Judgment [Per: Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.] It is a case of dowry death in which the criminal law was set into motion by the unfortunate father of the victim. Meharchand son of Rahtu Lal lodged a complaint with the police of P.S. Bhagwanpur which was registered as crime no. 45/95 under sections 498A/304 B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 12.05.1995 at 08:40 pm. The incident took place in the intervening night of 11.05.1995/12.05.1995. 2. Informant Meharchand’s daughter Seema was married to Chandrahas son of Sukhbeer Tyagi according to Hindu customs and rituals. After a few days of marriage, Chandra has along with his parents etc. started harassing Seema (victim) on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. They demanded a motorcycle. The father of the victim could not fulfill this demand. Seema wrote a letter to her father requesting to meet the demand failing which the in-laws could kill her. Father of the victim met his son-in-law but they did nut budge. Chandrahas, his father Sukbeer Singh, relatives Jagdish, Jogender (brother-in-law of victim) and Chandra Prakash (another brother-in-law of victim) insisted upon providing motor-cycle. The father of the victim collected Rs. 2000/-, paid to them and requested them not to harass his daughter. After a few days the in-laws of the victim ousted her from their house. The in-laws asked her to bring Rs. 20,000/- and a motorcycle. A panchayat was convened and it was decided in the panchayat that Seema would stay with her in-laws. The panchayat undertook the responsibility that her in-laws will not harass her. Seema had a son aged two years. Thereafter, the father of the victim received an unstamped letter from her daughter alleging harassment. On 12.05.1995 a fellow villager named Subhash Chandra informed the complainant-father that his daughter Seema has been killed by her in-laws. On hearing this the complainant, along with co-villagers went to the matrimonial house of the deceased only to find that Seema was killed and she was cremated in the cremation ground in the morning, Her husband Chandrahas, father in-law Sukhbeer, relative Jagdish, jeth Jogender, devar Chandraprakash, mother-in-law Pushpa and jethani Savita had killed her because the members of her parental home could not fulfill the demand of dowry. This is the prosecution story in brief. 3. Investigation of the case was initiated. This is the prosecution story in brief. 3. Investigation of the case was initiated. After conducting the investigation, the IO submitted charge-sheet against Chandrahas, Sukhbeer, Jagdish, Yogender alias Jogender, Chandraprakash, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Savita for the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B/201 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. When the case was committed to the court of sessions and prosecution opened its case, the charges against the accused persons were framed for the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B & 201 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution had examined PW 1 Mehar Chand, PW 2 Rikhiram, PW 3 Sagwa Ram, PW 4 Subhash Chandra, PW 5 SI Data Ram, PW 6 doctor R.K.Verma, PW 7 constable Jaiprakash and PW 8 Surendra Singh Chauhan, Deputy S.P. (retd). Statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were taken. They have admitted marriage but denied having demanded any dowry. They have not adduced any evidence in defence. 4. Learned trial court found Yogendra alias Jogender, Jagdish, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Savita guilty of the offences punishable under sections 498A/304B/201 IPC. Trial court awarded each one of them with imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 304B IPC. Two years’ RI to each accused was awarded under section 498A and section 201 IPC as well. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said order dated 28.08.2002, the accused-appellants have preferred this criminal appeal. Accused Chandrahas (husband), Chandraprakash (devar) and father-in-law Sukhbeer had died and therefore, the case against them stood abated. 5. PW 1 Meharchand, in his examination-in-chief, has proved the contents enumerated in the complaint (Ext. Ka-2). He said that his daughter Seema was married to Chandrahas son of Sukhbeer in May 1991. He spent Rs. 100,000/- in the marriage. After about three months of marriage, accused persons started making a demand of motorcycle Hero Honda. His daughter sent a letter to him on 10.08.1991 through one Gopal to this effect. Meharchand met the accused persons and expressed his inability to provide the motorcycle. He met the accused persons in the presence of his co-villagers Somdutt, Rekhiram, Karanpal and Brijpal. Even then the accused persons did not budge. He was compelled to pay Rs. 2000 to them and requested them not to harass his daughter. They ousted his daughter from the matrimonial home in August 1999 after beating her. He met the accused persons in the presence of his co-villagers Somdutt, Rekhiram, Karanpal and Brijpal. Even then the accused persons did not budge. He was compelled to pay Rs. 2000 to them and requested them not to harass his daughter. They ousted his daughter from the matrimonial home in August 1999 after beating her. A condition was imposed on her that she should enter into the matrimonial house only when she brings 20,000/- cash and a Hero Honda. She was taken to Saharanpur hospital for treatment. The villagers assembled (for the purpose of solving the problem). Accused persons asked him to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Seema. The villagers along with father took her to matrimonial home. The villagers assembled there. They gave an assurance that Seema will not be harassed in future. The father along with villagers left the daughter in her matrimonial home and came back. In April 1994 Somdutta received an unstamped letter Ext. Ka-1 written by Seema. They could not visit Seema immediately after receipt of the letter. On 12.05.1995 one Subhah Chandra informed the father of the victim that his daughter had been killed by her in-laws. When the father of the deceased along with fellow villagers reached Seema’s matrimonial home, they found that she had been cremated. A complaint Ext. Ka-2 was got written through one Umesh son of Jagdish Prasad. Father of the deceased proved his signatures on Ext. Ka-2. He has also said that Seema was killed because he was unable to fulfill the dowry demands of her in-laws. He received a letter on 20th August 1994, in which the accused persons made an allegation on him regarding taking away of property worth Rs. 100,000/-. On 13th March, 1994 his daughter had come along with him. Thereafter they ousted his daughter from her matrimonial home. In August 1994 an agreement was entered into between them (Ext. Ka-3). Accused persons agreed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the name of his daughter. Compromise Ext. Ka-3 bears the signature of Jagdish, Yogender, Chandra has, Chandraprakash, Sukhbeer, Savita and Pushpa. Deceased and her father also put their signatures on Ext. Ka-3. 6. The informant was subjected to a detailed cross-examination on behalf of the appellants. Nothing has come out in it which may cast a shadow of doubt on the oral testimony of PW 1 Meharchand. Ka-3 bears the signature of Jagdish, Yogender, Chandra has, Chandraprakash, Sukhbeer, Savita and Pushpa. Deceased and her father also put their signatures on Ext. Ka-3. 6. The informant was subjected to a detailed cross-examination on behalf of the appellants. Nothing has come out in it which may cast a shadow of doubt on the oral testimony of PW 1 Meharchand. He has denied that the letters written by his daughter were forged and were prepared only to take advantage in this case. 7. PW 2 Rikhiram son of Ramji Lal resident of Saharanpur has supported the prosecution story. He has said that Seema was married to Chandrahas. A demand for motorcycle and cash was made by her in-laws after the marriage. Seema had written a letter to her father alleging harassment by her in-laws. Meharchand read over the said letter to the fellow villagers. Thereafter a panchayat was convened. Again the in-laws raised demand of motorcycle and cash in dowry. Meharchand was compelled to pay Rs. 2000/-. Seema was dropped in her matrimonial home but she was ousted from there after being beaten up. This witness has mentioned the names of all the accused in his statement. When accused persons committed marpeet to Seema, she was taken to hospital for treatment. Then again on the intervention of a few villagers a compromise Ext. Ka-3 was entered into between the parties. PW 3 Rikhiram also verified his signatures on compromise Ext. Ka-3. Thereafter, Seema wrote a letter to Somdutta alleging harassment by the members of her matrimonial home. Later on Meharchand informed him that Seema’s in-laws had killed her. She was cremated in the cremation ground (in absence of any of the members of her parental home). This witness too was cross-examined on behalf of the appellants but no material discrepancy could be pointed out in his cross-examination. 8. PW 3 Sagwaram is the witness to the memo Ext. Ka-4, which bears the signature of Rajender Kumar and Sagwaram. The said memo relates to taking into possession of two pieces of golden earrings (kundal). 9. PW 4 Subhash Chandra has also supported the prosecution story. He has said that he came to village Chudiyala on 11.05.1995. Seema was married to Chandrahas. Ka-4, which bears the signature of Rajender Kumar and Sagwaram. The said memo relates to taking into possession of two pieces of golden earrings (kundal). 9. PW 4 Subhash Chandra has also supported the prosecution story. He has said that he came to village Chudiyala on 11.05.1995. Seema was married to Chandrahas. When this witness went to meet Seema at her matrimonial home and inquired about her, her mother-in-law said that the meeting is not possible as she was busy in some other work. The next day when he was returning his village, this witness again tried to meet Seema so that the news about her well being might be informed to her parents. When this witness enquired about Seema, they refused to disclose anything. Her mother-in-law also did not say anything. Sensing foul, when he enquired from people standing in the lane, they informed this witness that Seema had been killed by her in-laws last night. In the cross-examination PW 4 Subhash Chandra said that he had no relationship with Seema. He had gone to village Chudiyala to meet his relatives. Seema belonged to his village and was married to Chandrahas in Chudiyala. Since he was younger to Seema therefore, Seema could meet him without parda (veil). The members of matrimonial home of Seema also used to come to his village. Although, nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness, yet the prosecution story could be proved sans the testimony of this witness. PW 4 Subhash Chandra has simply thrown light over the fact that he was denied meeting with Seema and the next day when he went to enquire about her, her mother-in-law maintained silence. The other villagers informed him that she had been killed. 10. PW 5 SI Dataram was posted on 12.05.1995 as Sub Inspector in P.S. Bhagwanpur. On 13.05.1995 he found plastic cane and other articles in the room of Chandrahas, husband of the deceased. He is also a witness to taking into possession of two earrings from the place of occurrence. He has proved the memo Ext. Ka-4 which relates to taking into possession of the two earrings and memo Ext. Ka-5 which pertains to taking into possession of plastic cane. He has also proved letter Ext. Ka -1 and photograph Ext. Ka-3. 11. He is also a witness to taking into possession of two earrings from the place of occurrence. He has proved the memo Ext. Ka-4 which relates to taking into possession of the two earrings and memo Ext. Ka-5 which pertains to taking into possession of plastic cane. He has also proved letter Ext. Ka -1 and photograph Ext. Ka-3. 11. PW 6 Doctor R.K.Sharma found the following injuries sustained by Seema, aged 24 years on 24.08.1993 at 12:45 pm: 1) Traumatic swelling 2 cm x 1.5 cm on left side of head 6.00 cm above from left ear. 2) Radish blue contusion 7.00 cm x 1.00 cm, on back of the chest lower part. 3) Complaint of pain on front of chest of abdomen. No visible external injuries seen. Duration - No opinion for duration can be given for no. 1 & 3. No.2 seems to be above one day injury. Nature - simple in nature. Caused by hard blunt object. The doctor has proved his report Ext. Ka-8 and has said that the injuries have been caused by hands, fists and sticks. 12. PW 7 constable Jai Prakash was posted as constable clerk on 12.05.1995 at PS Bhagwanpur. He has proved chik FIR Ext Ka-9 and copy of entry in GD Ext. Ka-10. 13. PW 8 Surender Singh Chauhan, retd.Deputy S.P. was the Investigating Officer of this case. He said that initially the investigation was taken over by Arvind Sain, the then Circle Officer, Roorkee. This witness took over the investigation from his predecessor on 24.05.1995. Surajbhan, the uncle of the deceased came to his office on 25.05.1995 and produced the letter sent to him by the deceased. The memo of the said letter was prepared by SI Dataram and bears the signatures of this Investigating Officer. The letter has been proved as Ext. Ka-7. The IO has also referred to the carbon copy of compromise entered into between the parties and photocopy of the letters along with doctor’s report. He also took the statements of Surajbhan, Meharchand, Subhashchand, Rikhiram and Somdutta. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-11 against the accused persons and sent the bones and ashes for chemical examination on 17.06.1995. 14. A letter Ext. Ka-1 written by the victim to her father was referred to by learned counsel for the appellants. He also took the statements of Surajbhan, Meharchand, Subhashchand, Rikhiram and Somdutta. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-11 against the accused persons and sent the bones and ashes for chemical examination on 17.06.1995. 14. A letter Ext. Ka-1 written by the victim to her father was referred to by learned counsel for the appellants. From the tenor of its contents it appears that it is the second letter written by the victim to her father. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that two letters were alleged to have been written by the victim and the second letter is on the file. The first letter has not been filed, 15. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that a compromise took place between the parties in the panchayat. The contents of the compromise were reduced to writing. Compromise Ext. Ka-3 may be found at page no.6 of the paper book. 16. It has also been pointed out that the husband of the victim Chandrahas has died. Another appellant Smt. Pushpa (mother-in-law) has also died. Third appellant Sukhbeer has also passed away. All the three viz., Chandrahas, Pushpa and Sukhbeer were found guilty by the learned trial court under Section 498-A/304-B/201 IPC. Since they have died therefore, the case against them stands abated. 17. If we have a close look at the compromise, it shows very interesting thing. One, that the appellants were harassing the lady and therefore, she was residing with her father at the time the compromise took place. Two, one of the appellants had lodged the complaint about theft against the lady. He has made an allegation that this lady has taken away goods worth Rs. 40,000/-, which were found available at the matrimonial house of the lady. So the appellant had made false allegations against the woman. These two factors demolish the case of the appellants. 18. A letter was written by the father to the daughter. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that the parents were annoyed with the wrongs committed by the daughter. Learned counsel representing the appellants could not point out as to what wrong the daughter committed. The letter portrays that the father was aggrieved by some kind of action on the part of daughter. What was the cause of annoyance, the same is not clear from the letter. Learned counsel representing the appellants could not point out as to what wrong the daughter committed. The letter portrays that the father was aggrieved by some kind of action on the part of daughter. What was the cause of annoyance, the same is not clear from the letter. Then how can it be concluded that the letter fastened guilt on the daughter? 19. It is clear from the compromise that the appellants demanded dowry. She was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. False allegations of stealing were leveled against the poor woman much to her embarrassment. 20. According to the prosecution the in-laws had demanded a motor-cycle from the family members of the victim in dowry. Whoever asked and whoever caused the harassment to the victim is important. It is an admitted fact that Seema died an unnatural death. Most surprising is the fact that the postmortem on her dead body was not conducted. The appellants were in such a hurry that her pyre was lit without conducting inquest, postmortem and without waiting for her father. 21. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that only jeth, jethani and tau have remained in the fray, others have passed away. The jeth, jethani and tau were living separately. They have got separate ration-cards and separate residences. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, in as much as if these appellants had nothing to do with the allegations then why were they called in the panchayat and why did they sign over the agreement to settle the dispute on an earlier occasion? If the appellants had nothing to do with the agreement why did they enter into the same? Panchayat is a mode for intervention to settle the dispute. Since the appellants were called in the panchayat and their signatures procured on the agreement, the same, therefore, Signifies that they had important role to play in the matrimonial life of the poor and helpless lady. Learned counsel tried to bring some extracts of the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses to rebut the allegations, but that is not acceptable to the court in view of the documentary evidence which is contrary to the interest of the appellants. Learned counsel tried to bring some extracts of the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses to rebut the allegations, but that is not acceptable to the court in view of the documentary evidence which is contrary to the interest of the appellants. If the appellants have agreed to go before the panchayat and signed the vital document in order to bring temporary piece, that itself highlights their importance which includes playing of negative role, in the matrimonial life of the couple. That fastens the liability on the appellants. 22. Yet another important aspect of the matter is that the pyre was lit in the absence of father of the victim. The pyre was lit before the father of the victim arrived. Why did the in- laws not wait for the father to come? Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the same has been denied by the accused by way of suggestions. The court is not inclined to accept the same for, the suggestion is not a proof. 23. The quality of evidence produced is such that the appellants cannot escape conviction. The death, be it suicide, is unnatural death. No inquest was conducted. There is no eyewitness to suggest the manner in which the death had taken place. The accused persons had burnt the body in the absence of victim’s father and that too without having obtained the certificate of doctor. At least there is no document on record to suggest the same. By the time father came, her pyre was lit in order to hush up the matter 24. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Investigating Officer has not prepared site plan. When dead body was not lying anywhere, no inquest was made, no eyewitness is there to show as to how the death had taken place, then how could the Investigating Officer prepare the site plan and of what? There was no question of making site plan in the air. 25. The appellants had removed the piece of evidence by burning the dead body and therefore, they have rightly been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC as well. 26. Prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order of learned trial court. No interference is called for. Hence, the appeal must fail. 27. 26. Prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There is no infirmity in the judgment and order of learned trial court. No interference is called for. Hence, the appeal must fail. 27. Criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the accused appellants Yogendra alias Jogender, Jagdish, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Savita is thus dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.08.2002 is therefore affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court is accordingly affirmed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court concerned to receive sentence as awarded by the trial court and thus affirmed by this Court. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for ensuring compliance of this order. Let lower court record be sent back.