Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2105 (PAT)

Someshwar Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2011-09-29

GOPAL PRASAD

body2011
JUDGEMENT Gopal Prasad, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the appellantd and the State. 2. These two appeals are being heard together and disposed off by this common judgment as both arise out of same judgment passed by Shri Ramnath, Additional Sessions Judge, I, Saharsa, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1991, by which he has convicted the appellants Someshwar Mishra of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 164 of 1995 and Pramod Mishra of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 215 of 1995 for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and, further, convicted under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, further, convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and has, further, convicted under Section 304B of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellant, Gauri Devi, of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 164 of 1995 has, further, been convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and has, further, been convicted under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, however, it has been ordered that all the sentences, against the convicts, shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is in three parts. The first part of the prosecution case is that Rani Devi, the deceased, was married with Pramod Kumar, appellant, son of Someshwar Mishra (appellant). After marriage, the deceased was blessed with two children before duragaman. After duragaman there was demand of Rs.51,000/-. The deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand of said Rs.51,000/-. The deceased used to report about the demand to naiher people. About ten days prior to the occurrence victim, Rani Devi (deceased) ran over to naiher from sasural being vexed with the demand and subjecting cruelty. She disclosed about the subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand to her parents, like abuse and threat to kill for non-fulfillment of the demand. About 4-5 days prior to the occurrence, the victim, Rani Devi (deceased), further, sent to sasural after assurance and persuasion of Gaya Mishra, a sasural people. 4. She disclosed about the subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand to her parents, like abuse and threat to kill for non-fulfillment of the demand. About 4-5 days prior to the occurrence, the victim, Rani Devi (deceased), further, sent to sasural after assurance and persuasion of Gaya Mishra, a sasural people. 4. The second part of the occurrence that on 06.07.1990 at 08.00-09.00 a.m., the co-villagers of the appellant (Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mishra) saw smoke coming out from the matrimonial house of Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mishra and the deceased. The villagers found some commotion in the courtyard and they rushed to the matrimonial house of Pramod Mishra and the deceased, Rani Devi. They found the door closed and found Rani Devi in burnt and unconscious stage. The villagers entered the room through roof and they took her out of the room in burnt unconscious stage, after setting off fire. The husband also was in village came there. The villagers arranged jeep. The husband, Pramod Mishra, took the deceased on jeep in pretext of treatment of the deceased. However, the deceased was neither treated nor any public authority was informed nor any intimation was given to the naiher people of the deceased. Her dead body was disposed in ditch by the side of B.S. College. 5. The third part of the prosecution case is that the Principal and President of B.S. College were sitting in the college at about 05.30 p.m. While they were in college they noticed that a jeep came and disposed of the dead body wrapped in a quilt in the ditch in the south east corner of B.S. College. They found the dead body in ditch. They informed the police on telephone. The police received the information at 06.10 p.m. on 06.07.1990. The police rushed to B.S. College after making the station diary entry and reached B.S. College at 06.25 p.m. on 06.07.1990. The Sub Inspector of Police (P.W. 9) reached along with Constables Bishwanath Ram and Khakhan. The dead body was found there, which was taken out from the ditch and inquest report was prepared at 06.30 p.m. before the Principal and President of B.S. College. The mother of the deceased also reached there at the time of making the inquest and identified the dead body. 6. The dead body was found there, which was taken out from the ditch and inquest report was prepared at 06.30 p.m. before the Principal and President of B.S. College. The mother of the deceased also reached there at the time of making the inquest and identified the dead body. 6. The mother of the deceased got rumour about the murder of Rani Devi the co-villagers have relation in the sasural of Rani Devi. She proceeded on rickshaw to enquire. In way she learnt about the dead body at B.S. College. She reached at B.S. College. The police prepared the inquest report, which was signed by the Principal (P.W. 2) and the President, Rajeshwar Yadav (P.W. 7), of B.S. College. 7. The statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded at 07.30 p.m. On the basis of the said written report, the first information report was lodged and investigation proceeded. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 6, Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, on 07.07.1990 at 01.20 p.m. The doctor (P.W. 6) found deep burn injury on the person of the deceased on both extremities of lower part, foul smell coming out of the dead body, skin stripped of the extremities and the burn was found to be eighty per cent. The death was due to shock and haemorrhaged by the above injuries. The police, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet and cognizance taken. Subsequently, the charge was framed before the Court of Sessions under Sections 304B and 498A of the Penal Code and and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 8. During the trial nine witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and eleven witnesses examined on behalf of the defence. 9. The defence of the accused persons is that the marriage was solemnized about ten years back to the occurrence and the accused persons have falsely been implicated and there was no demand of Rs.51,000/- as dowry. The said alleged demand is not a demand of dowry, but, a demand for expense for the study for preparation nor was the deceased subjected to cruelty. The relationship between the deceased and the appellant, Pramod Mishra the husband of the deceased, was good. The said alleged demand is not a demand of dowry, but, a demand for expense for the study for preparation nor was the deceased subjected to cruelty. The relationship between the deceased and the appellant, Pramod Mishra the husband of the deceased, was good. The further defence of the accused person is that one day prior to the occurrence, the father of the deceased went to sasural of the deceased and on his visit the deceased got sentimental and committed suicide. The death is not in suspicious circumstance. The, further, defence is that Someshwar Mishra was married in village Mahesi and has got land from sasural and has also purchased his own land there and used to live at Mahesi along with his wife to look after his old aged mother-in-law. He was separate from accused, Pramod Mishra. He had no concern with Pramod Mishra. Pramod Mishra also at the time of occurrence was not at his home and was in the paddy field and when he came he found his wife unconscious. 10. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 8, the father and mother of the deceased, who deposed that the marriage was solemnized on 30.05.1985, within six years of the date of occurrence, there was demand of Rs.51,000/- as dowry and victim subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and found the death in suspicious circumstance to raise the presumption for dowry death and, further, held that appellants could not make out a probable defence to rebut the presumption and, hence, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contends that the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code has not been established as the marriage was solemnized beyond seven years and subjecting cruelty for demand of dowry has not been established. The demand of Rs.51,000/- was only for study of Pramod Mishra is not a dowry demand. It has, further, been contended that the deceased committed suicide. The demand of Rs.51,000/- was only for study of Pramod Mishra is not a dowry demand. It has, further, been contended that the deceased committed suicide. The inquest report has been prepared at 06.30 p.m. whereas the fardbeyan has been recorded at 07.30 p.m. and the first information report was drawn at 07.30 p.m. Hence, the fardbeyan is hit by Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the statement of mother of the victim was recorded after the inquest report and, hence, can not be treated as fardbeyan. The first information report was sent to the Magistrate after three days and, hence, there is violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code which castes doubt on police investigation and the drawing of first information report was antedated. There is interpolation in the dates in the first information report also indicates that fardbeyan and the first information report is a suspicious document. It has, further, been contended that the inquest report neither mentions the name of the accused nor mentions the name of the witnesses nor the details of the occurrence. Hence, the first information report lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan is a development in the prosecution case and is not required to be relied upon and the first information report can not be treated as first information report of the case. It has, further, been contended that if the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code has not been established then presumption under Section113B of the Penal Code can not be drawn for the guilt of the accused persons. The appellants have established the defence about their absence from the place of occurrence is fit to be accepted. 12. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that there is ample evidence against the appellants. The prosecution has proved that the marriage was solemnized within seven years of the occurrence. The deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the dam and the death has been established to be in suspicious circumstance. It has also been established from the evidence of P.Ws. as well as D.Ws. that the deceased was burnt in the matrimonial house of the victim. The deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the dam and the death has been established to be in suspicious circumstance. It has also been established from the evidence of P.Ws. as well as D.Ws. that the deceased was burnt in the matrimonial house of the victim. Pramod Mishra took her on jeep for treatment, but, no evidence of the defence about her treatment or even about reporting the matter to the Public Authorities and disposal off the dead body on the same day by throwing it in a ditch, itself, indicates the involvement of the husband and the death was in suspicious circumstance. The accused persons did the occurrence for concealing the evidence to protect the offender and, hence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. However, parties are at variance on fact on point of date of marriage and demand of dowry and subjecting cruelty for non- fulfillment of demand of Rs.51,000/- as dowry as well as death in suspicious circumstance. P.W. 5 is the father of the deceased and has deposed that the marriage was solemnized within seven years. He has stated that he solemnized the marriage of the deceased, Rani Devi, with Pramod Mishra, the son of Someshwar Mishra, on 30th May, 1985, on ekadasi, on Monday. He in his cross examination has stated that duragaman was held after four and half years. P.W. 8, the mother of the deceased, stated that the marriage was solemnized about 5-6 years prior to the occurrence. The victim was murdered about three years prior to date of deposition on 15.06.1993 and Rani had two issues. In her cross examination she has stated that the first issue of Rani was after one and half years of the marriage and second issue was after one and half years of the first issue. At the time of death of Rani the first issue was aged about four and half years and, hence, the appellant stood the test of cross examination that the marriage of the deceased was six years prior to the occurrence. 14. At the time of death of Rani the first issue was aged about four and half years and, hence, the appellant stood the test of cross examination that the marriage of the deceased was six years prior to the occurrence. 14. However to the contrary the appellant relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1, who has stated in his cross examination that marriage was solemnized about 10-12 years back and, further, the evidence of D.W. 4, who claims to be a Pandit having solemnized the marriage of the deceased with Pramod Mishra and deposed that the marriage performed on 21st May, 1981. However, this witness stated in his cross examination that his statement was not recorded by police. To a Courts question he has stated that he can not say when his gauna was performed. He has, further, said that he can not say on which date his son, Purshotam Mishra got married. He has, further, stated that he can not say when and in which year the daughter-in-law of Someshwar Mishra died. Hence, the evidence of D.W. 4 does not inspire confidence as has not stood the test of cross examination nor he clams to be purrohit of appellant. However, taking into consideration, the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 8, who have stood the test of cross examination and who were the father and mother of the deceased and, hence, their evidence can not be discarded or disbelieved in contrast to the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 4 and, hence, it can well be inferred that the marriage was solemnized on 30th May, 1985,within seven years from 06.07.1990, the date of occurrence. 15. The next question is regarding the subjecting cruelty on deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.51,000/- as dowry. P.Ws. 5 and 8 have stated that there were demand of Rs.51,000/- and deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the said demand. It is true that the demand said to have been made after duragaman. P.W. 5 has stated that after 4-5 years of the marriage there was duragaman. Prior to duragaman there was no demand. After twenty days of duragaman the demand of Rs.51,000/- was raised. However, with regard to demand the deceased had to run several times to naiher. It is true that the demand said to have been made after duragaman. P.W. 5 has stated that after 4-5 years of the marriage there was duragaman. Prior to duragaman there was no demand. After twenty days of duragaman the demand of Rs.51,000/- was raised. However, with regard to demand the deceased had to run several times to naiher. However, this witness has denied the duragaman and deposed that this is not a fact that Pramod mishra was preparing for I.A.S. It is argued on behalf of the defence and submitted that since the demand was for study so it was not a demand of dowry. However, mere suggestion there is nothing to show or brought in evidence that the demand was really made for the study or Pramod Mishra for preparing for I.A.S. nor there is evidence that Pramod was ere preparing for I.A.S. or ever appeared in I.A.S. The demand was only after duragaman, apparently in relation to marriage. However, the dowry has been defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act which describes that any demand at about or even after the marriage in relation to marriage is a dowry demand. However, a demand was made after duragaman apparently is a demand in relation to marriage, however, defence raised by way of suggestion that it was for study. However, P.Ws. 4 and 5, in their evidence, have stated that the said demand of Rs.51,000/- was made and the deceased reported several time and was compelled to run to naiher in relation to pressing demand. Lastly about 9-10 days prior to the occurrence she was, again, compelled to run to the naiher and reported about the subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand, she was apprehensive of being burnt to death. However, the informant unable to foresee the evil design, send the deceased persuading her to go to sasural and, hence, the prosecution has been able to prove subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand as dowry just before the occurrence. 16. The third point is that P.W. 1 as well as D.Ws. 3, 5, 6 and 10 has specifically stated that they saw the smoke coming out from the house of Pramod Mishra and there was hulla and hearing some commotion in the courtyard of Pramod Mishra went to the house of Pramod Mishra. 16. The third point is that P.W. 1 as well as D.Ws. 3, 5, 6 and 10 has specifically stated that they saw the smoke coming out from the house of Pramod Mishra and there was hulla and hearing some commotion in the courtyard of Pramod Mishra went to the house of Pramod Mishra. They found the deceased in a room which was burning and then they entered into the room through the roof and found the deceased in burnt stage and then she was taken out. Pramod Mishra was not though seen there at the time when witnesses reached, but, immediately reached there and, hence, he was there in the village and then it was decided to save her. From the evidence of D.Ws. 5 and 6, it is apparent that a jeep was called for taking the deceased for treatment to save her and then Pramod Mishra took the deceased in the pretext of treatment for hospital on 06.07.1990 in the morning. Hence, there is clear evidence that the deceased found in burnt stage in a room of Pramod Mishra and the villagers found her in burnt unconscious stage and Pramod Mishra took her for treatment, but, the defence has not brought any evidence that she was ever treated by any of the doctor or in any of the hospital nor it has been brought in evidence or record that the matter was reported to a Public Authority regarding her treatment or recording the accident rather it has come in evidence that the dead body was thrown in a ditch near B.S. College, Simraha, hence, it can well be inferred the hand of Pramod Mishra death is in suspicious circumstance. There is no rebuttal regarding these circumstances. There is no explanation from Pramod Mishra why he has not treated the deceased or reported the matter to the Public Authority. 17. P.W. 2 is the Principal of B.S. College. He has deposed that on 06.07.1990 at 05.30 p.m. he was sitting in the verandah of the College along with the President, Rajeshwar Yadav, P.W. 7. A jeep with two persons came from the side of Saharsa and three away a dead body wrapped in quilt in the south east corner of B.S. College. They saw the dead body and informed the police on telephone. The police came, inquest report was prepared and proved his signature on the inquest report. A jeep with two persons came from the side of Saharsa and three away a dead body wrapped in quilt in the south east corner of B.S. College. They saw the dead body and informed the police on telephone. The police came, inquest report was prepared and proved his signature on the inquest report. The President of the College, Rajeshwar Yadav, has been examined as P.W. 7 and was tendered. P.W. 9, Gaya Ram Hansda, has stated that on 06.07.1990 he received information on telephone about the dead body lying at B.S. College. He proceeded for B.S. College after recording sanha and reached at B.S. College at 06.25 p.m. He took out the dead body from the ditch and prepared the inquest. The mother of the deceased reached there and identified the dead body. He recorded her statement and treated it as a fardbeyan. He has proved the fardbeyan in his writing and the signature of Devta Devi, which has been marked as Exhibit 6. He has also proved the first information report, marked as Exhibit 7. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination to Saharsa Hospital. The mother of the deceased, P.W. 8, has deposed that she heard the rumour about the death, proceeded on rickshaw to enquire and in way she learnt about the dead body and reached and identified the dead body and there the inquest report prepared and the statement was recorded. The mother of the deceased, P.W. 8, has, further, supported the prosecution case about the marriage within six years of the occurrence and subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand and P.W. 5, the father also supported the prosecution case that the marriage solemnized on 30 th May, 1985, and the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand. 18. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence, there is clear evidence that the marriage solemnized within seven years, there was demand of Rs.51,000/- as dowry in relation to marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand and Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mishra on 06.07.1990 as found in the village whereas the deceased was found in burnt state in the matrimonial house and the villagers taken out the deceased from the room, arranged the jeep. P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution case about the smoke coming out and he reached the matrimonial house where the deceased was found in burnt unconscious stated and the defence witness have also supported the prosecution case about the deceased found in burnt state and D.Ws. 5 and 6 have supported the prosecution case that the deceased was found burnt in the matrimonial house and they arranged the jeep and the deceased was taken on jeep and neither any public authority was informed nor any treatment was given to the deceased nor the parents were informed and the dead body was found disposed in a ditch near B.S. College and, further, the post mortem examination suggest that deceased was done to death due to burn injury. This evidence, itself, sufficient to hold that the death of the deceased caused in suspicious circumstance and the husband is primarily responsible for the offence as well as for offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 19. However, the criticism has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that first information report was lodged on 07.07.1990, but, the same was received by the Magistrate on 09.07.1990 and, hence, there is delay in sending the first information report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and, hence, there is violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code and there is interpolation in the first information report about the date and time of lodging of the first information report. Hence, the argument developed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the interpolation and belated dispatch of the first information report to show that the investigation was not just fair, therefore, the prosecution case be looked with great suspicion, however, the argument is not acceptable. Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that the first information report be sent forthwith by the Police Officer to the concerned Magistrate empowering to take cognizance. This provision has been made to keep the Magistrate inform of the investigation of the cognizable offence to enable the Magistrate to control the investigation and give appropriate direction under Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, under the facts and circumstances, the police informed about the dead body having been disposed off. This provision has been made to keep the Magistrate inform of the investigation of the cognizable offence to enable the Magistrate to control the investigation and give appropriate direction under Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, under the facts and circumstances, the police informed about the dead body having been disposed off. The police reached the place of occurrence at 06.25 p.m. on 06.07.1990, prepared the inquest report at 06.30 p.m. regarding the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was immediately sent for post mortem examination along with the inquest report with Constables Bishwanath Ram and Khakhan,. The post mortem was done on 07.07.1990 at 01.20 p.m. The fardbeyan was recorded at 07.30 p.m. on 06.07.1990 and the first information report was immediately lodged at 12.30 a.m. on 07.07.1990 and the investigation proceeded. The burnt remains of the house were searched and seizure list prepared on 08.07.1990. Hence, merely because the first information report not received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate forthwith is no ground to reject the prosecution case and to denounce and discard the cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence on technical grounds. However, the first information report lodged on 07.07.1990 and the said was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.07.1990, itself, hence, there is no merit in the submission to doubt the prosecution case merely on the ground that there delay in receiving the first information report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 20. The criticism has, further, been made that the inquest report was prepared prior to recording the fardbeyan. The fardbeyan neither contains the name of the accused persons nor mentions the details of the prosecution case nor mentions the name of the witnesses and, hence, the prosecution case is doubtful regarding the complicity of the accused facing the trial and, further, the fardbeyan is hit by Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for this proposition has placed reliance upon decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C., 1962 (supra), (2007) 13 S.C.C., 501 (supra) and 1996 (2) B.L.J. 699 (Mangru Singh & Ors. The State of Bihar). 21. However, it is pertinent to mention that in this case the Principal of the B.S. College informed about the dead body disposed in the ditch at the boundary of B.S. College. On the said information the police proceeded after recording the sanha entry. The State of Bihar). 21. However, it is pertinent to mention that in this case the Principal of the B.S. College informed about the dead body disposed in the ditch at the boundary of B.S. College. On the said information the police proceeded after recording the sanha entry. However, the holding an inquest contained in Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the heading of the Section is "police to enquire on report suicide etc." The police have to proceed to the place where dead body of the deceased is found. There in presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood shall make an investigation and draw a report of the apparent cause of death. He has to be described the wound or other mark or injury as may be found on the body. It has to be stated in what manner or what weapon or the instrument is used for injuries appears to have been inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the Police Officer shall refer the apparent cause of death describing the options as may be found on the body and also the weapon and instrument by which they appears to have been inflicted. This has to be done in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood. The section does not contemplate to mention the details of the occurrence about the manner in which the incidence took place or to mention name of the accused or the witness in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, i.e., whether it is a homicidal, accidental or by some other machinery. However, it is relevant to quote (1975) 4 S.C.C. 153 (supra) "A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceeding under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstance or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of death". The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstance he was assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceeding under Section 174. Neither in this circumstance was in practice nor in law it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest repot" 22. Neither in this circumstance was in practice nor in law it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest repot" 22. This view has been fortified in decision reported in (1991) 3 S.C.C., 627 (supra), (1975) 4 S.C.C., 122 (supra) and (2003) 2 S.C.C., 518 (supra). 23. However, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution case is in several parts, as discussed above, and finally the dead body having been disposed off that noticed by P.W. 2 and he informed the police immediately and the police received the information came and prepared the inquest report. In the meantime, the mother of the deceased reached there being resident of the same area and identified the dead body. However, information of a vague and indefinite character about a dead body can not be treated as coming under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code a first information report as the information on telephone given by the Principal, B.S. College, neither mentions the name of the accused nor mentions the 18 name of the witnesses nor mentions about a cognizable offence and there was no necessary details given. The police proceeded, the inquest report prepared and while the inquest report was preparing the mother of the deceased reached there identified the dead body, inquest report prepared and her statement was recorded simultaneously. It can well be presumed that the police stated that he reached at the plaintiff at 06.25 p.m. and he has stated that the inquest report was prepared at 06.30 p.m. However, the statement of the mother of victim is recorded at 07.30 p.m., the inquest report is said to have been prepared at 06.30 p.m. and the police reached at 06.25 p.m., the time of preparing the inquest report and the recording of the statement of the mother of the deceased treated as fardbeyan is so proximate that there is no probability of any deliberation. More over, the mother of the deceased was not an eye witness to the occurrence, she has not seen that how the deceased died nor she claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence to see that who were the person(s) who done the deceased to death. More over, the mother of the deceased was not an eye witness to the occurrence, she has not seen that how the deceased died nor she claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence to see that who were the person(s) who done the deceased to death. She does not claim that she had the knowledge of the death whatever she has stated in her evidence about the demand and subjecting cruelty at the time of marriage is with regard to best effort and not about the date of occurrence and there is nothing in her evidence to say that her statement was tainted or suffers from any infirmity to have manipulated or misdirected the investigation. 24. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the two decisions for his submissions to disbelieve the prosecution story as a tainted and doubtful. However, in decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C., 1962 (supra). In that case, the first information report lodged at 10.00 p.m. and the inquest report was prepared at 02.30 a.m. in the same night. However, the inquest report mentions the name of only five persons out of the nine accused persons names mentioned in the fardbeyan and though the name of only five persons mentioned in the body of the inquest, but, the name of nine persons were mentioned on the top of the inquest. The High Court found it to be an addition made by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police to help the prosecution to bring the inquest in conformity of first information report. It was, further, found that the fardbeyan was not recorded at 10.00 p.m., but, the first information report was drawn after preparation of the inquest and the investigating officer who admitted that he prepared inquest and read out to the informant, but, he later tried to say that he did not recollect whether he read out to informant, Banta Singh, or not and, further, the High Court found the first information report not written at 10.00 p.m., but, written after the inquest report was prepared and, hence, held that since the prosecution manipulated the prosecution case with regard to convict introducing the name of appellant. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C., 1962 (supra) is quite different and there no infirmity has been pointed out in the prosecution case except that the name of accused witness and prosecution case has not been mentioned in inquest which is not required by law, however, merely in mentioning the name of accused persons without finding any irregularity in the prosecution evidence it is reliable and trust worthy can not be rejected and, hence, ratio applicable in A.I.R. 1975 S.C., 1962 (supra) is not applicable. The prosecution not rejected for reason that name of accused and witness not mentioned in inquest, but, for reason the prosecution tried to manipulate in the inquest by introducing the name of the accused. 25. In the case reported in (2007) 13 S.C.C., 501 (supra) the fact that P.W. 13 gave information to police and investigation is based on a version he gave what he learnt from P.W. 11, who was an eye witness. Though P.W. 11 participated in showing the place of occurrence, but, he did not prefer to lodge first information report and did not disclose why he did not lodge the first information report. In inquest report it was stated that he deceased was assaulted by sharp cutting weapon by some unknown persons by which he died and the name of assailant at all not disclosed and, hence, held that the first information report is not reliable. However, here P.W. 11 was there who is claimed to be eye witness, but, the name of the assailant not mentioned. However, in the case at hand the mother of victim is not an eye witness. He does not claim to be the eye witness nor she knows by whom and how the victim was killed, whatever stated regarding death of the victim is on mere suspicion. But, there is no amount of plantation of prosecution case. However, in the case at hand the mother of victim is not an eye witness. He does not claim to be the eye witness nor she knows by whom and how the victim was killed, whatever stated regarding death of the victim is on mere suspicion. But, there is no amount of plantation of prosecution case. However, under the present facts and circumstances, the inquest report was prepared on seeing the dead body and the mother of the deceased was not eye witness to the occurrence nor she was knowing that how the deceased died nor she was knowing that who were the witnesses nor she claimed to be the eye witness, hence, the prosecution case can not be rejected only in view of the fact that name of the accused and the name of the witness has not been mentioned in the inquest report. 26. The police proceeded on the statement of the Principal, P.W. 2, that a dead body is found in the ditch and P.W. 2 had no knowledge about the accused and it was not a definite opinion and, hence, it may not be treated as fardbeyan. However, it has been well settled that a statement which come during the investigation can not be treated as fardbeyan as it hit by Sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the police proceeded on the statement of P.W. 2 after recording sanha and when he reached the place of occurrence found the dead body and there the statement of the mother of the deceased recorded. Even if assuming that the information received about the dead body of a person police proceed in preparation of inquest then the statement made by the mother of the deceased can be treated as a statement under Sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the police may proceed for the investigation even then if the evidence of witnesses during trial is found to be credible, reliable, unimpeachable and trust worthy then the prosecution case can not be rejected on the plea that fardbeyan is hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code as there was no first information report. It is well settled that the receipt of registration of the first information report is not the sine qua non for settling in motions of the machinery of criminal investigation. 27. It is well settled that the receipt of registration of the first information report is not the sine qua non for settling in motions of the machinery of criminal investigation. 27. The learned counsel for the appellants has further placed reliance that there is evidence that the father-in-law and mother- in-law used to live in other village and the father has purchased land and live at his sasural to look after his mother-in-law and has yet land there and there is no evidence that the father-in-law and mother-in-law were present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence and there is no specific evidence about subjecting cruelty against the father- in-law and mother-in-law. 28. However, there are evidence that Pramod Mishra was found at the site of the occurrence and was seen by the witnesses. However, with regard to the appellants, Someshwar Mishra and Gauri Devi, are concerned, there is no evidence that they were present at the site of the occurrence and there is evidence of the witnesses that Someshwar Mishra was living at sasural at Mahesi to look after his mother-in-law and remained in sasural there after purchase some of the properties. 29. Hence, having regard to the circumstances that there is no evidence regarding the presence of Someshwar Mishra and Gauri Devi at the place of occurrence and, hence, they are entitled for the benefit of doubt and, hence, I find and hold thepro has not been able to prove the charge against Someshwar Mishra and Gauri Devi for offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code and, hence, they are acquitted. 30. However, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge levelled against Pramod Mishra beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, the conviction and sentenced recorded against Pramod Mishra is hereby maintained. 31. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 164 of 1995 is allowed and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 215 of 1995 is hereby dismissed.