JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.-The two appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Appellant No. 1 is son of appellant NO.2. The victim is one Pushpa Devi, wife of appellant No.1. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that Pushpa Devi was married to Amitabh Kumar (appellant No.1) at the agl3 of 20 years in the year 1983 and she lived at her Sasural in Village-Nema for eight days and thereafter the informant, who is brother of victim Pushpa Devi brought her to his place on "Rukhsadi". Again on 24.4.1985 her husband (appellant No.1) and his agnates brought her to their place. Thereafter, as per allegation, both the appellants desired to have motorcycle owned by informant's younger brother. The Appellants and co-accused Mahasundari Devi (mother-in-law) asked Pushpa Devi to get motorcycle from her brother. The appellants always used to tell the informant that if the motorcycle would not be given she would be killed and appellant No. 1 would marry for the third time. They also told that they had already killed one woman and they would also kill sister of the informant if the demand is not fulfilled. They used to tease, abuse and assault the sister of the informant. They wanted to snatch the ornament of the deceased Pushpa Devi for giving the same to Amrita Kumari in her marriage. It would be relevant to mention it here that Amrita Devi was a coaccused in the case. She is sister of appellant No. 1 and daughter of appellant NO.2. The deceased was never ready to part with her ornaments. On 24.5.1985 appellant No. 1 went to Pali School and called the informant there. Appellant No.1 told the informant to persuade the deceased to part with her ornaments otherwise a threatening was given that she would be killed. At that time, Nand Singh, Awadhesh Sharma and Suresh Singh were present there and they heard the threatening given to the informant. On that very day the informant alongwith his villager namely Nand Singh went to Village-Nema. The informant tried to persuade. her sister to give ornaments as desired by the appellants. However, the deceased told that her husband and in-laws used to abuse, assault and threaten her. On that very day the informant alongwith his villager namely Nand Singh went to Village-Nema. The informant tried to persuade. her sister to give ornaments as desired by the appellants. However, the deceased told that her husband and in-laws used to abuse, assault and threaten her. She also told that she was not being treated properly in her matrimonial house and the ornament belongs to her and she would not give it to anyone. This caused further annoyance to the mother-in-law of the deceased and she held hire (sic-hair?) locks of the deceased and started assaulting her. The informant and Nand Singh intervened and somehow managed to pull them apart. The informant told the mother-in-law of .deceased not to assault his sister in his presence. The mother-in-law, however, threatened that now either she would remain alive or the deceased would remain alive in the house. The informant did not take the said threatening very seriously and returned home. On 25.5.1985 the deceased sent a message to the informant through a boy residing at Gopalpur to come to her. Accordingly, the informant again went and met the deceased on 25.5.1985 itself. The deceased started weeping and asked the informant to take her back to her father's place. She told that her husband and in-laws used to assault for motorcycle and ornaments and she has reasonably apprehended that she would be killed. The informant still tried to persuade the deceased to reside in her matrimonial house. Even on that day the appellants and Mahasundari Devi (mother-in-law) repeated their demand of motorcycle but the informant told them that his younger brother was not ready to give the motorcycle to them. On this day they told the informant that the consequences would be bad. The informant then requested them to allow the deceased to go with him but they did not agree. Thereafter, the informant returned to his home in the evening on 25.5.1985. On 26.5.1985 at about 8.00 A.M in the morning the informant come to know that his sister had been killed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad). The informant iMmediately rushed for Village-Nema alongwith Nand Singh and Shiv Narayan SinrJh. On their way near Village-Behrawan several persons told the informant that his sister was killed and thereafter burnt by her husband and in-laws. The informant iMmediately rushed for Village-Nema alongwith Nand Singh and Shiv Narayan SinrJh. On their way near Village-Behrawan several persons told the informant that his sister was killed and thereafter burnt by her husband and in-laws. The informant, thus, instead of going to Village-Nema directly went to Punpun Police Station at about 10.00 A.M. and a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants, Amrita Kumari (Nanad) and Mahasundari Devi (mother-in-law). 3. The appellant Mahasundari Devi though named in the F.I.R. was subsequently declared absconder and Amrita Devi (Nanad) though put on trial alongwith the appellants has been acquitted by the Trial Court. 4. The case was investigated by one Ram Prasad Singh, P.W. 3, the then Officer-in-charge of Punpun Police Station. Upon conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the case against the appellants, Amrita Kumari and Mahasundari Devi. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate concerned and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The defence did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried and thus, charges were framed against the appellants. 4A. In course of trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They are Dr. R.P. Srivastava (P.w. 1), who conducted the post mortem examination, Bishwak Sen Sharma (P.W.2), the informant and Ram Prasad Singh (P.W. 3), the Investigating Officer. 5. The defence is total denial of charges levelled against the accused. The plea of defence is that the deceased died of burn when fire caught to her Terelene Sari from a "Diya" while she was arranging her bed in the night intervened in between 25.5.1985 to 26.5.1985. A defence of false implication has been made and the motive assigned for such defence is that the appellant No. 1 declined the proposal to marry the surviving younger sister of the deceased after her death. 6. The defence has also examined one witness, Dr. Upendra Prasad Verma (D.W. 1) in support of their case. 1. The following documents have been proved by the prosecution and marked as Exhibit:- Documents Marked as Proved By Exhibit (i) Post mortem report Exhibit-1 P.W.1, Dr. R. P. Srivastava (ii) Signature of endorsement Exhibit-2 P.W. 2, Bishwaksen Sharma on F.I.R. (iii) Written report of appellant NO.2 Exhibit-3 P.W.2, Bishwaksen Sharma Surendra Narain Sharma (iv) Endorsement and Exhibit-3/aP.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh signature in the pen of 1.0. Ram Pd. R. P. Srivastava (ii) Signature of endorsement Exhibit-2 P.W. 2, Bishwaksen Sharma on F.I.R. (iii) Written report of appellant NO.2 Exhibit-3 P.W.2, Bishwaksen Sharma Surendra Narain Sharma (iv) Endorsement and Exhibit-3/aP.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh signature in the pen of 1.0. Ram Pd. Singh on the written report in the pen of appellant NO.2. (v) F.I.R. Exhibit-4 P.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh (vi) Inquest report Exhibit-S P.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh (vii) Signature of witness, Exhibit-S/a P.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh Narendra Sharma on the Inquest report (viii) Signature of witness Exhibit-Sib P.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh Mukteshwar Sharma on Inquest report (ix) Seizure list Exhibit-6 P.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh (x) Signature of witness Exhibit-6/a P.W. 3, Ram Prasad Singh Ram Sakal Sharma on seizure list (xi) Signature of witness, Exhibit-6/b P.W. 3, Ram Prasad 8ingh Shiv Shankar Sharma on seizure list 8. The defence has attacked the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court on the following grounds:- 1. The witnesses in the First Information Report before whom the alleged demand of motorcycle was made or threatening was given or the persons who accompanied the informant to the house of the appellants either before death or after death of the deceased have not been examined during the whole trial and they have purposely been withheld in order to suppress the correct facts of the case. 2. P.W. 1, who held the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, has neither found any ligature mark nor was tongue found in protruded condition. The post mortem examination report did not find mention anything about throat, front Larynx and Trachea. 3. The post mortem examination report did not give any data in order to substantiate that burn injury was post mortem injury. 4. The circumstances which were used against the appellants have not, been put to them during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. No independent witness either of informant's village or of accused village has been examined in the case. 6. Except informant no other relative such as father, mother, brother and sister has been examined during trial to either corroborate the alleged fact regarding demand of dowry or iII-treatment caused to the deceased. 9. 5. No independent witness either of informant's village or of accused village has been examined in the case. 6. Except informant no other relative such as father, mother, brother and sister has been examined during trial to either corroborate the alleged fact regarding demand of dowry or iII-treatment caused to the deceased. 9. The D.W. examined on behalf of the defence doubted the correctness of the finding given in the postmortem examination report by P.W. 1, Dr. R.K. Srivastava. 10. On the abovesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Neeraj Kumar (amicus curiae) submits that the finding given by the trial court is on wrong appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and defence making the same to be perverse. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and, thus, the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellants giving them at least benefit of doubt. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, Miss Shashi Bala Verma, submits that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the finding of the trial court cannot be faltered with. 12. After hearing the parties at length and perusing the evidence on record, things which stands admitted are as follows:- (a) The deceased, Pushpa Devi was sister of the informant and she was married to appellant No. 1 only few years back. (b) She was residing in the house of appellants at the time of death in the night intervening between 25.5.1985 to 26.5.1985. (c) The deceased died an unnatural death inside the house of the accused. (d) At the time of death of the deceased, the accused persons were present inside the house. 13. The prosecution relying on the evidence of the three witnesses has alleged that Pushpa Devi was first strangulated to death and then in order to conceal the crime her dead body was burnt so that the cause of death may not be ascertained. 14. The defence, however, is that Pushpa Devi died an accidental death as her Terelene Sari caught fire from a "Diya" which was there inside her room while she was arranging her bed. 15. 14. The defence, however, is that Pushpa Devi died an accidental death as her Terelene Sari caught fire from a "Diya" which was there inside her room while she was arranging her bed. 15. In this background of version of prosecution and defence what becomes important is as to whether the injuries found by the doctor while conducting post mortem examination, were post mortem or ante mortem. Thus, I would like to take up this issue first. 16. The inquest report (Exhibit-5) of the case was prepared on 26.5.1985 at about 12.00 Noon. It has been clearly mentioned that there is mark on throat which suggest that the deceased was strangulated and thereafter burnt. 17. The post mortem report was prepared on 27.5.1985 at about 11.00 A.M. From a perusal of the post mortem report, it would appear that brain, both lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were found congested. Both chamber of heart was found empty. The doctor who conducted the post mortem at P.M.C.H., Patna on dead body of the deceased has described that Derma Epidermal post mortem flame burn injury was present all over body except left palm and right sale of foot. Scalp hairs were all burnt except a small amount at back of scalp. It has also been described that ante mortem injuries found on her on dissection was sub-cutaneous echymosis 1" x 1/2' on both sides of Trachea below the thyroid cartilege. Hyoid bone, Thyroid cartilege or rings of Trachea were not fractured. Mucous Membrane of Larynx and Trachea were not fractured. Mucous Membrane of Larynx of Trachea were congested. The time elapsed since death was ascertained to be within 48 hours (but not less than 18 hours). 18. Dr. A.P. Srivastava, (P.W. 1) while being examined in court, has stated that the post mortem report was prepared by him and it bore his signature. He was extensively cross-examined. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he has examined the external and internal organ and also examined the Bronchial tube and lungs. He has stated that since body was burnt and so, it was not possible to detect the external injury, if any. He has stated that on seeing the report he can say that the death in question was due to manual strangulation and not strangulation by rope. He has stated that since body was burnt and so, it was not possible to detect the external injury, if any. He has stated that on seeing the report he can say that the death in question was due to manual strangulation and not strangulation by rope. He has further stated that all signs and symptoms mentioned in the Treaties of Medical Jurisprudence may not be found together in the cases of strangulation. He has further stated that it require sufficient force to throttle the person and mere touch would not produce any Echymosis of the degree as was found on the body of the deceased. The doctor has stated that he did not find extravasation of blood in neck. According to him, extravasation of blood depends on the. force and duration for which the pressure is applied. He further stated that it is not necessary in all cases of strangulation that tongue is protruded. If the death is instantaneous this will not happen. The doctor has said that bleeding occurs when there is collection of gases in the body and when the blood vessels cut or ruptures blood oozes out and it is wrongly said to be a case of bleeding. He has denied the suggestion that post mortem bleeding will be mistaken to be Echymosis. According to him, after death blood in the body stagnates in the most dependent parts by gravitation. He also denied the suggestion of defence that he mistook the post mortem bleeding as Echymosis. The doctor, P.W. 1 in categorical terms stated that burn injury on the deceased was caused after her death because there was no line of vital reaction. In the case of deceased, burn injuries were Dermo Epidermal. The whole body was burnt except portions mentioned in the report. They were dry burn injuries. The doctor has denied suggestion that he had given a wrong report in order to tally his opinion with inquest report. It would be important to mention it here that no carbon was found in throat or lungs. 19. On behalf of defence (D.W. 1), Dr. Upendra Prasad Verma was examined in order to prove that the post mortem was not correct. It would be important to mention it here that no carbon was found in throat or lungs. 19. On behalf of defence (D.W. 1), Dr. Upendra Prasad Verma was examined in order to prove that the post mortem was not correct. D.W. 1, in course of his deposition, has stated that the doctor con~ ducting the post mortem must meticulously make internal and external examination after going through inquest report and after finding proper data he should arrive at his opinion. He has stated that any finding observed by the police as reported in the inquest report, if not found, should be recorded in the post mortem report. He has also stated that in case of strangulation the tongue is protruded but not always. D.W. 1 has also stated that in case of manual strangulation, mark of ligature is not found. 20. In para 9 of his Examination-in Chief, D.W. 1 has stated that for post mortem burn injury there are three datas, which would be relevant:- (1) Absence of line of redness; (2) Absence of ante mortem blisters; and (3) Finding of reparative process. 21. He has stated that in the present case, no specific data to support post mortem burn injuries has been mentioned, such as, there is no line of redness and ante mortem blisters but the D.W.1 in the same stretch voluntarily stated that in case of flame injuries these datas may not be found. In sum and substance D.W. 1 has tried to make out a case that no data was mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex1.-1) to suggest or to confirm the opinion arrived at regarding cause of death and nature of burn injuries and has expressed his doubt about correctness of the post mortem report. 22. The O~W. 1 was cross-examined by the prosecution and he has admitted that the victim if burnt in sitting posture on chair with hands tied on arms of chair his/her sole or palm may not burn. He has also submitted that there will be no redness in post mortem burn injuries and the Surgeon conducting the post mortem did not find line of redness. Finally, DW.1 has conceded that the Surgeon who conducted the post mortem report was duly qualified and experienced and the Surgeon holding the post mortem is in a better position to say regarding the nature, colour and cause of injuries. Finally, DW.1 has conceded that the Surgeon who conducted the post mortem report was duly qualified and experienced and the Surgeon holding the post mortem is in a better position to say regarding the nature, colour and cause of injuries. The said O.W. 1 has conceded to the extent that congestion in Larynx and Thoracic Membrane. as has been found in post mortem report in present case happens in case of strangulation. The said defence witness voluntarily stated that besides congestion frothy blood is impacted. He further stated that due to massive burn the nail and thumb mark on neck may not be visible at the time of post mortem. 23. Thus, taking into consideration the deposition of P.W. 1, who conducted the post mortem and the deposition of O.W.-1, who is also said to be a qualified doctor there appears no reasons to doubt the correctness of the post mortem report (Ex1.-1). The P.W. 1 of course has admitted that he had not noted even a single data in the post mortem report (Ex1.-1) for basing the burn injury being post mortem injury but his opinion as recorded in this regards was based on careful and thorough examination. He has also denied that the victim of burn injury 'falling on hard and blunt substance will receive injury as found in case of deceased. He has also denied that the report and findings are unscientific. 24. From the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, it can safely be said that an ante mortem burn always shows redness of parts. If vesicle is present the blisters are surrounded by thin bright area of inflammation. They contain highly elbuminous fluid, Chlorides and blood corpuscle and after the blisters is removed the base is found to be injected. The post mortem blisters is limited in size, contains air, or if it contains fluid. It is practically non-elbuminous and without chlorides and blood corpuscle. There is no line of hyperaemia round the blister and base of the blisters is not injected. The doctor (P.W. 1) opined that burn injury on the deceased was caused after her death because there was no line of vital reaction. He has stated that to determine as to whether burn injury was ante mortem or post mortem, guidelines have been given in (he Medical Jurisprudence and his findings are based on those guidelines. The doctor (P.W. 1) opined that burn injury on the deceased was caused after her death because there was no line of vital reaction. He has stated that to determine as to whether burn injury was ante mortem or post mortem, guidelines have been given in (he Medical Jurisprudence and his findings are based on those guidelines. The Doctor (P.W. 1) on the basis of his personal observation by his naked eye has given his opinion regarding the burn injury to be post mortem and there is no apparent reason as to why the doctor would give a false report and submit ante mortem injury to be post mortem injury. Even the doctor (D.W. 1) examined on behalf of the defence has' said it cannot be said that the opinion given by the doctor in the post-mortem is not correct. Even, D.W. 1 has not claimed that the death of the deceased was not due to strangulation and was caused due to burn injuries. 25. The second point taken by the defence regarding non-finding of ligature mark on the dead body of the deceased and the tongue being not in protruded condition has got no substance as D.W-1. Dr. Upendra Prasad Verma examined on behalf of the defence has categorically stated in paragraph-3 of his Examination~ in-Chief that in case of strangulation the tongue is protruded' but not always. In paragraph No. 4 of his Examination-in- Chief, D.W. 1 has clearly stated in case of manual strangulation ligature is• not found. P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has also made it clear that in case of manual strangulation tongue would not be protruded and the deceased died due to manual strangulation and not strangulation by rope. Ligature mark would not appear in case of death caused due to manual strangulation. 26. The third point argued by the defence is that the post mortem examination report did not find mention detail findings or data regarding burn injury being post mortem injuries. In this regard, I have seen the post mortem report and the deposition of P.W. 1 who conducted the post mortem and D. W. 1 who is said to be an expert in forensic medicine. 27. In this regard, I have seen the post mortem report and the deposition of P.W. 1 who conducted the post mortem and D. W. 1 who is said to be an expert in forensic medicine. 27. P.W.1 was confronted with several questions regarding his report however, this witness has explained each and every circumstance relating to cause of death of the deceased and has given valid reason based on Medical Jurisprudence that burn injuries on the deceased was caused after her death because there was no vital reaction and his opinion was placed on careful and thorough examination. Even, the doctor examined on behalf of the defence has admitted this fact that the Surgeon holding the post mortem is in a better position to say regarding the nature, colour and cause of injury. He has admitted in cross-examination that the finding that the Larynx, Thoracic Membrane were congested, is expected in case of strangulation. 28. Thus, I am of the view that the defence has not been able to. take out anything in cross-examination tom P.W. 1 which would discredit the post mortem report. To the contrary, the trend of Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination of D.W. 1 who is also a qualified doctor goes to suggest• that the death was caused due to strangulation and subsequently the deceased was burnt. The sole defence witness has tried to make out the post mortem report to be doubtful only because datas have not been there in the post mortem report, but, has not controverted the findings of the doctor who conducted the post mortem report otherwise. For this non-mentioning of data in the post mortem report, P. W. -1 has extensively been cross-examined but the defence failed to discredit his testimony. 29. In my view, the medical report clearly corroborates the theory of murder and thereafter causing the burn injury upon the deceased in order to conceal the evidence of murder by strangulation. 30. Now, I would like to take up the evidence of Bishwaksen Sharma (P.W. 2), informant of the present case. He has proved his signature on the oral statement on the basis of which the F.I.R. has been registered and which has been marked as Ext.-2. 30. Now, I would like to take up the evidence of Bishwaksen Sharma (P.W. 2), informant of the present case. He has proved his signature on the oral statement on the basis of which the F.I.R. has been registered and which has been marked as Ext.-2. He has repeated the same facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. in his Examination-in-Chief and has also stated that before visiting the place of occurrence together with Police Officer he had gone to Kalyanchak Chowki alongwith the Police Officer where a letter written by appellant No. 2 was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge. The said letter written in the handwriting of the appellant No.2, was identified and proved by P.W. 2 and marked as Ext.-3. 31. From the trend of cross-examination nothing relevant could be taken out in order to discredit the testimony of P.W. 2 32. Then comes the deposition of 'Investigating Officer of the case, Sri Ram Prasad Singh (P.W. 3). He has proved endorsement and signature in his pen on Ext.-2 which was marked as Ext.-3/a, the F.I.R. which was marked as Ext.-4, inquest report, which was marked as Ext.5, signature of witnesses on the inquest report marked as Exts.-5/a and 5/b, seizure list and signature of witnesses marked as Exts.-6. 6/a & 6/b respectively. He visited the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was kept on cot in courtyard of the house of the appellant and when the police reached there only mother of the appellant No. 2 was present and all family members were absent. He found a semi-circular mark on throat of the deceased. He has given a vivid description of the place of occurrence. Mother of appellant No. 2 pointed out the room in which the deceased used to live. There was only one door of entry in the said room. P.W. 3 has stated that there was no bolt or "Chhitkini" inside the door and the I.O. found himself unable to close the door from inside, even though, he tried to do so with the help of SubInspector, Ram Bilash Singh and thus, he has come to a conclusion that the door of entry could not be closed from inside. The I.O. has found .a chair in burnt condition and also found human body skin stamped on the hands of the chair. The I.O. has found .a chair in burnt condition and also found human body skin stamped on the hands of the chair. The I.O. described that there were two windows on the western wall at the height of more than 6 feet and thus no one from outside could have been able to see anything happening inside the room. The I.O. has also found a semi-circular sign on the neck. He has said that he prepared the inquest report. He also found cot without bed in the room and the eastern end of the cot was burnt. He found one old chair in the room and found both the arms of that chair had burnt and inner back and the seat had burnt black just recently. He has also found that though the room was cleaned up still there was smell of kerosene oil. He did not find any "Diya'• inside the room. He found black smoke on eastern wall and door planks near the chair. He also found kerosene oil spilt beneath the chair and going towards north door. He found that the part of table cloth was burnt. He found another cot and rolled bed was kept thereon. He also found a Blue "Dolchchi" and one Blouse kept on the wooden plank. He found several burnt articles like Nylon Sari, Jorjet Sari, Rubia Sari another Sari, Saya, Blouse, Tosak, etc. and seized them. The seizure list (Ext.-6) was prepared in presence of Ram Sakal Sharma and Shiv Kumar Sharma who put their signature (Ext.-6/a) and (Ext.6/b) respectively. The dead body was not found in the room. When the I.O. visited most of the articles were found burnt including the chair. These circumstances are sufficient to indicate that Pushpa Devi was not allowed to rush out from the room and remained in flame of fire causing burn injuries of the entire body. 33. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that this could have been possible in case the deceased was incapable to move due to death or due to physical restrain. 34. Now, I would examine Ext.-3, which is document allegedly given by appellant No. 2 to Kalyanchak Chowki on the date of occurrence itself. 35. 33. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that this could have been possible in case the deceased was incapable to move due to death or due to physical restrain. 34. Now, I would examine Ext.-3, which is document allegedly given by appellant No. 2 to Kalyanchak Chowki on the date of occurrence itself. 35. A perusal of Ext.-3 goes to suggest that appellant No. 2 has given information in writing that due to accidental fire the deceased died on the fateful night as while arranging bed the Terelene Sari of deceased caught fire from "Diya" kept in the living room of the deceased. 36. Here I would like to refer to inquest report once again. In column 7 of the inquest report,• description of the clothings found on the body of the deceased has been given. It shows that there was a burnt Blouse of maroon colour beneath which there was a burnt bracier also. In the lower part, there is a green coloured burnt 'Saya' and on top was kept found a synthetic sari which was burnt here and there. 37. From perusal of the inquest report, I find that had the story of defence been true the Terelene Sari must have been found patched up on the body of the deceased. According to the inquest report (Ext.-5), a Synthetic Sari was found on her body instead of Terelene Sari. The inquest report suggests that saya and bra were burnt. In such case, Terelene Sari could not have escaped and piece of burnt Terelene Sari must have been found patched on the body. 38. Interestingly, the I.O. did not find any "Diya" from the place of occurrence. The inquest report also falsifies the defence story that the sari of the deceased caught fire due to "Diya". 39. Taking together the entire factual aspect of the matter and evidence on record, one thing is clear that there is no eye-witness in this case on the point of death of the deceased. The case in hand rests on circumstantial evidence. 40. The argument advanced on behalf of the defence is that important witnesses of this case has purposely not been examined is to be seen from the angle as to whether non-examination of such witnesses has caused any prejudice to the defence or not. 41. The case in hand rests on circumstantial evidence. 40. The argument advanced on behalf of the defence is that important witnesses of this case has purposely not been examined is to be seen from the angle as to whether non-examination of such witnesses has caused any prejudice to the defence or not. 41. It is true that non-examination of a witness who has been cited by the prosecution would result in an adverse inference being drawn and may in some cases result in prejudice to the defence. However, in a case where the material produced by the prosecution and the defence are self-sufficient, Section 114(g) cannot come to the assistance of the accused. The illustration (g) of Section 114 is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Unless there are other circumstances also to facilitate the drawing of an adverse inference, it should not be a mechanical process to draw the adverse inference merely on the strength of non-examination of a witness, even if a material witness. Non-examination of some prosecution witnesses who might have given a further description of how things happened would not justify the conclusion that the omission was with oblique motive. 42. The argument on behalf of the defence regarding the interestedness and lack of corroboration by the father of the deceased or others do not appear to be of much importance in the circumstance of the present case. No doubt the informant is brother of deceased. In such circumstances his deposition has to be scrutinized with care and caution. Such interestedness cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the informant. In such cases usually relatives of the victim files F.I.R. There appears no reason as to why the informant could have falsely implicated the accused persons. It is true that no witness has turned up to corroborate the oral testimony of the informant so far it relates to demand of motorcycle or subjecting the victim to cruelty for involvement of such demand or for not giving her ornaments to the accused persons which allegedly they wanted to give in the marriage of co-accused, Amrita Kumari. This statement of informant appears to be quite natural on the point of motive. This statement of informant appears to be quite natural on the point of motive. It has been suggested to the informant that informant after the death of deceased wanted to get his another sister, Punam to be married with accused, Amitabh Kumar and• the proposal was refused by the accused persons and hence the accused persons have been implicated falsely. The informant has denied such suggestion. It is beyond imagination that informant whose sister was killed by the accused persons would have proposed the marriage to his sister in that family and that too within a few hours. Here it is pertinent to mention that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and there was no undue delay in institution of the case. It is also apparent from the evidence that there was no occasion for the informant to talk or even to see the accused persons before lodging of F.I.R. The F.I.R. (Ext.-4) says that the informant after getting information of murder of deceased rushed directly to the police station before going to the village' of occurrence. The I.O. (PW-3) and informant (PW2) both have supported to the effect that when they went to the P.O. no any member in the family of the accused was present except mother of Appellant NO.2. In this background of the fact the evidence of the informant has to be assessed and appreciated. 43. In the background of the facts of the present case and the defence taken by the appellants, in my view, no prejudice has been caused to the defence. 44. Learned counsel for the defence has argued that the circumstances which were used against the appellants have not been put to them during the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 45. I have seen the statement of the appellants recorded in exercise of powers under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the trial Court and I find that each and every circumstance which came in evidence in course of trial against the appellants were put to the appellants and their explanation was recorded and there is no merit in the submission that circumstances were not explained to the accused persons. 46. I am aware of the fact that the onus to prove the guilt is upon the prosecution and not the defence. 46. I am aware of the fact that the onus to prove the guilt is upon the prosecution and not the defence. Neither Section 103 nor Section 106 of the Evidence Act can absolve prosecution from discharging its general or primary burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain conviction, or, makes out a prima facie case, the question would arise on considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. 47. As discussed, above in the present case, informant (P.W. 2) has categorically stated that the marriage of deceased took place in 1983 and a demand of dowry of motorcycle was being made right from the beginning. On 24.4.1985 an assurance was given to give them the desired motorcycle by the informant but, since the motorcycle belonged to the younger brother of the informant who was not ready to give it to the appellants, the appellant No. 1 became annoyed. On 24.5.1985 itself the deceased told the informant that she was being vexed, harassed and subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry as also for non-giving the ornaments to the husband and in-laws. She disclosed that they always threatened her to kill. The informant further said that 25.4.1985 his sister sent a message and when the informant went there, she complained that they would kill her and she requested the informant to take her back from Sasural. On that date also the husband and parents of husband of the deceased insisted on the demand of dowry and ornaments. They commanded the informant to persuade the deceased to part with her ornaments, failing which the consequences could be bad. On 26.5.1985 at 8.30 A.M. reportedly the sister of the informant was killed. Nothing substantial could be brought in cross-examination to discredit the aforesaid version of P.W. 2. This version is fully corroborated by the objective finding of the Investigating Officer when he visited the place of occurrence. The evidence of P.W. 2 about what the deceased sister told him earlier about her sufferings at the hands of accused was thus, clearly admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. His evidence further shows that the cruel conduct of the respondent-accused did not abate and appeared to have continued till the fateful night when the deceased was killed. His evidence further shows that the cruel conduct of the respondent-accused did not abate and appeared to have continued till the fateful night when the deceased was killed. It is necessary to appreciate that on the fateful night apart from the victim only the accused were in the' house. Thus, what happened on that night and what led to the deceased's death/ killing would be wholly within the personal and special knowledge of the accused. The facts which were in the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by, them to prove the prosecution case false. This burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been discharged by the appellants. 48. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. The general rule is that in any criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could -prove without difficulty or inconvenience. 49. In the present case, the defence has not denied their presence inside the house when the' occurrence took place. On the contrary, the information was given by appellant No.2 to the Police Chowki, in which it was stated that the Terelene Sari 'which the deceased was bearing on the fateful night caught fire by a "Diya" inside her room when she was arranging her bed. This information given in the handwriting of appellant No. 2 has been brought on record and has been proved and marked as Ext.-3. 50. Apart from the medical evidence the circumstances that belies the defence version are countless which can be enumerated as follows:- (a) The deceased was not found wear a Terelene Sari when her inquest report was prepared. (b) The Terelene Sari was not found stamped on her body by the police when the inquest was prepared. 50. Apart from the medical evidence the circumstances that belies the defence version are countless which can be enumerated as follows:- (a) The deceased was not found wear a Terelene Sari when her inquest report was prepared. (b) The Terelene Sari was not found stamped on her body by the police when the inquest was prepared. (c) The left palm of the deceased was not burnt whereas the common experience is that in case of accidental fire a living person would try to extinguish the same first by his/her palm. (d) No "Diya" was found at the place of occurrence by the police when it reached at the place of occurrence and seized incriminating articles. (e) The effort was made to clean the floor after the occurrence but in spite of that the I.O. found smell of kerosene oil on the floor at the place of occurrence. (f) The I.O. found that the door could not be locked from inside and even then the victim could not get out of the room. (g) Though. accused persons were present inside the house on the fateful night but no one tried to rescue the victim. (h) At the time when the police visited the place of occurrence, no family members except an old lady (mother of appellant No.2) was present there. (i) The room in which the defence says that accident took place an old chair was found and both the arms of the chair as also the seat was found blackened and the black mark 'was fresh. On the right arm of the chair clothings and skin of human body was found stamped. (j) In between the door and placement of chair at a height of one. feet human skin' was found on the eastern side of the wall. (k) Kerosene oil was found on floor just beneath the chair and has spread towards door in the house. (I) Several Blouse and Saries were found burnt inside the room. 51. Now, after appreciating the evidence adduced before the trial court the only defence which remains to be adjudicated is that as to whether the deceased died as a result of accidental burn injuries or had been killed by the accused persons. (I) Several Blouse and Saries were found burnt inside the room. 51. Now, after appreciating the evidence adduced before the trial court the only defence which remains to be adjudicated is that as to whether the deceased died as a result of accidental burn injuries or had been killed by the accused persons. As discussed above, it is •apparent from the evidence that story of accidental burn is ruled out from the oral testimony of the informant corroborated by medical evidence of the doctor and objective findings of the Investigating Officer with respect to the place of occurrence. 52. The aforesaid facts coupled with the evidence of the doctor P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 leaves no room to doubt that the burn injuries found on the person of the deceased were post mortem and not antemortem. It is to be appreciated that evidence of brother of the deceased (P.W. 2) shows that his sister's married life in the household of the accused had undergone rough weather all throughout. She was ill treated both for not fulfilling demand of motorcycle as also for not giving her ornaments to the accused persons. It can, therefore, safely be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that cruel treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused had continued unabated till the very last when she was strangulated to death. Such presumption of continuance of cruel treatment, which is established on the record, necessarily points an accusing finger to the accused. Such presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act has remained unrebutted on record. This is another clinching circumstance against the appellant. 53. As discussed above, the case is of circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances are such that it leads towards only one inference i.e. inference .of guilt on the part of the appellants. No other inference can be drawn in the circumstances enumerated above. The trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for• the charges leveled against them. 54. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 55. The appellants who are on bail their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court in order to serve the remaining period of sentence. Trial Court will take necessary actions in this regard immediately. 56. We appreciate the sincere effort of Mr. 54. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 55. The appellants who are on bail their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court in order to serve the remaining period of sentence. Trial Court will take necessary actions in this regard immediately. 56. We appreciate the sincere effort of Mr. Neeraj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants who has argued the case as Amicus Curiae. No one was present to pursue the case of the appellants even though the case was on list for hearing for quite sometime as such amicus curiae was appointed by the Court. The Legal Aid Authority of Patna High Court should make payment of admissible fee of the learned counsel for the appellants for two days arguments. Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.-I agree.