Pankaj Naqvi, J.— 1. The present appeal was initially preferred by 8 appellants, who were convicted by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in ST No.315 of 1980 by judgment dated 6.11.1982, and were found guilty of committing offences under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 IPC. Out of them appellant no.1 - Latoori was specifically held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 IPC besides being convicted under Sections 147 and 201 IPC. The 8 convicts were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 IPC. They filed the present appeal to challenge the order of conviction and sentence passed upon each of them. During the pendency of the appeal appellants no.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 demised, and, as may appear from the order passed by this Court on 16.4.2013, and prior to that on other dates, the appeal, as against the deceased appellants, stood abated leaving the same surviving only on behalf of appellant no.1 - Latoori and appellant no.4 - Devi Prashad. 2. Undisputedly, the deceased Indira Kumari, daughter of Rameshwar Dayal - the complainant (P.W.2) was married to appellant no.1 - Latoori about one and half years prior to the occurrence. The prosecution allegation, as per the complaint petition filed by P.W.2 on 9.11.1977, was that appellant no.1 - Latoori and his mother - Smt. Dallo were unhappy on the quantum of dowry, which was brought by the bride, and they used to ill treat and torture her so much so that she had written a letter to her father narrating her tale of woes to him. It was stated that after having received the letter, P.W.2 arranged for Rs.1000/- and came to village Bamnoi, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh on 25.10.1977 and was told by one Rakshpal (not examined) and Vijay Pal (P.W.2) that his daughter had been assaulted in their presence in the evening on 10.10.1977 by appellant no.1 - Latoori and his mother - Smt. Dallo, and further, that in the early morning on 11.10.1977 the above two accused persons poured kerosene oil on the deceased inside the house and burnt her. Two persons namely, Rakshpal (not examined) and Vijaypal (P.W.2) were attracted to the house of the appellants after hearing the cries of the deceased, and the deceased stated to them there that as she had not brought the money desired by the accused persons, she had been burnt by them. The complainant stated that the witnesses namely, Rakshpal (not examined) and Vijaypal (P.W.2) stated to him that they asked appellant no.1 - Latoori and his mother - Smt. Dallo that they had indulged in the foulest of crimes, and as such they should call a doctor and get the lady treated, else they would have to bear serious consequences. Allegation was that a doctor was brought, and on his advice the deceased was put on a bullock cart for being taken to Aligarh for being treated in a hospital. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that when they had travelled for about three quarters of a mile, the deceased Indira Kumari said to accused persons as to where she was being taken by them after being killed, upon which Dori Lal appellant no.2 - father of appellant Latoori said that the deceased should not be taken to the hospital, else their predicament would be very compounded, as a result of which Indira Kumari was brought down from the bullock cart and put on the ridge of a sugar cane field and appellant - Latoori strangulated Indira Kumari to death. It is stated that the statement of Indira Kumari, regarding being injured, and also being taken to another place, was allegedly heard by Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.3), Ram Charan. (P.W.4), Ganga Prasad (not examined) of village Bomai. It was stated that after killing the deceased they made preparation for cremating the dead body, but by that time the Chaukidar of the village also arrived there, and forbade the accused persons to cremate the dead body, and sent an information about the occurrence through his son to the Police Station. 4. It was stated that after killing the deceased they made preparation for cremating the dead body, but by that time the Chaukidar of the village also arrived there, and forbade the accused persons to cremate the dead body, and sent an information about the occurrence through his son to the Police Station. 4. It is not denied, as may appear from the evidence of P.W.2 the complainant at pages 46 and 49 of the paper book, that there was an investigation conducted by the police as regards the cause of death of Indira Kumari, and it is also not disputed that none of the witnesses, who subsequently came forward in support of the prosecution charges, like, P.W.1, who has also been treated as P.W.2, Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.3), Ram Charan (P.W.4) and Ganga Prasad (not examined) in spite of having found and met the police in their village, did not make any statement in support of the story subsequently propounded by P.W.2 through his complain petition. The complainant claimed to have handed over the letter written by the deceased Indira Kumari to him, which was received by him, to the Investigating Officer, who was examined as D.W.1, namely, Sub Inspector Har Prasad Verma, during the preliminary investigation the police had carried into the causes of death of the deceased Indira Kumari. Undisputedly, the complainant did not lodge any protest or filed any complaint regarding the conduct of the Investigating Officer, i.e., D.W.1, who was investigating the cause of death of Indira Kumari after having received the information about the incident through the Chaukidar, namely, Gulla., whose name has been stated by D.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police posted in the concerned police station. This also appears undisputed from the very evidence of P.W.2 that after investigating into the information received by the police, the final report was also submitted. This appears from the very second line of cross examination of P.W.2 at page 46 of the paper book. This also appears undisputed from the very evidence of P.W.2 that after investigating into the information received by the police, the final report was also submitted. This appears from the very second line of cross examination of P.W.2 at page 46 of the paper book. Though the prosecution witnesses stated that they had not been questioned by the police, nor they had made any statement to it voluntarily ever during the preliminary inquiry, or investigation, which was conducted by D.W.1., but the very admission of P.W.2 that the final report was submitted fairly puts it beyond the pale of any doubt that there was definitely an investigation and some persons ought to have been questioned during that course. D.W.1 stated that he had questioned the prosecution witnesses Vijay Pal (P.W.2) and Gyanendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.3), and they had not made any statement, as they made subsequently regarding the particulars of the case, that it was the accused persons, who were torturing the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and also had initially assaulted her on 10.10.1977, and had, subsequently, poured kerosene oil and burnt her and also strangulated her to death, in the manner stated by the witnesses. This evidence, which comes from the witnesses, and the Investigating Officer, who had held the investigation, regarding the cause of death of Indira Devi clearly puts into doubt the very prosecution story as regards its veracity. 5. The other circumstance, which had convinced us about the doubtful credibility of the prosecution story and the conduct of the complainant, is that he had admitted that he met the police officer (D.W.1) and had handed over to him the original letter dated 13.10.1977 received by him from his daughter, and at the same time, he had also admitted that either during that course of investigation, which was carried out by D.W.1, or subsequent to the filing of final report., he had not lodged any protest, nor had filed any written complaint before any official or authority, and had not even moved the police officers during that course. If the case was like that, as was narrated by P.W.2 in his complaint petition presented before the C.J.M., Aligarh, and he was very much convinced on account of having been informed by P.W.1 or P.W.2, namely, Vijay Pal or one Rakshpal as to how the deceased had been killed and ill treated, then it was supposed that he should have come out with a proper report either written or given verbally to D.W.1, who was, admittedly, investigating into the cause of death of Indira Devi. Not only that, he was aware of the fact that a final report has been submitted, meaning thereby that the police had found that the death of Indira Devi was not homicidal caused by any person for any particular reason, by any particular means, and it was expected again that the complainant ought to have lodged a proper complain either in writing with the police officer, or in case of refusal to accept that report, before the higher police officer, then only he could come forward with the complaint petition to initiate the proceedings. 6. What vexed us was that in spite of having come to know about the incident on 25.2.1977, P.W.2. the complainant was filing his report not on that day, or the day subsequent thereto, rather, he probably waited for a particular date, like 9.11.1977 for reason best known only to him to present the complaint petition before the appropriate court. The delay, thus, was of a fortnight in filing the complaint petition before the appropriate court. The complaint petition does not bear any explanation as to why the complainant (P.W.2) was not promptly lodging his report, or filing his complaint. During cross examination, he was pointing out to the Court that he had filed the complaint petition because, he was asked by a particular police officer to take his own recourse to law, and that was what he did, as regards the filing of complaint. One of the prosecution witness, namely, P.W.3 Gyanendra Kumar Sharma, had stated that he along with the complainant and other witnesses went to a particular police officer at his residence and consulted him as regards the mode to initiate the prosecution, and the same being dictated and drafted by a counsel, in presence of police officer, the complaint petition was lodged. If this was the mode of drafting the complaint petition and filing the same before the court, then one has simply to be more cautious to act on such complain petition. Could it not be a case that the complainant was acting under the advice of a wicked police officer, for any particular reason, and not for the reason of seeking justice. 7. Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA was reading out certain circumstances from the defence witness, like, D.W.2 that the family members of the deceased along with the defence witnesses and the villagers had awaited for the arrival of the police officer so that the police could also have a glance of the dead body, but when their expectation waned, then only they went through the ceremony of cremating the dead body. Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA was calling upon us to read it, as the circumstances of culpability of the accused persons, and uphold the conviction. Even if it could be true, this also indicated that the police had properly been informed and the bona fide of the accused persons was that they awaited for the arrival of any of the police officers of the police station. 8. Normally, the rural life does not go by the rules of the statute. There are customs, which are based on belief, and ancient practices prevailing in the society, and one such superstitious belief, which prevail in the rural area of this part of the country, is that a dead body has to be cremated before sunset or not at all. Keeping the dead body in a household, in spite of advancement of knowledge and science are still taboo and is a thing, which have to be refrained from, and the belief is that it does not seem good, and is ominous in religions. In spite of this belief, the family members of the deceased and the members of the society had awaited for the arrival of the police, and then they could be cremating the dead body, ultimately. Was it not a fact that the police had investigated this aspect of the case also, as regards commission of offence under Section 201 IPC, as appears admitted by P.W.2, and had laid a final report on all aspects of the case. 9. Was it not a fact that the police had investigated this aspect of the case also, as regards commission of offence under Section 201 IPC, as appears admitted by P.W.2, and had laid a final report on all aspects of the case. 9. Moreover, if no offence was shown committed on evidence, then how it could be said that the cremation of the dead body could be intentional destruction of the evidence of an offence, i.e., the dead body, knowing fully well that the offence had been committed, with an intent to screening themselves from legal punishment. This is how, we see the entire case and the case through the evidence adduced and the probability that arises therefrom. 10. In the result, we find merit in the appeal and we allow the same as such. We set aside the conviction of appellant no.1 - Latoori and appellant no.4 - Devi Prashad of charges under which they had been held guilty and set aside the order of sentence passed upon them also by acquitting them. Both the appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liability of their respective bonds. _____________