JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. Criminal Law was set into motion at the instance of Kishan Singh s/o Kheem Singh, resident of village Chamali Pattti Chamali, district Pithoragarh in the instant case. He (Kishan Singh) wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 02.08.1999 enumerating the facts therein that his daughter Neela Devi was married to Hanuman Singh son of Diwan Singh resident of village Chhanaula about 4-5 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. Informant Kishan Singh who was unfortunate father of the victim, was serving in a private organization in Delhi. On 25.07.1999 he received a telephonic call that his daughter was dead. His son-in-law Hanuman Singh was also serving in New Delhi. When father and husband of deceased came back, they first went to the matrimonial house of the deceased (husband’s house). When enquired from victim’s in-laws they gave casual reply regarding the death of victim. Thereafter the informant went back to his home. He came to know that his daughter was killed on 24.07.1999. He also came to know that on 25.07.1999 informant’s younger brother Gokul Singh and others went to victim’s matrimonial home along with other persons. They found that Neela Devi’s dead body was kept in a courtyard. Blood was oozing out from her mouth and there was ligature mark on her neck. On being enquired as to how the victim died, her father-in-law Diwan Singh said, “so many persons have died in Kargil, so has she”. On being enquired regarding whereabouts of Patwari and village Sabhapati, victim’s in-laws pleaded ignorance. Gokul informed informant that he along with others came to Pithoragarh to inform him (informant) on telephone. They said that victim did not die a natural death but she was killed. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to harass her and killed her. 2. On the complaint of bereaved father, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was lodged at Gurna, district Pithoragarh on 02.08.1999. Occurrence took place on 24.07.1999. The distance between the village where the occurrence took place and reporting Supervisor Kanungo was 25 kilometers. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 2/1999 under Section 302/201 IPC. 3. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304B and 201 IPC was submitted against the accused appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 2/1999 under Section 302/201 IPC. 3. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304B and 201 IPC was submitted against the accused appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC were framed against the accused appellants. In the alternative, charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and 201 IPC were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 10 prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness i.e. DW 1 Kesar Singh Karki, Public Notary was adduced in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trail accused appellants Diwan Singh and Parwati Devi were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC. They were awarded imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which they were required to undergo six months’ further imprisonment. Accused appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and were awarded three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, each one was directed to undergo three months’ further rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, appellants preferred present appeal. 5. PW 1 Smt. Janki Devi was the unfortunate mother of the victim. She deposed that her daughter’s name was Neela Devi who was married to Hanuman Singh about six years’ ago (from the date of deposition) according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her daughter used to come from her matrimonial home quite often. She used to complain that her in-laws did not behave properly and beat her. She was persuaded by the mother and she went back to her matrimonial home. She wanted to go with her husband at Delhi. (She had no complaints against her husband). She used to say that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law quarrel with her. There was no complaint of dowry. Her daughter died two years’ ago. She was persuaded by the mother and she went back to her matrimonial home. She wanted to go with her husband at Delhi. (She had no complaints against her husband). She used to say that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law quarrel with her. There was no complaint of dowry. Her daughter died two years’ ago. (from the date of PW 1 Smt. Janki Devi deposed before the court). Arjun Singh and Gokul Singh came to inform that her daughter died with acute diorhhea. On hearing the said news, PW 1 Janki Devi got fainted. Thereafter, her brother-in-law (dewar) and a few villagers went to see the dead body of victim at her matrimonial home. They informed her that there was ligature mark on her neck. Her face was black and blood oozed out from her mouth. The husband of PW1 Janki Devi was in Delhi. He came to village when he was informed about the sad demise of his daughter. Her husband lodged the report. Deceased had an eight months’ old child. 6. PW 2 Kalu Singh had been to victim’s matrimonial home along with other villagers on 25th July, 1999. Victim’s dead body was kept in the courtyard of her matrimonial home. There was ligature mark on her neck. Her face was turning black. Blood oozed out from her mouth. Blood had dried. When enquired from her father-in-law regarding victim’s death, he replied, “you ask this (question) to victim”. Neither Patwari nor village Pradhan came there. Then PW 2 Kalu Singh asked appellant Diwan Singh not to cremate the dead body, as he was going to make a telephone call to deceased’s father. PW 2 Kalu Singh made a telephone call to father of the victim. They came back to victim’s matrimonial home only to find that the dead body was not there. No one was present on their behalf either. They disposed of/ cremated her dead body. The postmortem of the dead body was not conducted. It appeared that her in-laws killed Neela Devi. At that point of time, no member of Kishan Singh’s family was there in the village except his wife. When Kishan Singh came back from Delhi, he was informed about the condition of dead body of Neela Devi as was seen by this witness. 7. PW 3 Laksman Singh deposed that Neela Devi was like sister to him. At that point of time, no member of Kishan Singh’s family was there in the village except his wife. When Kishan Singh came back from Delhi, he was informed about the condition of dead body of Neela Devi as was seen by this witness. 7. PW 3 Laksman Singh deposed that Neela Devi was like sister to him. When he heard about sad demise of Neela Devi on 24.07.1999, he accompanied PW 2 Kalu Singh and others to her matrimonial home. Then this witness repeated what was deposed by PW 2 Kalu Singh in his deposition. 8. PW 4 Girdhar Singh was uncle of deceased. He was also one of the persons who went to see the dead body of victim at her matrimonial home. He corroborated the testimony of PW 2 Kaluram and PW 3 Lakshman Singh whereby he said that the accused appellants cremated the dead body of Neela Devi despite their instructions to her in-laws not to do so. Father of deceased came back from Delhi on 27.07.1999. The same was intimated to him. 9. PW 5 Kishan Singh is the unfortunate father of victim. He said that his daughter Neela Devi was married to Hanuman Singh on 25.07.1999. His brother Girdhar Singh rang him up and informed that Neela Devi was no more. PW 5 Kishan Singh said that his son-in-law Hanuman Singh was also serving in Delhi. He also came to his village on 26.07.1999. PW 5 Kishan Singh stayed with his son-in-law during that night. When father of victim enquired from accused appellants regarding the cause of death of victim, then they informed that she suffered from some ailment and consequently she died. Father of victim went back to his village on 27.07.1999. He was informed that two persons from Dhanaula (Gogna) came to inform Neela’s death. Girdhar Singh, Kalu Singh and Hoshiyar Singh went to see the dead body of Neela in village Dhanaula. They saw ligature mark on her neck. They also saw that her face was black and blood oozed out from her mouth. Girdhar Singh informed all these things to PW 5 Kishan Singh when he reached his home. He saw that his wife was not in reconcilable state. He was also under grief. They regained some sense after 5-7 days of coming back from Delhi. Then a report was given to Kanungo, Pithoragarh on 02.08.1999. Girdhar Singh informed all these things to PW 5 Kishan Singh when he reached his home. He saw that his wife was not in reconcilable state. He was also under grief. They regained some sense after 5-7 days of coming back from Delhi. Then a report was given to Kanungo, Pithoragarh on 02.08.1999. PW 5 Kishan Singh proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). Victim used to complain about the behaviour of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Victim wanted to go to her husband but father-in-law and mother-in-law declined her for doing so. She was beaten by her mother-in-law twice and by her sister-in-law once. 10. PW 6 Smt. Harikala was Gram Pradhan of the village Gogna on the fateful day. On 24.07.1999 when she heard about the sad demise of Neela Devi she went to her matrimonial home. Testimony of PW 6 Smt. Harikala assumed importance in the wake of the fact that appellants Diwan Singh and Parwati did not inform her of the death of Smt. Neela Devi. She was Pradhan of the village and appellant Diwan Singh did not inform her in writing about the death of his daughter-in-law. PW 6 Smt. Harikala was emphatic that victim was not suffering from any ailment before 24.07.1999. When anybody becomes ill in the village, the villagers know about it. Victim was cremated hurriedly. 11. Residence of PW 7 Vikram Singh was situated at a distance of 1- 1 ½ kilometer from the residence of accused-appellants. On coming to know about the death of Smt. Neela Devi, PW 7 Vikram Singh went to Nila’s matrimonial home. He did not support the prosecution story and became hostile. He was the nephew of the accused-appellant. 12. PW 8 Keshavdutt Punetha, Kanungo, Pithoragarh was posted as Supervisor Kanungo, Gurna on 04.08.1999. He received a complaint of Kishan Singh on 02.08.1999. He ordered Patwari, Gogna to investigate the case. On the basis of complaint, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was registered and an entry in the GD (Ext. Ka-3) was made to this effect. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to Circle Patwari, Gogna. 13. PW 9 Rajendra Singh Khanka, Patti Patwari, Dhanaura was posted as Patti Patwari, Gogna on 13.08.1999. When he reached Tehsildar, Headquarter, Pithoragarh in connection with official work on 13.08.1999, he was directed by Naib Tehsildar to investigate the case. Earlier Supervisor Kanungo Keshav Dutt Punetha was conducting the investigation before him. 13. PW 9 Rajendra Singh Khanka, Patti Patwari, Dhanaura was posted as Patti Patwari, Gogna on 13.08.1999. When he reached Tehsildar, Headquarter, Pithoragarh in connection with official work on 13.08.1999, he was directed by Naib Tehsildar to investigate the case. Earlier Supervisor Kanungo Keshav Dutt Punetha was conducting the investigation before him. PW 9 Rajender Singh Khanka visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-4) and memo of place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-5). He took the statements of witnesses and effected arrest of accused appellant Diwan Singh on 13.09.1999. This witness denied having received any affidavit from informant Kishan Singh. Since according to PW 9 Rajender Singh Khanka ingredients of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC were also found, therefore, the investigation was again transferred to Naib Tehsildar. 14. PW 10 Himalaya Singh Martoliya, Tehsildar Ghanshali was posted on 08.11.1999 as Naib Tehsildar, Pithoragarh. He completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet (Ext. ka-7) against the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC. 15. The sole witness who was produced on behalf of the accused appellants was DW-1 Kesar Singh Karki (Public Notary, Pithoragarh). He said that on 12.08.1999 at 3:45 pm complainant Kishan Singh came to him in the court compound. Kishan Singh was identified by Shri J.S.Mehta, Advocate. An affidavit (Ext. Kha-1) was sworn in by deponent Kishan Singh who signed and verified said affidavit. DW 1 Kesar Singh Karki also proved his seal, signatures in the affidavit and corresponding entry in the register. 16. The incident took place within seven years of marriage of Hanuman Singh with victim. Victim died under unnatural circumstances. In the instant case, post mortem of the deceased was not conducted. Evidence has it that despite instructions from the family members of parental home of victim, appellants cremated dead body of deceased. It has come in evidence that upon receiving the news of sad demise of victim, her uncle and a few members of her parental home / village came to see the dead body of deceased. They asked appellants not to cremate her dead body. The villagers / members of parental home went to inform victim’s father on telephone. When they returned from Pithoragarh they found that dead body was not there and was disposed of / cremated. They asked appellants not to cremate her dead body. The villagers / members of parental home went to inform victim’s father on telephone. When they returned from Pithoragarh they found that dead body was not there and was disposed of / cremated. The same was contrary to normal human behaviour that is why there was a charge against appellants in relation to offence punishable under Section 201 IPC also. 17. The case of the appellants was that the victim had stomachache with vomiting of blood in the night. The villagers were called when she was about to be brought to hospital, but she died. Appellant Diwan Singh had taken up this plea in answer to question no. 14 in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is admitted case that victim died within seven years of marriage. The plea of defence is that she died a natural death. The same is not substantiated by any evidence. How do we know that victim died a natural death? It could have only been said by an Allopath or a Homeopath or a Vaid. Neither there is any prescription of any medical practitioner or hospital nor any medical practitioner has been produced in defence. It was said that the villagers were called when victim suffered from stomachache and blood vomiting. No defence witness was called to prove that. Why the villagers were not called in defence? It was the appellant’s statement and the same was required to be proved by him alone. A fact is required to be proved by one who asserts it. It therefore, follows that victim died within seven years of her marriage under unnatural circumstances. When victim died, no such information was given to police by appellants. No post mortem was conducted and the dead body was cremated surreptitiously. 18. One witness was produced in defence. DW1 Kesar Singh Karki was public notary before whom informant Kishan Singh had sworn an affidavit (Ext. Kha-1). Said affidavit was not shown to PW5 Kishan Singh in cross-examination. On page no.5 of the evidence of PW5 Kishan Singh, he has denied any such affidavit ever sworn in by him. He denied such an affidavit being given to Kanungo. Once such an affidavit which was sworn in before notary was denied by father of victim, it was the duty of defence to show it to the witness and confront it. He denied such an affidavit being given to Kanungo. Once such an affidavit which was sworn in before notary was denied by father of victim, it was the duty of defence to show it to the witness and confront it. It is ironical that no such affidavit was confronted. The same could have been confronted with the witness in the cross-examination. If the witness denied having signed such an affidavit, the same could have been sent to handwriting expert. Notarised affidavit was not sent for the opinion of handwriting expert. What was the use of such an affidavit? An opportunity was there before the appellant but he permitted the same to be missed. An elephant was standing before him but the appellant permitted the elephant to melt down. He permitted the elephant to melt down and converted into ice-elephant. He missed a grate opportunity. What the Court will do? The court is bounded in chains of evidence. The Court will decide the matter only on the basis of evidence and nothing else. The Court is helpless as neither the affidavit was proved nor its maker confronted with the same by producing the original in the cross-examination. Unless the appellants confront the maker with the paper thus signed, what the Court can do? It has no option but to ignore such a paper. 19. Lastly, an attempt was also made by learned counsel for the appellants to show that FIR in this case was delayed and there was no proper explanation for it. It has come in evidence that PW5 Kishan Singh was informed by his brother telephonically on 25.07.1999 that Neela was dead. PW5 Kishan Singh along with his son-in-law Hanuman Singh reached Ghat on 26.07.1999. He stayed with his son-in-law in the night. On 27.07.1999 informant reached his own village whereupon his brother Girdhar Singh told him that on receiving the news of death of Neela, Girdhar Singh and a few other villagers went to see the dead body of Neela at her matrimonial home whereupon they found that there was ligature mark on the neck of victim, her face was black and blood oozed out from her mouth. No doubt the report was submitted on 02.08.1999 but PW5 Kishan Singh explained that when he reached from Delhi to his own village via victim’s matrimonial home, his wife was in grief and under shock. She was not normal. No doubt the report was submitted on 02.08.1999 but PW5 Kishan Singh explained that when he reached from Delhi to his own village via victim’s matrimonial home, his wife was in grief and under shock. She was not normal. He too was not in reconcliable state. When he along with his wife recovered a little, he lodged report regarding the said incident. In cross-examination also he explained that since appellant no.1 concealed many a material things (and since he was kept in dark) he did not lodge FIR till 01.08.1999. His brother disclosed him on telephone a simple fact of death of victim. He did not elaborate the incident. There was no further cross-examination by appellants, on this vital aspect of delay which was an admitted fact. The Court is bound to accept the explanation offered by informant PW5 Kishan Singh for delay in lodging FIR in the absence of effective cross-examination. 20. The explanation thus given by PW5 Kishan Singh that when he reached his home he came to know of the actual state of affairs as until then he was kept in dark by appellant no.1 and it took him sometime to recover the shock of untimely death of his daughter and only then he lodged FIR. The said explanation is acceptable. 21. Evidence has it that there was ligature mark on the neck of deceased, her face was black and blood came out from her mouth. These were the signs of death under unnatural circumstances. The same could not be said to be a natural death. 22. PW4 Girdhar Singh’s evidence also assumes importance in view of the fact that it was he who, for the first time, informed victim’s father PW5 Kishan Singh regarding the death of victim on telephone. Also, it was he who narrated complete facts gathered by him regarding Neela Devi’s death to father of victim on 27.07.1999 in the evening. No question was asked in the cross-examination of this witness like - “Did you suspect this case to be of homicide?” Further, “Did you convey your mind to PW5 Kishan Singh?” Had PW4 Girdhar Singh replied in the affirmative, it would have been very difficult for prosecution through PW5 Kishan Singh to explain delay. But unfortunately for the appellant that was not to be. 23. But unfortunately for the appellant that was not to be. 23. Lastly, some discrepancies were pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants in the testimony of PW1 Smt. Janki Devi, mother of victim. PW1 Smt. Janki Devi said that when the villagers disclosed the condition of dead body of victim, her husband remained unconscious for 10-12 days. How then the FIR could be lodged by her husband on 02.08.1999? It may be pointed out at the very outset that this statement may be an exaggeration. We should not lose sight of the fact that the deponent Janki Devi was an illiterate. What she meant to say was that the parents of victim were not in a fit state of mind. Prosecution case is based upon the testimony of PW4 Girdhar Singh, which is duly supported by other oral evidence. Stomachache or vomiting part was not attempted to be proved by any means. The same could be disproved by an evidence of medical practitioner or any villager. Notarised affidavit was not confronted with PW5 Kishan Singh. Delay in lodging FIR was explained by prosecution satisfactorily. 24. The appellants have not denied that dead body was not disposed of by them. The dead body was in their lap. They cremated dead body. Appellants had a duty to discharge the burden as to why dead body was disposed of so hurriedly and so surreptitiously, even without waiting for victim’s husband and victim’s father who were coming together. When the victim coughed out a little blood, no effort was made by appellant to provide medical aid to her. At least there was no evidence on record to prove that. The death took place in the custody of appellants. It was an unnatural conduct on behalf of the appellants to dispose of the dead body of victim without having awaited for victim’s husband who was already on way to his home. No question was asked to PW4 Girdhar Singh that when he phoned up his brother, whether he informed father of victim about the nature of her death. When he talked to father of victim, did he (PW 4 Girdhar Singh) apprehend that the victim has been murdered? Why did he not inform? What instructions were given by father? PW4 Girdhar Singh might be in trap. Just possible. But unless any question is asked, what the Court can do? When he talked to father of victim, did he (PW 4 Girdhar Singh) apprehend that the victim has been murdered? Why did he not inform? What instructions were given by father? PW4 Girdhar Singh might be in trap. Just possible. But unless any question is asked, what the Court can do? Had PW4 Girdahr Singh apprehended that the victim was murdered, it was just possible that PW5 Kishan Singh could not have come to victim’s matrimonial home alone, had he known of her unnatural death? The Courts are required to draw logical deduction. The Courts are responsible to the society and are required to uphold rule of law. 25. The prosecution has been able to prove the case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment & order does not call for any interference. 26. For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal of the appellants Diwan Singh and Parwati Devi is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused / appellants Diwan Singh and Parwati Devi is hereby affirmed. The accused appellants Diwan Singh and Parwati Devi are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The accused / appellants Diwan Singh and Parwati Devi are directed to surrender before the court concerned to serve out the sentence thus awarded by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. Let a copy of the Judgment be sent to the court concerned for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.