JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. State has come in appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan rendered in case No. 15-S/7 of 2001 whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted on 24.3.2003. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that accused Sanjay Purwar was married on 1.12.1997 to Smt. Sudha Purwar daughter of Sh. Triloki Nath (PW-15). They were residing in tenanted premises, namely, “Renuka Bhawan” Dhobighat, Solan owned by PW-1 Sh. Pradeep Ghosh. Sanjay Purwar was an employee of Indo American Hybrid Seeds posted at Solan and was residing alongwith deceased Sudha. During the summer vacation in the School in Urai, his mother Smt. Sharda Purwar had also come to spend her vacations at Solan. ASI Kushal Singh (PW-12) was informed by H.C. Jeet Ram (PW-5) on 12.6.2001 that body of Sudha Purwar was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, PW-12 ASI Kushal Singh alongwith other police officials proceeded to the hospital. He inspected the dead body in the mortuary. Thereafter, he went to the house of accused at Renuka Bhawan. ASI Kushal Singh took into possession the rope Ex.P-1 vide memo Ex.PW-1/D prima facie finding it a case of suicide. He thereafter prepared the inquest report Ex.PW-1/A. Suicide note was also recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. The team of doctors conducted the post-mortem on 13.6.2001. The copy of the post-mortem report is Ex.PW-8/A. The viscera was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The dead body was handed over to PW-15 Triloki Nath. He went to Police Station on 14.6.2001 and informed that his deceased daughter was married to accused 3½ years ago. She was law graduate from Lucknow University. She was tortured by the accused persons and they demanded money from her. She was not allowed to meet with relations. Accused used to lock the main gate of the house keeping the deceased inside when they used to go out. She was tortured and was pressurized to bring more dowry. He was informed by accused Sanjay Purwar on 12.6.2001 at 2.00 P.M. telephonically that Smt. Sudha has committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, the police again visited the spot and carried out investigation. She was tortured and was pressurized to bring more dowry. He was informed by accused Sanjay Purwar on 12.6.2001 at 2.00 P.M. telephonically that Smt. Sudha has committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, the police again visited the spot and carried out investigation. Site plan Ex.PW-13/B was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Accused were arrested on 14.6.2001. Smt. Sharda Purwar was released on bail by the Sessions Judge on 16.7.2001. Reports of the Chemical Analyst are Ex.PW-11/A and PW-11/B. Suicide note is recovered vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. Thereafter, police concluded that it was a case of murder and not suicide and the F.I.R. was converted into section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused Sanjay Purwar had tried to create evidence of suicide by hanging though it was a murder. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under section 313 was recorded. Accused has appeared as DW-1 and has also examined six witnesses in defence. The trial court has acquitted the accused on 24.3.2003 by giving them benefit of doubt. It is in these circumstances, State has filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. According to him, the trial court has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr. Y. Paul have supported the judgment of acquittal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully. 7. According to PW-1 Pradeep Ghosh, accused Sanjay used to reside in the upper portion of his building as a tenant. He used to reside alone and thereafter accused started living alongwith his wife and mother. He was present in the office on 12.6.2001 when he received a telephonic call from Principal that wife of his tenant has committed suicide. He immediately went to his house. His daughter told that deceased was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. He went to the hospital. Inquest report Ex.PW-1/A was prepared in his presence and he signed the same. A note was recovered from the place of occurrence by the police officials vide Ex.PW-1/B in his presence. He immediately went to his house. His daughter told that deceased was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. He went to the hospital. Inquest report Ex.PW-1/A was prepared in his presence and he signed the same. A note was recovered from the place of occurrence by the police officials vide Ex.PW-1/B in his presence. It was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. He signed memo Ex.PW-1/C. The rope was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/D. 8. PW-2 Dr. Lalita Prashar has examined the victim on 12.6.2001. According to PW-2, accused brought the deceased in three-wheeler near her clinic. She checked the deceased. She observed that deceased was clinically dead. She directed the accused to immediately take the deceased to District Hospital, Solan. The time was between 12.30 P.M. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that when she checked the deceased she had died, however, she did not check the blood pressure of the deceased. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not examine the patient extensively in order to save the time. She directed the accused to take the deceased for her better medical treatment and to avail the chance of her revival, if any. 9. PW-3 Indresh Sahni has testified that he has undertaken the construction work of his house. His house was situated in the upper portion of the house of Dr. Ghosh. Accused came to his residential house from the stairs and knocked the door of his residential house. Daughter of Dr. Ghosh also came on the upper portion of the residential house of accused. Accused knocked the door for about five minutes. Accused broke the glass of the door. He went inside the residential house. Daughter of Ghosh also entered the house of accused. She called him and he entered the house of the accused. He saw the wife of accused, who was lying on the bed. Deceased did not speak. He came out of the house and directed the daughter of Ghosh to call her father immediately to the place of occurrence. 10. PW-4 Virender Sehgal has deposed that accused came to him between 12.30 to 1.00 P.M. and told that his wife was ill and asked him to visit Dhobighat. He went to Dhobighat in three-wheeler. Thereafter, accused went inside his residential house to bring his wife and asked him to help him since his wife was unconscious. 10. PW-4 Virender Sehgal has deposed that accused came to him between 12.30 to 1.00 P.M. and told that his wife was ill and asked him to visit Dhobighat. He went to Dhobighat in three-wheeler. Thereafter, accused went inside his residential house to bring his wife and asked him to help him since his wife was unconscious. The wife of accused was taken in auto rickshaw to the clinic of Dr. Prashar. Dr. Prashar told in his presence that deceased has died and asked to try in hospital. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when wife of accused was placed in auto rickshaw, she was groaning. 11. PW-5 Jeet Ram was posted Head Constable outside the District Hospital, Solan. At about 2.00 P.M., a lady was brought to District Hospital, Solan. Hospital authorities informed him. He went inside the casualty room of hospital. The lady was declared dead. He telephonically informed the police and rapat No. 14 was recorded vide Ex.PW-5/A. 12. PW-7 Yash Pal has deposed that on 13.6.2001, he brought the viscera of deceased to Police Station, Solan. He also brought the clothes of deceased to Police Station, Solan. The same were kept in a sealed parcel. He deposited the parcels in Police Station, Solan. 13. PW-8 Dr. S.L. Kaushik has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Sudha Purwar on 13.6.2011. He observed the following injuries: “External Appearance Body of deceased was stout, average built and nourished and not decomposed. Rigor mortis present. Post-mortem lividity present on dependent parts i.e. back. Clothes:- Pink print suit, grey jerky without sleev, shammez, bra, underwear, two bangles over each wrist, two silver rings in 2nd one each toe. One golden bali in right ear. All extremities pallor present. Face mild cyanotic tinge. No protrusion of tongue and eye balls. No patehial haemorraghe spots on face. No mark of injury on head, trunk and extremities. Ligature mark present on neck. Ligature mark: Ligature mark approximately 5cm wide and of varying depth 1 mm to 4 mm beings with a bruise (3cm X 2cm) like mark 7 cm below the angle of right mandible and 5cm below the right ear lobule with a bifurcated mark extending backward and dowards continuously on back 8 cm below the external occipital protrubance and then to the left side extending anteriorly upon the anterior border of the sterno clidomastoid muscle. 6.5 cm below the left mastoid, process and form there a faint mark ahead anteriorly upto mid line 2 cm blow the left edge of mandible. The ligature mark was absent or discontinued at two places on both sides anteriorly and latterly. The photos are taken before the postmortem examination. The rope was with cut knot which was show to the board at the time of examination. The depth of groove was more deep posteriorly and faint anteriorly. The base of groove was bluish and on cut section of the sub-cut area in the region of groove did not show any sign of sub cut haemorrhages. The sub cut region of ligature groove was having pallor. The details of ligature mark can be verified from the photographs tken before post-mortem examination. II-Cranium and spinal cord Skull was normal. No sign of head injury. There was free movement of cervical spine suggestive of fracture dislocation of vertebra. The meninges and brain was normal. III-Thorax 1. Wall, ribs and cartilages were normal. 2. Pleurae-right apical lobe of lung showed many deep blue more then pin head size spots. On incision cheesy pus like material came out. Specimen sample preserved sent for chemical examination. 3. Larnyx and trachea were normal. 4. Right and left lung:- except right upper lobe other lobes were normal. 5. Pericardium was normal. 6. Heart was normal chamber were empty. 7. Large vessels were normal. IV-Abdomen 1. Walls were normal 2. Peritroheum-External normal. There was lot of clotted blood in the peritoneal cavity about a litre of blood was present. 3. Mouth Barynx and Oesophagus were normal. 4. Stomach and its contents contained brownish fluid like material (preserved). 5. Small intestines and their contents-Gaseous distension with foul smell. 6. Large intestines and their contents-Empty gases and facal matter. 7. Live-tears were present in left lobe (preserved). Site 7 cm from midline. 2 tears vertical 1 cm apart 2 &3 cm x 1 cm deep. 8. Spleen-ruptured with a big tear and small tears (preserved) 2 tears on anterior lateral aspect 3cm and 2 cm x 1 cm deep size. 9. Kindneys were normal. Left kidney preserved. 10. Bladder was normal-Empty. 11. Organs of generation external and internal- Nulliparous uterus. External norma. ‘Nulliparious Uterus. External normal. Fracture, dislocation of cervical spine present as neck was freely mobile from side to side. (Fracture dislocation C1 and C2). 9. Kindneys were normal. Left kidney preserved. 10. Bladder was normal-Empty. 11. Organs of generation external and internal- Nulliparous uterus. External norma. ‘Nulliparious Uterus. External normal. Fracture, dislocation of cervical spine present as neck was freely mobile from side to side. (Fracture dislocation C1 and C2). No other fracture or deformity present. VI opinion of medical officer” 14. He gave the following opinion: 1. “Rupture of spleen and liver with evidence of intra abdominal bleed-which may lead to haemorraghe shock and death. 2. The site, nature and distribution of ligature mark on neck rule out pressure on major neck blood vessels and respiratory passage and it does not suggest the cause of death due to hanging. The fracture dislocation of upper cervical spine may be caused by post-mortem hanging.” 15. Thereafter, he gave the following opinion after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner: “Report of chemical examiner with respect to letter No. 736 (557)-2001 dated 9.8.2001 rule out any evidence of any poisoning. The cause of death in this case now remains rupture of viscera (spleen and liver) with intra abdominal bleed and haemorrhagic shock. Body with clothes etc with rope handed over to police after post-mortem examination.” 16. According to PW-8, the post-mortem was conducted by Board consisting of three members. He had also given his opinion qua the death of deceased on 15.6.2001 vide Ex.PW-8/B, as under: 1. The ligature mark does match with the rope shown to us by the police at the time of post-mortem examination. Although there was no knot preserved with the rope at that time. 2. Yes, internal injuries can be found in the abdomen of deceased without an external injury mark. In our opinion the injuries to the liver and spleen can occur by a blunt trauma on abdominal wall. 3. The time elapsed between the death and autopsy approximately was 24 to 26 hours. 17. According to him, the Medical Board was of the opinion that death was caused on account of injuries on liver and spleen and not by way of hanging. 18. PW-9 Ashwani Kumar has testified that the accused was employee in the Indo American Hybrid Production, Solan. There was no attendance register of marketing employees. Accused had informed him that there is complaint qua tomatoes and he directed the accused to inform the Regional Office, Delhi. 18. PW-9 Ashwani Kumar has testified that the accused was employee in the Indo American Hybrid Production, Solan. There was no attendance register of marketing employees. Accused had informed him that there is complaint qua tomatoes and he directed the accused to inform the Regional Office, Delhi. Thereafter, Sanjay also informed by way of telephone that his wife has committed suicide. This information was given to him in the afternoon. He has also deposed that accused did not come to the office. Volunteered that the accused was posted in the marketing wing and employees of marketing wing do not attend the office and they generally remain in the filed. 19. According to PW-10 Mast Ram, the viscera was sent on 20.6.2001 to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through constable Ram Lal. He also sent the documents through Ram Lal to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 23.6.2001. The case property remained in his safe custody. 20. PW-12 Kushal Singh has deposed that he received telephone on 12.6.2001 that a lady was brought to the District Hospital, Solan in injured condition. He was deputed Investigating Officer in this case vide rapat No. 14. He visited District Hospital, Solan. When he reached the hospital, Sudha Purwar was declared dead and the dead body was kept in mortuary. Accused Sanjay gave suicide note Ex.PW-1/B, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. He also prepared the inquest report Ex.PW-1/A. He also took photographs of deceased. He also filed an application for post-mortem Ex.PW-12/N. 21. PW-13 Nutan Sharma deposed that she has recorded the F.I.R. on 14.6.2001 vide Ex.PW-13/A on the statement of Triloki Nath. She has taken into possession the letters, which were produced by Triloki Nath Ex.PW-13/C to Ex.PW-13/H vide memo Ex.PW-13/J. 22. PW-14 is Sumita Ghosh. She is daughter of PW-1 Pradeep Ghosh. According to her, she was present in her house on 12.6.2001. She was sitting in the ground floor. She heard knocking of the door. She went to the upper storey of house. Accused told her that nobody was opening the door from inside. Accused Sanjay asked her for stool. Thereafter, she went to her house. She heard the noise of broken glass. Thereafter, accused called her from balcony. She went inside the room. The eyes of deceased were closed and she was not speaking. She saw accused Sanjay opening the rope from ceiling fan. She called Sahani on the spot. Accused Sanjay asked her for stool. Thereafter, she went to her house. She heard the noise of broken glass. Thereafter, accused called her from balcony. She went inside the room. The eyes of deceased were closed and she was not speaking. She saw accused Sanjay opening the rope from ceiling fan. She called Sahani on the spot. She came to her house and telephoned her father but it was engaged. Thereafter, she telephoned her mother in the school. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not notice any knot in the rope. She did not ask anything from the wife of accused. Accused Sanjay requested her to call the ambulance but it was not called as telephone number of District Hospital, Solan was not known to her. She did not see accused Sanjay on 12.6.2001 and she also did not see the mother of accused Sanjay in the morning of 12.6.2001. 23. PW-15 Triloki Nath is the father of the deceased. According to him, his daughter was married with accused Sanjay Purwar on 1.12.1997. Accused Sharda demanded Rs. 3 lakh from him prior to marriage. He had given Rs. 2.5 lakh cash to accused Sharda by way of bank draft in the name of Sanjay Purwar. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given on Tilak ceremony. His daughter told him that accused used to harass her after few months of marriage. She also told him that accused demanded money from her. His daughter told him that she would not give any amount to accused as their demand would increase day by day. Accused Sanjay demanded a scooter from him after marriage. Sudha came to her parental house for the last time on 4.4.2001. She told him that accused used to harass her for dowry. He directed his daughter to adjust with her husband and mother-in-law. She went to her matrimonial house on 5.5.2001. 24. PW-16 Surender Kumar Purwar is the brother of Sudha Purwar. According to him, his sister was married on 1.12.1997 with accused Sanjay Purwar. His sister has told him that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her for money. He went to matrimonial house of the deceased. He told his sister to accompany him, but accused Sanjay and Sharda refused to send his sister alongwith him. Accused told him to bring the money and thereafter he would send his wife alongwith him. His sister has told him that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her for money. He went to matrimonial house of the deceased. He told his sister to accompany him, but accused Sanjay and Sharda refused to send his sister alongwith him. Accused told him to bring the money and thereafter he would send his wife alongwith him. Accused did not do anything with his sister in his presence. A sum of Rs. 2.50 lakh was given to accused Sanjay prior to his marriage with his sister through bank draft. A scooter was also given to accused Sanjay. His sister came to her parental house for the last time on 4.4.2001. His sister told in his presence that accused Sanjay demanded money and she also told that accused told that they would beat her if the money is not given to them. 25. PW-17 Subha Gupta is sister of Sudha Purwar. She had also visited the matrimonial house of her sister one year ago prior to death. When she reached the house of deceased, outer gate of house was locked with chain. She presumed that no one was present in the house and when she started coming back, deceased saw her and called her. Thereafter, she went to the matrimonial house of deceased. Her sister told her that her husband Sanjay was out of station and her mother-in-law was also employed in a school and she used to chain the outer gate. Her sister told her that her husband and mother-in-law used to demand dowry from her. Her sister also told that her mother-in-law refused to accept the meal cooked by her. Accused Sanjay and Sharda used to harass her sister without any reasonable cause. Deceased had also written letters to her during her life time. She has handed over the photocopies of the letters before the Investigating Officer. Seizure memo Ex. PW-13/J was prepared. She also signed the same. Original letters are Ex.PW-17/A, Ex.PW-17/B, Ex.PW-17/C and Ex.PW-17/D. 26. PW-19 Aditya Kumar has deposed that deceased Sudha was daughter of his real uncle. She was related to him. According to him also, deceased told after her marriage that accused Sanjay and his mother Sharda used to demand money from her. Father of deceased had given Rs. 2.50 lakh by way of draft to accused Sanjay Purwar. PW-19 Aditya Kumar has deposed that deceased Sudha was daughter of his real uncle. She was related to him. According to him also, deceased told after her marriage that accused Sanjay and his mother Sharda used to demand money from her. Father of deceased had given Rs. 2.50 lakh by way of draft to accused Sanjay Purwar. Some ornaments were also purchased by the father of deceased at Lakhimpur but he could not say to whom these ornaments were handed over. 27. PW-20 Shalender Kumar is brother of deceased. According to him, accused Sanjay was employed at Solan. His sister Sudha was also used to reside at Solan. Accused Sanjay and mother-in-law of deceased used to maltreat his sister. Accused Sanjay and Sharda used to abuse his sister and also used to demand money from her. Accused told his sister that they would maltreat the deceased if she did not bring the money from her parental house. According to him, Rs. 2.5 lakh were demanded by the accused prior to Tilak ceremony of accused and Rs. 50,000/- were demanded at the time of Tilak ceremony. After marriage accused demanded more money and a scooter. Scooter was given to the accused. 28. PW-21 Nand Lal Gupta deposed that the scooter bearing registration No. UP-31A-4172 was registered in the name of Akeey Gupta son of Ram Kumar Gupta on 25.1.1994. It was transferred on 16.5.2000 in the name of Sanjay Purwar. 29. PW-22 Vivek Kumar Rahotgi has deposed that Ex.PW-22/A was the voucher of the draft of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 24.10.1997 prepared in the name of Sanjay Purwar. It was got prepared at the request of Triloki Nath Purwar. The draft was payable at Urai Branch. Another voucher of Rs. one lakh was in the name of Sanjay Purwar dated 24.10.1997. It was got prepared by Triloki Nath. It was also payable at Urai Branch. 30. Accused Sanjay Purwar has appeared as DW-1. According to him, he met his father-in-law at Urai. He expressed his intention for simple marriage keeping in view his status. Triloki Nath visited two months prior to their marriage. He told him that he was against dowry. He was impressed upon to accept the money from his father-in-law, which was to be sent after some time for arranging the marriage. He has admitted that Triloki Nath had sent two drafts of Rs. 1.5 lakh and Rs. one lakh. Triloki Nath visited two months prior to their marriage. He told him that he was against dowry. He was impressed upon to accept the money from his father-in-law, which was to be sent after some time for arranging the marriage. He has admitted that Triloki Nath had sent two drafts of Rs. 1.5 lakh and Rs. one lakh. He spent Rs. 1.50 lakh and the remaining amount was put in his and his wife Sudha’s joint account, as agreed by her. They took their meals on 11.6.2001, watched the television and retired to bed. On 12.6.2001, he went to his office around 10.00 or 10.30 A.M. He returned for lunch at about 12.30 P.M. He noticed that door was closed from inside. He knocked the door for five minutes. He called the daughter of landlord. He broke the window pane and unbolted the door. He noticed that his wife was hanging with a hook meant for fan in the room. There was folding bed and one stool on bed which was over turned. He pushed the body and tried to untie the knot of rope. She slipped and fell down. He put the dead body on the bed. He started massaging the body. Contractor Sahni came there and he requested him to call his mother. He engaged the auto and went to Dr. Prashar. Dr. Prashar told that she appeared to be dead but he took her to hospital immediately and one injection was administered. 31. DW-2 Man Singh has deposed that he knew Smt. Sharda with effect from 1988. He was Principal of Siri Radha Krishana Junior High School, Urai. Accused was employed as a Teacher in the school. She was financially weak. He also knew Triloki Nath, father-in-law of accused Sanjay Purwar. He visited his school in 1996 during Navratras alongwith Hari Mohan Purwar. Hari Mohan was known to him. He requested for engagement of the daughter of Triloki Nath with accused Sanjay. He again visited the school in the month of September, 1997 to confirm the marriage. He visited the house of accused Sharda after school time and in the meantime Hari Mohan and Triloki Nath came there. Accused insisted to simple marriage, whereas Triloki Nath was insisting for good marriage. Shyam Narain Tiwari and Mr. Mishra were called. Triloki Nath assured to make the payment for engagement and marriage. He visited the house of accused Sharda after school time and in the meantime Hari Mohan and Triloki Nath came there. Accused insisted to simple marriage, whereas Triloki Nath was insisting for good marriage. Shyam Narain Tiwari and Mr. Mishra were called. Triloki Nath assured to make the payment for engagement and marriage. Neither accused nor his mother demanded any money. Triloki Nath requested them to arrange the marriage according to their status. He promised to make the payment of 2.50/3 lakh. 32. DW-3 Sham Lal Tiwari has deposed that Sharda Purwar is his relative. Sanjay Purwar came from very poor family. Probably in 1997, he was called during the Navratras for settling the marriage of Sanjay with the daughter of Triloki Nath. Mother of Sanjay, Principal Man Singh, Sanjay, Hari Mohan and Triloki Nath were present. Accused Sanjay was impressing upon simple marriage. However, Triloki Nath insisted for good marriage befitting to his status. Accused did not demand any money. He advised Sanjay to maintain their prestige in the society and to accept whatever Triloki Nath offers. Sanjay did not demand anything in the marriage. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that though there is a custom to pay something during the Tilak ceremony to the bride but the accused did not take anything. He had insisted upon the accused to accept whatever his father-in-law would pay for the good marriage to have respect in the society. 33. DW-4 Virender Mehta has deposed that he knew Sanjay Purwar since May, 2000. Accused and deceased were living nicely and even Sudha had attended his marriage. His wife and wife of accused Sanjay used to go together to the market. Sudha did not make any complaint to her or to him against Sanjay. . 34. DW-5 Sukh Ram has deposed that he was providing milk to accused Sanjay Purwar family at their residence with effect 1.6.2001. He had gone to the residence of Sanjay Purwar at Solan with the milk at about 10.30 A.M. Wife of Sanjay Purwar met him. He demanded money from her but according to her Sanjay Purwar had left for office. Thereafter, she did not make any payment. 35. DW-7 Dr. U.P. Sharma has deposed that he has done M.B.B.S. He was in Government job since 1979. He has gone through the post-mortem report supplied to him. He demanded money from her but according to her Sanjay Purwar had left for office. Thereafter, she did not make any payment. 35. DW-7 Dr. U.P. Sharma has deposed that he has done M.B.B.S. He was in Government job since 1979. He has gone through the post-mortem report supplied to him. According to him, the fracture of cervical spine can be caused by post-mortem hanging. Hanging alone could not cause injury to liver and spleen. According to him, injuries on spleen and liver could not be caused by any blow including fist. According to him, injury alone to liver and spleen cannot cause the death in the absence of heamorrhagic shock. According to him microscopic examination of liver and spleen is must to find out infection. 36. As far as charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no eye witness. It is based on circumstantial evidence. The material witnesses produced by the prosecution to prove charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9. PW-1 Pardeep Ghosh is the landlord. He was informed telephonically on 12.6.2001 that wife of his tenant has committed suicide. He reached his house and was told by his daughter that Sudha was taken to hospital for medical treatment. He has signed inquest report Ex.PW-1/A and seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C whereby suicide note Ex.PW-1/B was recovered. In his cross-examination PW-1 has stated that he received the telephonic message at about 1.00 P.M. He was confronted with his statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he deposed that he came to know in the evening that wife of Sanjay Purwar, Sudha Purwar has committed suicide by hanging and she was taken to hospital. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that when he was informed by his wife that the tenant’s wife has committed suicide, he immediately went to his residential house and his daughter told him that deceased was taken to hospital. However, in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has stated that when he heard the news, he went to the hospital where body of Sudha Purwar was kept in dead-house. PW-2 Dr. However, in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has stated that when he heard the news, he went to the hospital where body of Sudha Purwar was kept in dead-house. PW-2 Dr. Lalita Prashar has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she did not examine the patient extensively in order to save the time. She has not even checked the blood pressure of the deceased. PW-3 Indresh Sahni has deposed that he was undertaking construction work near the house of PW-1. According to him, accused had come to his residential house from the stairs and knocked the door of his residential house. Daughter of PW-1 came from the upper portion of the residential house of accused. Accused knocked the door for about five minutes. Thereafter, accused had broken the glass of the door and went inside. He also entered the house of the accused. He saw the wife of the accused lying on the bed and was not speaking. He could not say that deceased was unconscious when he saw her. However, he was confronted with portion A to A of the statement made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to this statement, wife of Sanjay Purwar was lying unconscious on the folding bed. PW-4 Virender Sehgal has taken the deceased to the clinic of Dr. Prashar. In his examination-in-chief, he has categorically stated that when the wife of the accused was placed in auto rickshaw, she was groaning. PW-8 Dr. S.L. Kaushik is the most material witness in the case. According to the final opinion given by PW-8, the cause of death in this case remained rupture of spleen and liver with intra abdominal bleeding and haemorrhagic shock. However, as per Ex.PW-8/A, there was free movement of cervical spine suggestive of fracture dislocation of vertebra. There was fracture dislocation of cervical spine present as neck was freely mobile from side to side (fracture dislocation C1 and C2). PW-8 has also given his opinion Ex.PW-8/B. According to him, the death was caused on account of injuries on liver and spleen in the abdomen and not by way of hanging. According to him, fracture dislocation of the cervical spine can also occur by post-mortem hanging. PW-8 has also given his opinion Ex.PW-8/B. According to him, the death was caused on account of injuries on liver and spleen in the abdomen and not by way of hanging. According to him, fracture dislocation of the cervical spine can also occur by post-mortem hanging. The injury just below the mandible can be caused while using pressure/force to cause ligature mark on the neck and the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report upon the abdomen of deceased could be caused by fist blows or kick blows. However, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that fracture mentioned in the post-mortem report could be caused by ante-mortem hanging also. He has also admitted that spleen is well protected part of human body being in the upper abdomen. He also admitted to be correct that spleen is protected by the ribs and generally corresponding injury would be caused if a person sustains injury upon his or her spleen. He then volunteered that in all cases corresponding injuries are not necessary. He further admitted to be correct that the rupture would be caused in the spleen portion of body of human being when he or she suffers from Malaria, Kalajar and Leocaemia. He could not say how much pressure was found on the neck of deceased especially on blood vessels and respiratory passage. According to him, the fracture of cervical spine was sufficient to cause death. DW-7 Dr. U.P. Sharma has stated in his cross-examination that fracture of cervical spine can be caused by post-mortem hanging. Hanging alone could not cause injury to liver and spleen. He also deposed that the injury alone to liver and spleen could not cause the death in the absence of haemorrhagic shock. He also testified that microscopic examination of liver and spleen was must to find out infection. PW-14 Sumita Ghosh has deposed that she heard the sound of broken glass and thereafter she was called by the accused from balcony. She went to the upper storey. She saw the wife of accused Sanjay lying on the bed. She saw accused Sanjay opening the rope from ceiling fan. She also called Sahani on the spot. In her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that she has not seen accused on 12.6.2001 and also did not see the mother of the accused Sanjay in the morning of 12.6.2001. She saw the wife of accused Sanjay lying on the bed. She saw accused Sanjay opening the rope from ceiling fan. She also called Sahani on the spot. In her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that she has not seen accused on 12.6.2001 and also did not see the mother of the accused Sanjay in the morning of 12.6.2001. It has come in the statement of DW-5 Sukh Ram that when he went to deliver the milk, wife of Sanjay Purwar was present at 10.30 A.M. The prosecution has not conclusively proved that deceased Sudha Purwar has died due to injury received on spleen and liver. It has come in the statement of PW-8, who has conducted the post-mortem that the liver and spleen are the most protected part of the body. There are no corresponding injuries on the abdominal part of the deceased. Spleen is protected by ribs. There are discrepancies in the statements of the main prosecution witnesses, as noticed above. There is no eye witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence as far as charge for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. According to PW-1, suicide note Ex.PW-1/B was recovered from the house of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C, though PW-12 ASI Kushal Singh has deposed that the suicide note Ex.PW-1/B was handed over to him by the accused in the hospital and he has taken the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. 37. Consequently, we uphold the judgment of the trial court so far as acquittal of accused on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 38. Accused were charged for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative they were also charged with for offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Marriage of accused Sanjay Purwar was solemnized with the deceased on 1.12.1997. She died on 12.6.2001 within a period of seven years of her marriage. PW-15 father of the deceased has categorically stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. three lakh prior to the marriage of his daughter. He has given Rs. 2.5 lakh to accused Sanjay by way of bank draft in the name of Sanjay Purwar. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid to accused Sanjay Purwar at the time of Tilak ceremony. three lakh prior to the marriage of his daughter. He has given Rs. 2.5 lakh to accused Sanjay by way of bank draft in the name of Sanjay Purwar. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid to accused Sanjay Purwar at the time of Tilak ceremony. His daughter Sudha told him that accused Sharda and Sanjay used to harass her after few months of marriage and accused demanded money from her. His daughter has told him that he should not give any amount as their demands would increase day by day. Accused also demanded a scooter. He had given a scooter to the accused after 3-4 months of marriage. His daughter had visited her parental house for the last time on 4.4.2001 and thereafter she had gone to her matrimonial house on 5.5.2001. PW-15 has deposed that an amount of Rs. 2.50 lakh was given to accused Sanjay Purwar in two drafts. One was for Rs. 1.5 lakh and another was for Rs. one lakh. According to him, despite making payment, accused had been demanding more money. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Biradari Panchayat was not convened about the maltreatment with his daughter nor the matter was reported to the police. According to him, in the beginning only the mother of accused, namely, Sharda had been maltreating her but when he was at Agra attending her, he was told that accused Sanjay was also maltreating her and threatening her to give divorce. PW-16 brother of deceased Sudha has also corroborated the statement of PW-15. According to him, his sister had told him that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her for money. He went to the matrimonial house of deceased. He told his sister to accompany him to the parents house but accused Sanjay and Sharda refused to send his sister alongwith him. He has also deposed that no Khangi Panchayat was convened on qua the demand of dowry and no notice was given by them to the accused regarding their demand of dowry. PW-17 Smt. Subha Gupta has also deposed that her sister had told her that her husband and mother-in-law used to demand dowry from her. Deceased told her that her mother-in-law refused to accept the meal cooked by her. Accused Sanjay and Sharda used to harass her sister without any reasonable cause. PW-17 Smt. Subha Gupta has also deposed that her sister had told her that her husband and mother-in-law used to demand dowry from her. Deceased told her that her mother-in-law refused to accept the meal cooked by her. Accused Sanjay and Sharda used to harass her sister without any reasonable cause. PW-19 Aditya Kumar has deposed that deceased told him after marriage that accused Sanjay and his mother used to demand money from her. Father of deceased had given Rs. 2.50 lakh by way of draft to accused Sanjay Purwar. Some ornaments were purchased by the father of deceased at Lakhimur but he could not say to whom these ornaments were handed over. PW-20 Shalender Kumar, brother of deceased, has deposed that his sister told him that Sanjay and her mother-in-law Sharda used to maltreat her. They used to abuse the deceased and also used to demand the money from her. Deceased also told PW-20 that accused used to tell that they would maltreat her if she did not bring the money from her parental house. His sister was told to bring more ornaments from her parental house. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakh was demanded by the accused prior to Tilak ceremony of the accused and Rs. 50,000/- was demanded at the time of Tilak ceremony. Accused had demanded more money and scooter. Money was provided to the accused. PW-22 has proved the voucher Ex.PW-22/A for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh and another voucher of Rs. one lakh. Accused (DW-1) has deposed that he was against the dowry and he did not take anything in Tilak ceremony. He has denied that his mother had demanded Rs. three lakh from Triloki Nath before the marriage. He was impressed upon to accept the money from his father-in-law, which was to be spent after some time for arranging the marriage. He has admitted that Triloki Nath had sent two drafts of Rs. 1.5 lakh and Rs. one lakh. He spent Rs. 1.50 lakh and the remaining amount was put in his and his wife Sudha’s joint account. DW-2 Man Singh has deposed that accused asked for simple marriage. However, Triloki Nath was insisting for good marriage according to their status. DW-3 Sham Lal Tiwari has deposed that Triloki Nath told that the accused family should not feel handicapped on account of finances on marriage expenses. DW-2 Man Singh has deposed that accused asked for simple marriage. However, Triloki Nath was insisting for good marriage according to their status. DW-3 Sham Lal Tiwari has deposed that Triloki Nath told that the accused family should not feel handicapped on account of finances on marriage expenses. According to him, Triloki Nath told that he was well off and would provide money for marriage. Accused did not demand any money. In his cross-examination, he stated that he insisted to accept whatever his father-in-law pays for good marriage. He has denied that Triloki Nath has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Sanjay. 39. What emerges from the above discussion is that accused Sanjay was paid a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakh by different bank drafts. Vouchers of the bank drafts have been duly proved by PW-22 Vivek Kumar Rahtogi. Accused Sanjay has also admitted in his statement while appearing as DW-1 that he has received a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakh. He has spent Rs. 1.5 lakh on the marriage and the remaining money was invested in Kisan Vikas Patra in joint account with his wife. It has also come in his evidence that a sum Rs. 50,000/- was paid at the time of Tilak ceremony. PW-15, PW-16, PW-17, PW-19 and PW20 have deposed that the deceased was complaining about the harassment by in-laws and also being pressurized to bring more dowry from the parental house. It is true that all these witnesses are closely related, but it is settled law by now that the evidence of close witnesses can also be relied upon but with a rider that it has to be scrutinized carefully and with caution. 40. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Ali and another Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 573 have held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Their Lordships have held as under: “51. On the basis of the law as settled by this Court in a number of judgments which are noticed by the High Court, it is held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person leaving a way for the real accused to escape. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person leaving a way for the real accused to escape. PW2 is not only related to PW5 but he was also seriously injured. The High Court reiterates that the presence of PW2 at the scene of occurrence is not disputed due to the registration of the counter case. With regard to the non explanation of the injury on the accused, it is stated that PW9 and PW10 spoke about the same. The injuries were also explained by PW10, the doctor, who stated that the injuries in Ex.P.23 and P.24 certificates can be caused otherwise than by assault, i.e., by a fall or by a road transport accident. 41. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010)7 Supreme Court Cases 759 have held that there is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before court. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants, in fact, can be discussed together inasmuch as they are based upon somewhat common submissions. There is no doubt that PW1 and PW2, both are related to the deceased. The contention raised before us is that both of them are interested witnesses and have not stated true facts before the Court and thus, their statements should be entirely disbelieved. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. It has come on record that Pyare Lal was pursuing a case in which members of the family of the accused persons were involved in a murder. There was apparently some anger and rift between the families. According to the story of the prosecution, they had come prepared to kill Bahadur Singh as well as Pyare Lal as they were carrying guns, sphere etc. The deceased were attacked by the accused in the presence of their brothers, who could not intervene and save them because of the fear of the gun fire and the manner in which the incident occurred. The deceased were attacked by the accused in the presence of their brothers, who could not intervene and save them because of the fear of the gun fire and the manner in which the incident occurred. It was but natural for the prosecution to produce PW1 and PW2 as the main eye witnesses as they had actually seen the occurrence and they have been believed by the trial Court, as well as by the High Court. Even before us, no serious attempt has been made and infact, nothing appears from the record to show that these two witnesses were not present on the site. 12. There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry [ (2010)1 SCC 199 ], this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: "23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim. 24. From a perusal of the record, we find that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is clear and categorical in reference to the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. 24. From a perusal of the record, we find that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is clear and categorical in reference to the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. They have clearly and consistently supported the prosecution version with regard to the beating and the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant on several occasions which compelled the deceased to leave the appellant's house and take shelter in her parental house with an intention to live there permanently. PWs 1 to 4 have unequivocally stated that the deceased feared threat to her life from the appellant. The aforesaid version narrated by the prosecution witnesses, viz. PWs 1 to 4 also finds corroboration from the facts stated in the complaint." 42. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Myladimmal Surendran and other Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 129 have held that testimony of wife could not be discarded on the basis that she was an interested witness. Their Lordships have further held that if such a wide proposition is accepted, evidence of all witnesses who were relatives of a victim of a violent crime would be rendered unacceptable. Their Lordships have held as under: 35. In our opinion, the evidence given by the wife of the deceased in this case was unimpeachable. It could not be discarded, as stated by the learned senior counsel on the basis that she was an interested witness. If such a wide proposition was to be accepted the evidence of all the witnesses who were relatives of a victim of a violent crime would be rendered unacceptable. Merely because PW1 happens to be the wife of the deceased would not justify her being branded as an interested witnesses. 36. The evidence of the wife is followed by the consistent evidence given by PW2 and PW3. This is further corroborated by the dying declaration made by the injured within minutes of being assaulted. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to accept the submissions of the learned senior counsel that the evidence of the eye-witnesses ought to be disbelieved. In our opinion, the High Court rightly rejected the submission, which was also reiterated before us, that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 should be rejected on the ground that they were chance as well as the partisan witnesses. 37. In our opinion, the High Court rightly rejected the submission, which was also reiterated before us, that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 should be rejected on the ground that they were chance as well as the partisan witnesses. 37. We may at this stage notice the observations made by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Another [ (1981) 2 SCC 752 ] which is as under:- "True, it is she is the wife of the deceased, but she cannot be called an Rs.interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. Rs.Related' is not equivalent to Rs.interested'. A witness may be called Rs.interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be Rs.interested' in the instant case PW1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents." 43. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Waman and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 295 have held that that if the evidence of related witness is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence, but the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously, with care. Their Lordships have held as under: “14. In view of the stand of the counsel for the appellants that since PWs 1-4, eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and complainant, conviction can not be based on such evidence, let us state the law on the admissibility/acceptability or otherwise of their evidence as considered by this Court. 15. In Sarwan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the evidence of interested witness held that: “it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” 16. The fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit the evidence. In the said case, the witness relied on by the prosecution was the brother of the wife of the deceased and was living with the deceased for quite a few years. This Court held that: "but that by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of this witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true". 17. In Balraje alias Trimbak vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 , this Court held that the mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the court would be required to analyze the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. After saying so, this Court held that if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. 18. The same principles have been reiterated in Prahalad Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 262 . In para 15, this Court held that: "though PWs 2 and 7 are brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. In a series of decisions this Court has accepted the above principle (vide Israr vs. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 163) 19. In a series of decisions this Court has accepted the above principle (vide Israr vs. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 163) 19. The above principles have been once again reiterated in State of U.P. vs. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324 . Here again, this Court has emphasized that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of an witness. The following statement of law on this point is relevant: "29. .... The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719 , Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 ; and Balraje @ Trimbak (supra)]" 20. It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care.” 44. These principles have been again reiterated by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 626. Their Lordships have held that there is no ground and reason to disbelieve the related witness and there is no reason why they would not speak truth, so as to see that actual guilty persons are convicted. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. The prosecution has examined at least three eyewitnesses to the occurrence of the incident who have stated as to how the incident had happened. They have also stated the different and various roles played by the accused persons. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. The prosecution has examined at least three eyewitnesses to the occurrence of the incident who have stated as to how the incident had happened. They have also stated the different and various roles played by the accused persons. Since the eyewitnesses were available and examined, there was no necessity of examining any other witness, inasmuch as, there is no necessity for the prosecution to multiply witnesses to prove and establish the prosecution case. There is no requirement in the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove something. The evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted. The witnesses who were examined were relatives of the deceased and, therefore, there is no ground and reason why they should be disbelieved. There is also no reason why they would not speak the truth so as to see that the actual guilty persons are convicted.” 45. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Onkar and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 273 have held that law does not prohibit reliance upon evidence of closely related witness. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. Per contra, Shri D.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the FIR had promptly been lodged within a period of 3 hours after midnight though the police station was at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence. The appellants had been named in the FIR. Roles attributed to each of them had been explained. Motive had also been mentioned. Injuries suffered by Tarawati and Chandra Bose had also been given. Law does not proscribe reliance upon the evidence of closely related witnesses. However, it requires that evidence of such witnesses must be appreciated with care and caution. Once the evidence is found reliable/trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the witness has been closely related to the victim. The injuries found on the person of the deceased as well as on Tarawati, Chandra Bose and Mohd. Shafi corroborate the case of the prosecution and in such a fact-situation, the provisions of Section 149 IPC have rightly been applied. The injuries found on the person of the deceased as well as on Tarawati, Chandra Bose and Mohd. Shafi corroborate the case of the prosecution and in such a fact-situation, the provisions of Section 149 IPC have rightly been applied. The issue of non-examination of the injured witnesses, namely, Tarawati and Chandra Bose and of eyewitnesses, namely, Roshan Singh, Hukum Singh and Jagdish has not been put to the Investigating Officer in cross-examination who could have furnished the explanation for their non-examination. Thus, the issue cannot be raised first time in appeal before this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 46. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 Supreme Court Case 79 have held that there is no bar in law on examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses since in cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured and tries to defuse the crises. Their Lordships have further held that the Court cannot reject such evidence merely on ground that witness was family member or interested witness or person known to affected party. Their Lordships have also held that the Court can convict an accused on statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of deceased and thus, an interested party provided statement of witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by prosecution. Their Lordships have held as under: “24. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused/appellants is that only family members of the deceased were examined as witnesses and they being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is again without much substance. Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was family member or interested witness or person known to the affected party. 25. There can be cases where it would be but inevitable to examine such witnesses, because, as the events occurred, they were the natural or the only eye witness available to give the complete version of the incident. In this regard, we may refer to the judgments of this Court, in the case of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra,[ (2007) 14 SCC 150 ]. 33. The Court can convict an accused on the statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of the deceased and thus, an interested party. The condition precedent to such an order is that the statement of such witness should satisfy the legal parameters stated by this Court in a catena of judgments. Once those parameters are satisfied and the statement of the witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution, oral or documentary, then the Court would not fall in error of law in relying upon the statements of such witness. It is only when the Courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court, in the case of Anil Phukan v State of Assam [ (1993) 3 SCC 282 ].” 47. In a recent judgment, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla and others (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 171 have held that just because witnesses were related to deceased, that is no ground to discard their credible and sufficiently corroborated testimony. In a recent judgment, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla and others (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 171 have held that just because witnesses were related to deceased, that is no ground to discard their credible and sufficiently corroborated testimony. Their Lordships have further held that it is quality and not quantity of evidence that is relavant for conviction. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. On a proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record, it is clear that in the circumstances, one could hardly expect any other evidence to be available. It would only be the family members who would be present at the place of occurrence of the crime and only such interested persons could depose with regard to commission of the crime. The statements of these witnesses are trustworthy and offer the graphic eye account of the exact events, during the course of occurrence. Clearly, there was common object among the members of the unlawful assembly to somehow do away with Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila. 16. It is a settled principle of the law of evidence that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that has to be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding such matters. As already noticed, even in the year 1986, Rajender and Matadin had beaten Manohar Lal and his wife, for which they were also facing criminal trial. Again, they had abused and beaten Naresh, PW-4 on 3rd July,1994, when he was putting earth in the street in front of his house. Thereafter, on 5 th July, 1994, this unfortunate incident had taken place. 17. When on 5 th July, 1994,Manohar Lal and his wife returned from Delhi, even before they entered their house and when they were discussing the incident that took place on 3rd July, 1994 with their teenage children, the accused persons, armed with weapons, came there and started assaulting Manohar Lal and his wife. This clearly shows that Matadin and the other accused had been looking for an opportunity to fight with Manohar Lal and his family members, on one pretext or the other. 20. Both the deceased had tried to run away, but were chased by the accused. While Manohar Lal exhorted the others, all accused persons, particularly accused No. 7, Kailash, effectively participated in inflicting injuries on the bodies of the deceased. 20. Both the deceased had tried to run away, but were chased by the accused. While Manohar Lal exhorted the others, all accused persons, particularly accused No. 7, Kailash, effectively participated in inflicting injuries on the bodies of the deceased. Thus, a common intention came into existence at the spur of the moment, even if the same was not pre-existing. The existence of common object and intent is not only reflected from the circumstantial evidence, but is also clearly demonstrated in the statement of PW-4 and PW-5, respectively. 21. The offenders, if have no common intention or object to kill the victim, they would normally stop assaulting the victim and leave him in the injured condition when he falls down on the ground. On the contrary, in the case in hand, all the accused, except those acquitted by the High Court, had participated with a common mind to cause fatal injuries upon both Manohar Lal and Sushila. 22. PW-4, in his statement, has clearly and definitely explained the occurrence, by attributing specific role to each one of the accused. According to him, Rajender inflicted Jaily blow on the legs of Manohar Lal. Matadin gave Jaily blow on the head of Manohar Lal, which the deceased deflected with his hands. Krishan gave Jaily blow on the back of Manohar Lal, whereafter the victim fell on the ground. Thereafter, Bhim inflicted Kasola blow on the head of the deceased Manohar Lal and finally, all the other accused started mercilessly inflicting blows on the person of the deceased Manohar Lal. 23. The statement of PW-4 also shows that the accused persons had also inflicted injuries on the body of Sushila, with an intention to kill her. The version put forward by this witness is fully supported by that of PW-5 and from other documentary evidence placed on record. The medical evidence completely corroborates the story advanced by this witness for the prosecution. Once, the statement of a witness is found trustworthy and is duly corroborated by other evidence, there is no reason for the Court to reject the statement of such witness, merely on the ground that it was a statement of a related or interested witness. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the accused relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Waman & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 7 SCC 295 ], Jalpat Rai & Ors. 24. The learned counsel appearing for the accused relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Waman & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 7 SCC 295 ], Jalpat Rai & Ors. v. State of Haryana [JT 2011 8 SC 55] and State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [ (2002) 2 SCC 426 ], to contend that the statement of a related or interested witnesses should not be relied upon and made the sole basis of conviction by the Court. 25. Firstly, none of these judgments state this principle as an absolute proposition of law. Each judgment deals with its own facts. In the case of Waman (supra), the Court clearly held that if the evidence of the related witnesses is found to be consistent and true, the same cannot be discarded. Similarly, in the case of Jalpat Rai (supra), the Court noticed that the presence of the witnesses at the time of incident would not guarantee their truthfulness. The question to be examined by the Court is whether their testimony is trustworthy and reliable insofar as complicity of the appellants in the crime is concerned, or whether they have tried to implicate the innocent along with the guilty. 26. In the case of Ram Singh's (supra), the circumstances were totally different. In that case, the interested and related witnesses were not only examined as witnesses to the incident but they were also witnesses to the arrests and in view of these facts, the Court felt that there existed a doubt about the trustworthiness of these witnesses, which must go to the benefit of the accused. 27. All these cases, in fact, would have no application to the present case. In the present case, it is more than clear that PW-4 and PW-5 were both present at the time of the incident. The prior animosity and clashes between the two families has come on record. In the cross-examination, no material was brought out to the contrary. On the other hand, there seems to be no challenge to vitalfacts. The facts of the cited cases being different and there being hardly any challenge to the vital aspects of the present case, ratio decidendi of those judgments would hardly further the case of the accused. 29. In the cross-examination, no material was brought out to the contrary. On the other hand, there seems to be no challenge to vitalfacts. The facts of the cited cases being different and there being hardly any challenge to the vital aspects of the present case, ratio decidendi of those judgments would hardly further the case of the accused. 29. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the above principles, it is clear that the presence of PW-4 and PW-5 at the place of occurrence was natural and their statements, are trustworthy, corroborated by other evidence and do not suffer from the vice of suspicion or uncertainty. The Court has to give credence to their statement as they have lost their close relations and have no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons, who are also their relations. Thus, we find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the accused” 48. It has come in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that Biradari Panchayat was not convened about the maltreatment with the deceased nor the matter was reported to the police. In these circumstances, parents of the girl tend to avoid to convene the Panchayat or to report the matter to the police. In case these matters are reported to the police or the Panchayat, the matters get further complicated. The endeavour of the parents of the girl is that with the passage of time things would improve and the couple would lead a normal life. Thus, non-convening of Panchayat or not reporting the matter to the police is not material in this case in view of overwhelming evidence. Accused Sanjay Purwar has himself handed over the suicide note Ex.PW-1/B to PW-12 in the hospital. It was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. The contents of Ex.PW-1/B were sent for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga dated 23.6.2001, the handwriting on the questioned document and the sample document is of the same person. Sudha Purwar was educated girl. She was law graduate. She came from good family. She has taken an extreme step of committing suicide being harassed by the accused to bring more dowry though a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakh by way of draft and sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash at the time of Tilak ceremony. Sudha Purwar was educated girl. She was law graduate. She came from good family. She has taken an extreme step of committing suicide being harassed by the accused to bring more dowry though a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakh by way of draft and sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash at the time of Tilak ceremony. We are conscious of the fact that deceased has written in the suicide note that her family members may not be held responsible for her death. It will not dilute the charge against the accused and the court has to take into consideration all the attending circumstances of committing suicide by Sudha Purwar and the possibility of procurement of Ex.PW-1/B by the accused cannot be ruled out. The suicide note Ex.PW-1/B, as per the statement of PW-12 Kushal Singh, was handed over to him by the accused in the hospital. It is not understandable why the accused was carrying suicide note in his pocket and has taken the same to the hospital. According to the accused Sanjay Purwar when he went inside the room, he untied the rope and immediately took her to PW-2 Dr. Lalita Prashar and thereafter to the hospital. Accused, while appearing as DW-2, has not mentioned about the suicide note Ex.PW-2/B. How he came into possession of the same has not been explained by him. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the suicide note was got prepared under coercion and the same was handed over by Sanjay Purwar to PW-12 in the hospital. He was not supposed to carry the suicide note with him to the hospital when his wife, according to him, was in a serious condition. Carrying of suicide note by the accused in his pocket is abnormal human conduct. The entire endeavour of accused Sanjay Purwar should have been to save his wife’s life, who was in a critical condition when brought to the hospital instead of handing over the suicide note to PW-12 in the hospital itself. The defence version that she was under depression due to non-bearing of a child merits rejection. Young lady will not commit suicide on the ground that she could not bear any child. The evidence led by the prosecution amply proves that it was a case of dowry death. 49. The marriage was solemnized on 1.12.1997 and she died on 12.6.2001 within a period of seven years. Young lady will not commit suicide on the ground that she could not bear any child. The evidence led by the prosecution amply proves that it was a case of dowry death. 49. The marriage was solemnized on 1.12.1997 and she died on 12.6.2001 within a period of seven years. The accused had abetted the victim to commit suicide by causing cruelty to her. It has come in the evidence that the community to which parties belongs, practice of giving dowry is prevalent. 50. The deceased has been harassed and ill-treated by the accused, which led to committed suicide by her. Accused used to lock the doors whenever he used to go out. She has not been permitted to go with her brother. The letters were also censored. When the harassment and ill-treatment was brought to the notice of PW-15 (Triloki Nath), he advised his daughter to have patience. 51. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja Lal Singh versus State of Jharkhand, (2007) 15 SCC 415 have held that essential components of section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are: (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. Their Lordships have held as under: “17. It has been held in Satvir Singh (supra) that the essential components of Section 304-B are : (i) Death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage. (ii) Soon before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. In the present case, Gayatri died about 7 months after her marriage in April, 2000. Also, it has come in evidence that she had been harassed for dowry 10 or 15 days before her death. This has come in the evidence of her father PW5 and brother PW3 and we see no reason to disbelieve them. She had earlier also been subjected to harassment on account of demand for dowry when she had gone to her parents' house in August, 2000, as has come in the evidence of PW5 Dashrath Singh. This has come in the evidence of her father PW5 and brother PW3 and we see no reason to disbelieve them. She had earlier also been subjected to harassment on account of demand for dowry when she had gone to her parents' house in August, 2000, as has come in the evidence of PW5 Dashrath Singh. Thus, in our opinion, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied in this case [see also in this connection T. Aruntperunjothi vs. State (2006) 9 SCC 467 ] .” 52. In the instant case, the deceased has died within a period of seven years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for more dowry. 53. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Seth versus State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 14 SCC 94 have compared sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as under: “26. The ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections 304B and 498A IPC, but the width and scope of two sections is different, inasmuch as Section 304B deals with cases of death as a result of cruelty or harassment within seven years of marriage, Section 498A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 27. In order to bring home charge under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the death of the woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, the woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative. However, for the purpose of conviction under Section 498A IPC, it is sufficient to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty, as elucidated in the explanation appearing below substantive part of the section, by her husband or his relative.” 54. However, for the purpose of conviction under Section 498A IPC, it is sufficient to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty, as elucidated in the explanation appearing below substantive part of the section, by her husband or his relative.” 54. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh versus State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 155 have discussed the scope of section 113-B of the Evidence Act as under: “16. The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply stated by the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform". Keeping in view the impediments in the pre- existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-related deaths, the Parliament in its wisdom thought to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that a provision of presumptive evidence by way of Section 113B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. 17. As per the definition of "dowry death" in Section 304B IPC and the wording in the presumptive provision of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, is that the Rs.woman' must have been "soon before her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for, or in connection with, the demand for dowry". Presumption in terms of Section 113B is one of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials: (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B IPC.) (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.” 55. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.” 55. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thanu Ram versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 353 , have held that section 113-A of the Evidence Act establishes a link between an offence under sections 498-A, 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby permitting the court to presume the commission of an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Their Lordships have held as under: “28. In our view, it is the said provision which makes all the difference as far as the present case is concerned. Section 113A of the Evidence Act establishes a link between an offence under Section 498-A IPC, 107 IPC and 306 IPC, thereby permitting the Court to presume the commission of an offence under section 107 IPC on the basis of evidence adduced to prove an offence under Section 498-A IPC. As mentioned hereinbefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13 is sufficient to establish the prosecution case against the Petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and Section 306 IPC.” 56. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.V. Sidaramesh versus State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 have discussed the scope of section 113-B of the Evidence Act and have held that the cruelty can be mentally and physically. Their Lordships have held as under: “16. Section 304-B of the IPC reads:- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation:-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 17. Explanation:-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 17. The essential ingredients which need to be proved in order to attract the offence of dowry death is as follows:- (i) Death iscaused in unnatural circumstances. (ii) Death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage of the deceased. (iii)It needs to be shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 24. Cruelty can either be mental or physical. It is difficult to straightjacket the term cruelty by means of a definition, because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person. This court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, ( AIR 1994 SC 710 ), has observed that mental cruelty is such that if the wronged party continues to stay with his/her spouse there is reasonable apprehension of injury to the wronged party. 26. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and reads:- "When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a women and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry; the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." A reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shows that there must be material to show that soon before the death of woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry, then only a presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a women. It is then up to the appellant to discharge this presumption.” 57. It is then up to the appellant to discharge this presumption.” 57. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar versus State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 , have held that where basic ingredients of section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code shown to have been satisfied, court would presume by deemed fiction that husband or his relatives caused death of the woman, though, the presumption is rebuttable. Their Lordships have held as under: “23. The Court cannot ignore one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian law is entitled to the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution of India as well as has a presumption of innocence in his favour. In other words, the rule of law requires a person to be innocent till proved guilty. The concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to the criminal jurisprudence. In contradistinction to this aspect, the legislature has applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provisions of Section 304-B. Where other ingredients of Section 304-B are satisfied, in that event, the husband or all relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. In other words, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed by fiction of law. Once the prosecution proves its case with regard to the basic ingredients of Section 304-B, the Court will presume by deemed fiction of law that the husband or the relatives complained of, has caused her death. Such a presumption can be drawn by the Court keeping in view the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the substantive charge under Section 304-B of the Code. 24. Of course, deemed fiction would introduce a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives may, by leading their defence and proving that the ingredients of Section 304-B were not satisfied, rebut the same. While referring to raising of presumption under Section 304-B of the Code, this Court, in the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu [ AIR 2003 SC 3828 ], stated the following ingredients which should be satisfied: (1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC). (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death." 58. In the instant case, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is amply proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the Indian Evidence Act and the deceased has died by hanging herself within seven years of marriage. 59. Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr. Y. Paul have argued that in the letters proved on record, deceased has not informed her relations about the harassment being caused to her. True it is that it may not be mentioned in the letters exchanged between the family members, but it is difficult for a girl to write anything against her husband and in-laws in the letters knowing well that it may lead to further complication. This is a sensitive matter. The girl generally projects in her communication that she is happy with her in-laws though she may be harassed and tortured to bring dowry. She has always given a very rosy picture in order to keep her parents in good humour. 60. The accused have not rebutted the presumption raised against them under section 113 (A) and (B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence led by the accused to rebut the prosecution evidence is weak and not believable. Accused are also guilty of committing an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in view of the evidence discussed hereinabove. Accused have subjected the deceased with cruelty for not meeting their unlawful demand for dowry. The cruelty was in connection with demand for dowry and this cruelty of harassment was immediately before her death since she has visited her parental house for the last time only on 4.4.2001 and went back on 5.5.2001. She has narrated to her relation, including the father about the illegal demand of dowry raised by the accused. The defence led by the prosecution is not probable and this cannot be believed. 61. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed. She has narrated to her relation, including the father about the illegal demand of dowry raised by the accused. The defence led by the prosecution is not probable and this cannot be believed. 61. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed. Accused are convicted for committing an offence under section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled. Accused now be produced before us on 3.10.2012, for being heard on the issue of quantum of sentence. The Registry to take necessary follow up action.