JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. - This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttackin S.T. Case No. 183/21 of 1994 convicting the Appellants u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment u/s 304-B of I.P.C, two years imprisonment u/s 498-A of I.P.C. and one year imprisonment u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences awarded u/s 498-A of I.P.C. and u/s 4 of D.P. Act were directed to be merged with the punishment imposed u/s 304-B of I.P.C. 2. The fact of the case in short is that accused Biswanath Sahoo was a worker in the Orissa Textile Mills, Choudwar and was residing in quarters No. 2-RB/94 at Labour Tenament, Choudwar. Accused Sailabala Sahoo and Premananda Sahoo are his wife and son respectively. Accused Premananda was running a stationary-cum-betel shop at Chaudakhia Bazar, Choudwar. On 5.7.1993 Premananda's marriage was solemnized with deceased Mamata ' Tiki, the daughter of Kapil Sahoo of Chauliaganj. As per the dowry demand, P.W.1 the brother of the deceased had paid Rs. 22,5007- towards dowry for purchase of a Luna moped and Barat expenses besides the jewellery and other household articles. After marriage, the accused persons demanded further dowry of Rs. 10,000/- for investment in the business run by accused Premananda. Because of non-fulfilment of the said demand by P.W.1, the accused persons tortured the deceased physically and mentally. On 29/30.10.1993 (i.e. within four months of the marriage) deceased died in the matrimonial home due to extensive burn injuries. On the information of Biswanath Sahoo, father-in-law of the deceased, Choudwar Police Registered U.D. Case No. 18 of 1994, but the Police refused to act upon the written F.I.R. lodged on 1.11.1993 by P.W.1. Later on at the intervention of the D.S.P., H.R.P.C., Cuttack, the O.I.C., Choudwar P.S. acted upon the said F.I.R. and registered the same as Choudwar P.S. Case No. 227 on 1.11.1993. The Inspector H.R.P.C, Cuttack took charge of the investigation from Choudwar Police and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 3. The accused-Appellants took the plea that there was no demand of dowry from their side. The marriage was solemnized against the will of the deceased who wanted to marry a service holder. The Inspector H.R.P.C, Cuttack took charge of the investigation from Choudwar Police and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. 3. The accused-Appellants took the plea that there was no demand of dowry from their side. The marriage was solemnized against the will of the deceased who wanted to marry a service holder. The deceased committed suicide as accused Premananda was in love affairs with a local girl even after his marriage. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in all and exhibited several documents, but the accused persons have not examined any witness to defend their case. 5. Since the accused-Appellants have been charged u/s 304-B of I.P.C, in order to bring home the same the following ingredients are required to be established by the prosecution: (i) Whether the death of the deceased was due to burn injury or under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. (ii) Whether death of the deceased was due to cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband or by any relations due to non-fulfillment of demand for dowry. (iii) Whether such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 5.7.1993. The death took place in the fateful night of 29/30.11.1993. Therefore, the death has occurred within seven years of marriage. It is found from the evidence of P.W.4, the post mortem report Ext.4 and the inquest report Ext.1, that the deceased has met her death on account of hundred percent burn injury. From the above evidence it is, therefore, concluded that the deceased died out of burn injury within seven years of her marriage. 6. The next crucial point for determination is as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband or any of his relations for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. To substantiate the above accusation, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5. P.W.1 is the elder brother of deceased, who deposed that as per the demand of the accused-persons he had paid Rs. 22,5007- at the time of marriage negotiation towards Luna Moped, Barajatri expenses and for other articles. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments, furniture etc. were also given as dowry as per their demands. P.W.1 is the elder brother of deceased, who deposed that as per the demand of the accused-persons he had paid Rs. 22,5007- at the time of marriage negotiation towards Luna Moped, Barajatri expenses and for other articles. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments, furniture etc. were also given as dowry as per their demands. It is further deposed that the accused persons were compelling the deceased time and again to bring Rs. 10,000/- more as dowry for their investment in the stationary shop. The deceased had visited her parental home for the last time seven days prior to her death and she requested her brother to arrange the money as she was being tortured. Similarly, P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that a sum of Rs. 22,500/-had been given at the marriage as per the demand of the accused persons. When the deceased had visited her parental house seven days prior to her death, she had disclosed that the accused persons were demanding Rs. 10,000/- more and she was being ill-treated for its non-compliance. P.W.3 is an independent witness and he has stated in his evidence that three days prior to the death of Mamata (deceased), he had been to the house of the accused persons where he found the deceased in depressed mood. On enquiry, she disclosed that she was being tortured by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of dowry. P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. She categorically deposed in her evidence that the accused persons were demanding Rs. 10,000/- more. The deceased had visited her parental house three to four times and each time she was narrating about the miseries meted out to her by her husband and in-laws for non-payment of further dowry. Seven days prior to her death, she had last come to their house and at that time also she narrated the demand raised by the accused persons and the torture meted out to her on their failure to comply the same. From the above evidence it is crystal clear that there was constant demand of dowry from the side of the accused persons and on account of noncompliance, the deceased was being tortured by them. From the above evidence it is crystal clear that there was constant demand of dowry from the side of the accused persons and on account of noncompliance, the deceased was being tortured by them. The deceased had last visited her parental house seven days prior to her death and at that time she was complaining about the ill-treatment on her with regard to further demand of dowry by the family members of the deceased. 7. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it can be safely deduced that the deceased was being consistently tortured by the accused persons for further dowry and the same continued till her death. Therefore, the essential ingredient that there must be demand of dowry soon before her death is undoubtedly established by the prosecution. Death has occurred only three months after the marriage. Therefore, cruelty in connection with demand of dowry at any point of time between the marriage and the death could be safely held to be amounting to cruelty soon before the death and the same can be construed as proximate cause for the death of the deceased. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and do not inspire confidence because of material contradictions. The evidence of the witnesses is contradictory to their previous statements on vital issues as such, the same cannot form the basis of holding the Appellants guilty of the charge. He further submitted that contradictions on material particulars, hit the substratum of the prosecution allegation rendering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses unreliable and in order to arrive at such any conclusion, the evidence of the witnesses are to be critically analyzed. So far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, it has been proved through the investigating Officer (P.W.8) that the witnesses had not stated that there was demand for Rs. 10,000/- in cash as dowry by the accused persons and the deceased was tortured by the accused persons due to non-payment of that amount. Similarly, P.W.6, another Investigating Officer has proved the contradiction that P.W.1 had not stated that the deceased had visited her parental house seven days prior to her death during which she had requested him to arrange a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by the accused persons and that she was being inhumanly tortured by them. Similarly, P.W.6, another Investigating Officer has proved the contradiction that P.W.1 had not stated that the deceased had visited her parental house seven days prior to her death during which she had requested him to arrange a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by the accused persons and that she was being inhumanly tortured by them. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.5 that there are also similar contradictions regarding demand of Rs. 10,000/- for investment in the stationary shop and the visit of the deceased seven days prior to her death. True it is that if the contradictions are genuine, the same impeach the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. But there are many glaring and striking features, in view of which, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground. P.W.6, the Investigating Officer, has admitted in his evidence that he had not recorded the statement of P.W.1 in verbatim, but stated that he fully corroborated the F.I.R. story. If the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the witness verbatim, then the evidence deposed in Court cannot be said to be contradictory to the statement. As the statement has not been recorded faithfully in accordance with law by the Investigating Officer, the witness can not be blamed. Viewed from another angle, if the statement of the witness was fully corroborative to the F.I.R. story as stated by the witness (P.W.6), then there is no contradiction between the F.I.R. allegation and the evidence of the witness. Demand of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry is very much there in the F.I.R., hence there is no contradiction. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, it is contended that she had not stated before the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) that the deceased had visited her father's house seven days prior to her death. It may be noted that there is no contradiction so far demand of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned. The only contradiction which has been proved is regarding her visit. As concluded earlier, the death has taken place only three months after the marriage, for which demand of dowry any time in between can be construed as soon before the death. It is inconsequential whether the deceased had come 7 days or 15 days prior to her death. Accusation regarding consistent and repeated demands of dowry remained unshaken. The conduct of P.W.8 is also not above board. It is inconsequential whether the deceased had come 7 days or 15 days prior to her death. Accusation regarding consistent and repeated demands of dowry remained unshaken. The conduct of P.W.8 is also not above board. He has also not recorded the statement of the witness verbatim. He has admitted that he translated the Oriya version into English while recording the statement. When the witness stated in Oriya there was absolutely no justification/reason to translate their statement into English. This witness has been declared hostile as he presented the statement of the witness in distorted version. These two police officers have bungled in the investigation. P.Ws.1 and 2 were present at the spot while P.W.8 was enquiring into the U.D. case which was instituted on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the accused persons. Similarly, P.W.3 was also present at the spot but they (P.Ws.2 and 3) were not examined. This speaks in volume. P.W.2 is a close relation of the deceased, as such,.he should not have been left out. Though P.W. 8 received the F.I.R. (Ext.3) on 1.11.1993, but he did not register the same on the ground that P.M. report was not received. This is absolutely a false plea. The F.I.R. disclosed cognizable offence. On 30.10.1993, the Doctor held inquest over the dead body. Death was within three months of the marriage. In such circumstances, non-registration of the F.I.R. is tell tale. P.W.1 made a complaint before the I.G., H.R.P.C. regarding inaction and non-registration of F.I.R. by Choudwar P.S. The I.G. deputed D.S.P., D.K. Patra, who visited the P.S. on 3.11.1993. By that date the F.I.R. was not registered. On the intervention of the D.S.P., the case was registered. All these events cast grave doubt about the bona fide of the Investigating Officer. In such background facts and circumstances, the so-called omission by P.Ws.1 and 5 in their statements before the police is inconsequential. No emphasis can be attached to the alleged contradiction. As has been held in the case of Baladin and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, that: Ordinarily accused persons are entitled to challenge the testimony of witnesses examined in Court with reference to the statements said to have been made by them before the investigating police officer. No emphasis can be attached to the alleged contradiction. As has been held in the case of Baladin and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, that: Ordinarily accused persons are entitled to challenge the testimony of witnesses examined in Court with reference to the statements said to have been made by them before the investigating police officer. Statements made by the prosecution witnesses before the investigating police officer being the earliest statements made by them with reference to the facts of the occurrence are valuable material for testing the veracity of the witnesses examined in Court, with particular reference to those statements which happen to be at variance with their earlier statements; but the statements made during police investigation are not substantive evidence. Hence the record made by a police investigating officer has to be considered by the Court only with a view to weighing the evidence actually adduced in Court. If the police record becomes suspect or unreliable, as in the present case, on the ground that it was deliberately perfunctory or dishonest, it loses much of its value and the Court in judging the case of a particular accused has to weigh the evidence given against him in Court keeping in view the fact the earlier statements of witnesses as recorded by the police is tainted record and has not as great a value as it otherwise would have in weighing all the material on the record as against each individual accused. P.Ws.2 and 3 both have deposed in clear term that there was demand of dowry by the accused persons, which the deceased disclosed before them. Due to non-fulfillment of dowry money the deceased was being tortured. There is nothing to disbelieve these two witnesses so far as the demand of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned. Conjoint reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 clearly establishes that there was demand of dowry by the accused persons and on account of non-fulfillment of their demand the deceased was being subjected to ill treatment and harassment. 8. On an analysis of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that there exists the proximate and reliable link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the deceased. The cruelty meted out to the deceased is not remote in time. 8. On an analysis of evidence on record, we are of the considered view that there exists the proximate and reliable link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the deceased. The cruelty meted out to the deceased is not remote in time. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no torture meted out to the deceased soon before her death. The ingredients having been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, the conviction of the Appellants are wholly justified. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Therefore, the Judgment and order of conviction and sentences awarded against the Appellants are confirmed. The Appellants be recommitted to serve their sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed