chief. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 reveals that there was illicit relationship between Appellant No. 1 and one Sabitri the refugee woman. The said evidence has also been corroborated by. P.W.12. The fact that Chanchala was tortured and assaulted by Appellant No. 1 gets further fortified from the letters written by her, vide Ext. 4 series. P.Ws.13, 17 and 19 have stated before the Court that they had seen the Appellants carrying the deadbody of Chanchala in the night near the Railway Track. Post mortem report coupled with the evidence of the doctors P.Ws. 24 and 25 as well as P.W.27 reveals, that the death was due to asphyxia though the doctors have stated that it was not possible to entirely rule out death by train run over, but then the evidence of P.Ws. 13, 17 and 19 rules out the said possibility that as they had seen the Appellants carrying the body of Chanchala to the Railway Track. That apart, the evidence of P.Ws.24 and 27 is very clear with regard to assault on Chanchala. The attack of the defence is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were chance witnesses, their evidence cannot be accepted. From the evidence it appears that they were natural and truthful witnesses and their evidence was clear and cogent to the effect that they had seen Appellant No. 1 assaulting Chanchala with a plough-share. The aforesaid two witnesses have no enmity with the accused persons. Though both P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined at a later stage during investigation, This Court finds that the investigation of the case had passed from hand to hand inasmuch initially the same was done by a local police officer and subsequently as it was found that the investigation was not being properly done, the same was handed over to State Crime Branch. 1 and 2 were examined at a later stage during investigation, This Court finds that the investigation of the case had passed from hand to hand inasmuch initially the same was done by a local police officer and subsequently as it was found that the investigation was not being properly done, the same was handed over to State Crime Branch. The Crime Branch in course of its investigation recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure although the aforesaid two witnesses clearly stated that they had seen Appellant No. 1 assaulting the deceased on her back. The medical evidence also reveals that such an injury was stretched on the body. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the other evidence available clearly reveals that the body of Chanchala was carried to Railway track at 11.00 P.M. at night. All these evidences and over and above the circumstances in which Chanchala died reveals that the death was not only unnatural but also homicidal in nature. It is well settled that where inferences of guilt to an accused is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt and they shall point at the guilt of the accused meaning thereby that the circumstances must lead to the conclusion that within all human probabilities the accused and none else than the accused had committed the crime in question. A cumulative reading of the oral evidence coupled with the post mortem report and the letters written by Chanchala when she was alive leads to a conclusion that it was not a case of natural death or suicide. The Sessions Court had discussed all the materials and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the death of Chanchala was homicidal in nature. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 7. P.Ws. 2, 11, 13 and 17 have seen all the Appellants carrying the deadbody of Chanchala at night on 23.4.1986 at around 11.00 P.M. to the Railway Track. Though there is some discrepancy as to how many people were carrying the body, but then the evidence of all the witnesses reveals that the Appellants were present and were in fact carrying the body. Though there is some discrepancy as to how many people were carrying the body, but then the evidence of all the witnesses reveals that the Appellants were present and were in fact carrying the body. The evidence further revealed that no blood stain appeared on the railway track which itself shows that Chanchala was dead by the time the body was run over by the Train. The Sessions Judge on analyzing the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not substantiate the allegation that Appellant No. 1 committed an offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. had and convicted him for commission of offence u/s 304 Part-II of I.P.C. It appears that no appeal was filed by the State Government assailing the Judgment of the Sessions Court. 8. Considering all the facts and circumstances and after going through the evidence and the Judgment, This Court finds absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of conviction. However, the occurrence, it appears, took place in the year 1986. Twenty-two years have passed in the meanwhile. By efflux of time there might have been lots of social changes. Taking into consideration all the facts and the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellants, This Court while maintaining conviction reduces the sentence so far as Appellant No. 1, Sarbeswar Parida, is concerned who has been convicted u/s 304 Part-II of I.P.C to one and half years and all other Appellants including Sarbeswar, who have been convicted u/s 201/34 of I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for a period of six months each. The sentences are run concurrently. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the Crl. Appeal is disposed of.