( Delivered by Justice Anil Kumar Sharma) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 04.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 317 of 2000 ( Case Crime No. 571/99), P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 302/149 IPC and 498-A IPC and each had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under section 302/149 IPC, 3 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 498-A IPC with default stipulation. Accused Dharm Das Jain had died during pendency of the appeal, hence his appeal stood abated. 2. Facts germane to the appeal are that on 11.10.1999 Sanjay Kumar s/o Sri Praduman Kumar, r/o Bartala Yadgar, Saharanpur submitted a written report in Kotwali, Muzaffar Nagar stating that his sister Alpana Jain was married about 10 years ago with Sanjeev Jain son of Dharam Das Jain, r/o 3 Rainbow, Vihar. In the marriage they had given sufficient dowry but her in-laws were not happy and in order to fetch more money, her husband Sanjeev Jain, parents in-law and both brothers in-law Ajay and Sanjeev used to beat her. Non-fulfilment of demand resulted in physical torture on Alpana Jain. On 10.10.2009 at about 9.00 P.M. his sister informed them from Muzaffar Nagar by phone that all the accused persons are picking up quarrel with her, she suspects threat to her life and they should immediately rush to Muzaffar Nagar. The report further stated that when complainant along with his father and brothers reached at the house of his sister they found her dead. The complainant had charged the accused persons to have killed his sister. 3. On the basis of this report case at crime no. 572/99, under section 302 IPC was registered against all the accused persons. The investigation was entrusted to SSI R K. Manik. He interrogated the complainant and his father at the police station and reached at the house of the accused persons. The dead body of the deceased was found on the floor by the side of the double bed on the upper storey of the house, however, on account of night inquest was not conducted. The mother, sister-in-law ( Bhabi) and Sanchita ( friend of the deceased) were interrogated. The dead body of the deceased was found on the floor by the side of the double bed on the upper storey of the house, however, on account of night inquest was not conducted. The mother, sister-in-law ( Bhabi) and Sanchita ( friend of the deceased) were interrogated. The two daughters of the deceased were crying so they were not in a position to make any statement. In the morning site plan of the scene of occurrence was prepared. Photographs were taken and the broken bangles of the deceased were seized. The inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted and in sealed cover it was sent for post mortem examination along with usual papers. Dr. Pankaj Jain conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased on 11.10.99 at 3.00 P.M. He found that 35-years' old deceased was average built, her eyes and mouth were slightly open. Face was swollen and cynosed. Lines were blue. Conjunctives were deeply congested. Frothy blood was coming out from nostrils. Hands were clenched. The doctor found following ante mortem injuries on the persons of the deceased: 1. Ligature mark of 19.0 cm x 3.0 cm on front and back side of neck ( gap at back) 5.5 cm from chin, 5.5 cm from left ear and 4.5 cm from right ear. The base of mark is pale with reddish and echymosed margins. Mark is dry and hard. On dissection the subcutaneous tissues under the above mark are dry, white glittering. The muscle ruptured. Trachea congested and hyoid bone fractured. 2. Abraded contusion of 1.0 cm x 0.4 cm at right hand lateral 2.0 cm above wrist. 3. Contusion of 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm on back of left upper arm. 9 cm above elbow. 4. Contusion of 6.0 cm x 3.5 cm on back of left upper arm, just above elbow. In internal examination the doctor found that brain and its membranes, both pleura, both lungs and pericardium were congested. Right chamber of heart was full while left was empty. In stomach about 250 ml. pasty odourless semi-digested found was present. The small intestines contained semi digested food and gases while in large intestines faecal matter and gases were found. Pancreas, spleen and both kidneys were congested. The uterus was non-gravid. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased suffered death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation about 3/4 day before. pasty odourless semi-digested found was present. The small intestines contained semi digested food and gases while in large intestines faecal matter and gases were found. Pancreas, spleen and both kidneys were congested. The uterus was non-gravid. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased suffered death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation about 3/4 day before. 4. During inquest the C.O. also reached at the spot and he inquired about the incident. Under his instructions section 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were added in the investigation. On the basis of the information of a informer all accused persons were found hidden in the back portion of the house and they were taken into custody in the morning of 11.10.1999. On 15.10.1999 the investigation of the case was taken up by Inspector Ajay Kumar who further interrogated the complainant and recorded statements of witnesses of inquest and dead body carrier. He also took in possession photographs of the scene of occurrence. On 17.10.1999 Investigating Officer searched the house of the accused and found two letters allegedly written by the deceased and a telephone receiver along with wire through memo. Two scalp hairs were entangled with wire of the telephone receiver. Thereafter Investigating Officer recorded statements of other witnesses and the investigation culminated in charge sheet against accused-appellants. 5. Charges for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 302/149 IPC were framed against the accused persons who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined complainant Sanjay Kumar Jain as PW-1, Praduman Kumar Jain PW-2, Km. Sanchita Jain PW-3, Dr. Pankaj Jain PW-4, HCP Suresh Giri PW-5, S.I. Ram Kishan Manik PW-6, S.I. Mahtab Singh PW-7, Inspector Ajai Kumar PW-8, S.I. Prem Pal Singh PW-9 and retired Inspector Narendra Singh PW-10. 7. In their separate statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. all the accused persons have admitted the marriage of the deceased with accused Sanjay Jain and birth of two daughters out of their wedlock. However, they had denied the other part of the prosecution story. 8. Accused Ajay, Rajeev, Smt. Mem Lata and Dharam Das Jain have stated that on the day of incident they were in their house at Delhi and on getting the news about death of Alpana they have reached Muzaffar Nagar. However, they had denied the other part of the prosecution story. 8. Accused Ajay, Rajeev, Smt. Mem Lata and Dharam Das Jain have stated that on the day of incident they were in their house at Delhi and on getting the news about death of Alpana they have reached Muzaffar Nagar. Accused Sanjeev Jain and Dharm Das Jain have filed separate written statement under section 233 ( 2) Cr. P. C. Accused Sanjeev Jain has stated therein that on 16.11.1983 he was married with Smt. Alpana and at that time his father was having 50% partnership in a famous Iron Industry named as Rainbow Industrial Corporation and he also had a factory in Saharanpur. At the time of the marriage his father-in-law was having an ordinary shop dealing in sale of iron bars. His marriage was solemnized in an ordinary manner within 15 days of its settlement. He had purchased a colour television in August, 1983 from his money. A telephone connection no. 432021 was installed at his residence and after marriage he obtained another connection no. 430320 in the name of his wife and she used to make calls from these telephones. The accused has filed bills and receipts of these telephone connections dated 01.04.1999 and 01.02.1998. He has denied the writing of his wife on the letters filed by the prosecution ( Ex. Ka-3 to 11). According to him the deceased never wrote letters to her parents and whenever she wanted she used to talk with them on phone. The accused has further stated that after failure of business his father along with other family members shifted to Delhi and they used to carry on business by residing in house no. 61 Yadav Nagar, Delhi. The marriage of his two brothers Rajeev and Ajay was also performed from Delhi. His two daughters Sanchita and Anchita were studying in S.D. Public School, Muzaffar Nagar, however, their school was closed from 09.10.99 to 20.10.99. Both of them had gone to their maternal grand parent's house at Saharanpur on 08.10.99 along with their mother. On 10.10.99 only Alpana returned back as her two daughters did not come on account of school holidays. He has further stated that Alpana was very much tensed as jewellery given by them was at Saharanpur with her parents which was not being returned by them. On 10.10.99 only Alpana returned back as her two daughters did not come on account of school holidays. He has further stated that Alpana was very much tensed as jewellery given by them was at Saharanpur with her parents which was not being returned by them. On account of this tension she hanged herself with the ceiling fan of the bed-room by tying her neck. He informed his in-laws in Saharanpur on telephone whereupon they along with his two daughters came from Saharanpur and put cadaver of the deceased on the floor. He has claimed that on his information his parents and two brothers also came from Delhi in the morning of 11.10.1999 and were arrested from their house. 9. Accused Dharm Das Jain in his written statement under section 233 ( 2) Cr.P.C. has reiterated the facts stated by the accused Sanjeev Jain in his written statement. He has filed his ration card issued at Delhi and photo copy of his father's death certificate as also the marriage invitation cards of his two sons Rajeev and Ajay. 10. In defence the accused persons have examined Suresh Kumar, Head Clerk of S.D. Public School, Muzaffar Nagar as DW-1. 11. After hearing the parties' counsel the trial court had convicted and sentenced all the appellants as indicated above. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the original record of the case carefully. 13. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Chaturvedi learned senior Advocate, appearing for the accused-respondent, has forcefully contended that conviction on the basis, of circumstantial evidence cannot be based unless the circumstances clearly proved and established by reliable and convincing evidence adduced in the case, make a complete chain of events from which no other inference, except the inference about the complicity of the accused in committing the offence, is possible. He further submitted that the deceased was married with appellant no. 1 about 16 years ago before the incident and they were blessed with two daughters who were quite young. There was no demand of money by the accused persons from her or her parents and ere that there was no complaint or dispute on this count, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused appellants. He further submitted that accused appellant no. There was no demand of money by the accused persons from her or her parents and ere that there was no complaint or dispute on this count, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused appellants. He further submitted that accused appellant no. 2 to 5 resided in Delhi at the time of incident and they came to Muzaffarnagar in the morning of 11.10.1999 after being informed about the incident and were arrested from their residence. Lastly it has been argued that the deceased has committed suicide in her matrimonial home out of depression and frustration as her jewellery was not being returned by her brothers. 14. Per contra Mr. V. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant has submitted that there is oral and documentary evidence on record about the atrocities committed by all the accused on the deceased, who lived jointly in Muzaffarnagar on account of demand of money. All the accused on the fateful day were quarrelling with the deceased, she suspected threat to her life, so she made a telephone call to her parents at Saharanpur at about 9.00 p.m. requesting them to come immediately to her rescue but before they could arrive, she was done to death by the accused persons by strangulation. The deceased used to write letters to her parents narrating her miseries at the hands of all the accused persons in her matrimonial home. The accused were last seen in the company of the deceased by her two daughters in her bed room picking up quarrel and they were further seen coming out from the said room by them and till that time their mother had died. He further submitted that the medical evidence on record rules out all possibilities of suicide and clearly prove that she suffered death due to asphyxia on account of strangulation. 15. The marriage of Alpana with accused Sanjeev Jain on 16.10. 1983 is admitted to the defence. The parents of the deceased reside in Saharanpur while she was married to Sanjeev Jain of Muzaffarnagar. She suffered unnatural death on 10.10.1999 at about 9 p.m. in her matrimonial home. The date, time and place of death of Smt. Alpana is not disputed to the defence. She was found dead in the bed room of accused Sanjeev Jain. The parents of the deceased reside in Saharanpur while she was married to Sanjeev Jain of Muzaffarnagar. She suffered unnatural death on 10.10.1999 at about 9 p.m. in her matrimonial home. The date, time and place of death of Smt. Alpana is not disputed to the defence. She was found dead in the bed room of accused Sanjeev Jain. Only two points require consideration in this case, firstly whether she committed suicide or she was strangulated to death by all the accused-appellants as alleged by the prosecution? And secondly, whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused-appellants? 16. The case of the complainant is that since marriage Alpana's in-laws started demanding money in dowry and she was harassed, beaten and tortured to fetch money form her parents. They were blessed with two daughters named Anchita and Sanchita who were aged about 14 years and 11-12 years respectively at the time of incident. The trial Court has incorrectly mentioned her age to be 14 years at the time of death of her mother. Her statement was recorded in the trial Court on 11.1.2005 and on that date she had given her age as 17-years. The date of incident is 10.10.1999 so at the relevant time her age comes to about 11 years 9 months. PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that at the time of incident Ankita was aged about 14 years and Sanchita was 11-12 years old. The prosecution has not examined the eldest daughter of the deceased namely Ankita who was much mature than Sanchita PW-3. No doubt it is prerogative of the prosecution to chose its witnesses to prove its case, but it is always desirable that the witness who is mature, understands things well and is capable to reproduce the events after many years of the incident in the Court should be examined to unfold the prosecution story. The prosecution has not given any explanation for her non-examination, although she was present in Court. However, this fact does not affect the prosecution case adversely. 17. The trial Court has framed charges for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 302/149 IPC against all the accused-appellants. No charge u/s 147 IPC had been framed against the accused at all. The prosecution has not given any explanation for her non-examination, although she was present in Court. However, this fact does not affect the prosecution case adversely. 17. The trial Court has framed charges for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 302/149 IPC against all the accused-appellants. No charge u/s 147 IPC had been framed against the accused at all. The trial Court has thus committed an illegality in not framing the charge for the offence u/s 147 IPC against the accused, because without finding the accused persons guilty for forming an unlawful assembly to achieve their common object in prosecution of which they have committed the offence, no aid of Section 149 IPC can be taken to convict them for the offence punishable u/s 302/149 IPC. 18. The prosecution has placed reliance on the testimony of complainant Sanjay Kumar Jain PW-1 who is brother of the deceased, his father Praduman Kumar Jain PW-2 and Km. Sanchita PW-3 ( daughter of deceased and accused Sanjiv Kumar Jain) to prove its case. Sanjay Kumar Jain PW-1 giving introduction of all the accused persons has stated that the marriage of his sister Alpana @ Appi took place with accused Sanjeev Jain on 16.11.1983 wherein dowry was given according to their fiscal and economic condition, but it did not satisfy the rapacious psyche of the bridge-groom, his parents and brothers, who further demanded money and for this purpose they used to torture, beat and harass his sister. She had two daughters Ankita and Sanchita. She used to tell her miseries to them by phone as well as through letters. They tried to pacify the accused and often gave money to the accused persons. They started constructing a house for Alpana in Jain Milan Colony after purchasing a plot. The economic condition of the accused persons was not good. On 10.10.1999 at about 9 p.m. Alpana informed him on phone that her husband, parents-in-law and brothers-in-law Ajay and Rajiv are quarrelling with her and her life is in danger, so they should immediately reach there. On this call, he along with parents, brothers Anil and Vineet and sister-in-law Anuradha reached at the house of Alpana in Rainbow Vihar at about 1.00 a.m. and saw that she was lying dead on the floor of her room, her two daughters were crying and accused have absconded. There were injuries on her neck and face. On this call, he along with parents, brothers Anil and Vineet and sister-in-law Anuradha reached at the house of Alpana in Rainbow Vihar at about 1.00 a.m. and saw that she was lying dead on the floor of her room, her two daughters were crying and accused have absconded. There were injuries on her neck and face. At the time of marriage Alpana was a student of B.A. Final and he had seen her studying and is acquainted with her writing and signature. Thereafter he scribed report Ex. Ka-1 and handed over at the police station Kotwali Muzaffarnagar at 2.00 a.m. This witness has filed and proved five letters allegedly written by Alpana to them stating that their photo-copies and photographs were given by him to the investigating officer. He has concluded that in the room chappals and pieces of bangles of the deceased were lying. 19. PW-2 Praduman Kumar Jain is the aged father of the deceased. Reiterating the facts stated by his son PW-1 he has deposed that all the accused resided in Rainbow Vihar, Muzaffarnagar and in the marriage he had spent Rs.5-6 lacs, but the accused were not happy. They used to harass and torture his daughter Alpana to bring more money and articles. She told them about it on phone and also through letters. They talked with the accused and their relatives, but they did not deter and continued harassing and maltreating his daughter. He owns groves of mangoes and lettuce. He used to give 10-20 to 50 thousands rupees to the accused from time to time. The daughter was blessed with two daughters named Ankita and Sanchita who were 14-years and 11-12 years' old at the time of incident. When the atrocities of the accused continued, he thought of building a house for his daughter in Jain Milan Vihar and purchased a plot measuring 434 sq. yards and has filed copy of the sale-deed. About 3-4 days before the death of his daughter he had given Rs. One lac for laying linter ( roof). He has further stated that at his house telephone no. 645388 ( earlier no. 745388) was installed and Alpana had telephone no. 432021 in her room. On 10.10.1999 at 9.00 p.m. Aplana's phone on their phone no. About 3-4 days before the death of his daughter he had given Rs. One lac for laying linter ( roof). He has further stated that at his house telephone no. 645388 ( earlier no. 745388) was installed and Alpana had telephone no. 432021 in her room. On 10.10.1999 at 9.00 p.m. Aplana's phone on their phone no. 645388 was attended by Sanjay and thereafter he told them that her husband, Sanjeev, father-in-law Dharam Dass, mother-in-law Memwati, Devar Rajeev and Ajay are quarrelling with her and she suspected threat for life and they should immediately come. At that time his son Anuj was not at home and when he returned they all left for Muzaffarnagar and reached at Alpana's kothi in Rainbow Vihar and found that his both the grand-daughters ( dhevati) were crying on the ground floor. They went upstairs and found Alpana lying dead in her room. Her scalp hairs were dishevelled, bangles were broken and there were signs of injuries on her face and hands. Thereafter his son Sanjay prepared report and along with Khannaji and few relatives they went to Kotwali where he handed over the report at about 1.45-2.00 a.m. He and Sanjay were interrogated by Darogaji. The same day her inquest and autopsy was done and then they performed her last rites at the river cremation. On 17.10.1999 he came to Muzaffarnagar with Vineet and Sanjay as they were called by Kotwal. They went at the spot along with him for inspection. The police officer searched the almirah of Alpana and seized two letters which were in the handwriting of Alpana to which he is acquainted. The investigating officer also took in possession a telephone wire and receiver. A hair entangled in the wire and other articles at the spot were sealed after preparing memo and obtained his signature which has been proved as Ex. Ka-2. He has concluded that Pushap Kumar Jain is his son-in-law who was Joint Commissioner Customs & Central Excise at the time of incident. 20. Km. Sanchita PW-3 is the younger daughter of the deceased who was aged about 11-12 years at the time of the incident. Describing and recognizing all the accused in the Court she has stated that at the time of incident all accused, her mother and sister Ankita resided together in 3, Rainbow Vihar, Muzaffarnagar. 20. Km. Sanchita PW-3 is the younger daughter of the deceased who was aged about 11-12 years at the time of the incident. Describing and recognizing all the accused in the Court she has stated that at the time of incident all accused, her mother and sister Ankita resided together in 3, Rainbow Vihar, Muzaffarnagar. She was studying in 7th standard, while elder sister Ankita in 9th class in S.D. Public School, Muzaffarnagar. Her mother resided in the room on upper storey. Her relations with the accused persons were bad as they used to harass and torture her for bringing money from Saharanpur. On 10.10.1999 at about 9.00-9.15 p.m. her mother was in her room and she along with her sister were studying in room on ground floor. They heard shrieks and weeping voice of mother. They went upstairs and found all the accused persons in her room. There was electric light. The accused persons were quarrelling with her and they rebuked them to go away. They got down scared. Thereafter mother's screams vanished and when they again went upstairs they saw all the accused coming out from the room nervously. In the room they found her mother lying dead on the floor. She has concluded that 3-4 hours later her maternal grand-father ( Nana) Praduman Kumar Jain, Nani Smt. Santosh Jain, Mama Vineet Jain, Sanjay Jain and Anuj Jain and Mami Smt. Anuradha Jain came from Saharanpur and she along with the sister remained on the ground-floor. 21. The instant case is based on circumstantial evidence. No body has seen any of the accused actually killing the deceased by strangulation. The decision of the Apex Court in Aftab Ahmad Ansari Vs. State of Uttaranchal ( 2010) 2 SCC 583is a timely reminder about the requirements of nature and quality of evidence in the criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence. The Court expressed its view in the following words: "In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be." 22. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the deceased and accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain were married on 16.11.1983, two daughters were born out of the wed lock and till the day of incident there was no complaint from the side of the deceased or her parents regarding any kind of demand as dowry or torture/ maltreatment/harassment of the deceased on this score. The case of the defence is that the marriage was solemnized in an ordinary manner and it was settled on account of beauty of the deceased. On the contrary PW-2 has stated that he had spent about rupees 5-6 lacs in the marriage. In cross-examination he has stated that in the marriage they had given gold-jewellery weighing about 40-50 tolas apart from a set of Kundan and diamond each. He had further stated that there were hundreds of baratis, the halwai was arranged from Meerut and about rupees one lac was spend on food. They made cash payment for double-bed, TV, VCR etc. Accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain has stated that he had purchased colour TV from his pocket in the month of August, 1983. Since this purchase was made only few months before marriage, so it can be assumed that it was taken out of the money given by the parents of the deceased. Although he has stated that the marriage took place within 15-days of its settlement, but he has not given any date of engagement, lagan or Teeka etc. PW-2 has further stated that he had purchased a plot in Muzaffarnagar for separate residence of the deceased and house was being constructed thereon. Although he has stated that the marriage took place within 15-days of its settlement, but he has not given any date of engagement, lagan or Teeka etc. PW-2 has further stated that he had purchased a plot in Muzaffarnagar for separate residence of the deceased and house was being constructed thereon. The copy of the sale deed had been brought on record. The accused persons have simply denied all these facts in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination of PW-2 it has been suggested that he has purchased the plot for earning profit. However, this plea appears to be false, because PW-2 has admitted that he got the map sanctioned from the MDA, the house was under construction and after the incident he has disposed it of. From testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the written statements filed by accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain and his father, if read together it is clearly borne out that the family of the deceased was much more affluent than the accused persons. Both the aforesaid accused persons have stated that after failure of their factory, Dharam Das Jain along with his two other sons have shifted their residence and business to Delhi. In these circumstances, it was quite natural that the husband of the deceased was in dire need of money. The demand of money from the deceased and her parents has come through the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and it finds corroboration from the letters written by the deceased to her father which have been proved by her brother PW-1 and father PW-2. The deceased has narrated her plight and miseries in her matrimonial home. The letters have been written between 1990 and 1996 and it appears to be the period when the Muzaffarnagar business of the accused persons flopped. Further long period of marriage of the spouse is not a guarantee that all is well with the bride in her in-laws house. In the case of Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2012) 3 SCC ( Cri) 1349, the Apex Court in para-20 has narrated the condition of the Indian women in the following words: "20. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that if the relations between the husband and his wife were strained why did his wife Kanwaljeetkaur continue to live with him for 25 years. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that if the relations between the husband and his wife were strained why did his wife Kanwaljeetkaur continue to live with him for 25 years. In this connection, we have only to point out that in India many women accept the bad treatment of their husbands and continue living with them because a girl at the time of marriage is told by her parents that after marriage her place is with her husband and she has to accept whatever treatment she gets from her husband and in-laws. She has to 'nibhao' all treatment after marriage. Hence she continues living with him even if her husband is a brutish, nasty and loathsome person. However, it is evident that when the children of the accused grew up they often resisted and protested against the dictatorial behaviour of the appellant, and this led to a lot of friction in the family. Hence we are of the opinion that the appellant did not have a happy married life with his wife, rather it was just the reverse." 23. Smt. Alpana Jain deceased was not a career woman but she was a house wife, wholly dependent on the income of her husband. The economic condition of the parents of the deceased was very good. They owned many groves and separate businesses. In district Saharanpur fruit groves' business particularly mango and lettuce is quite profitable. At the time of marriage of the deceased the fiscal condition of her in-laws was also good, but their factory in the name and style of 'Rainbow Industrial Corporation', as admitted by PW-2 in his cross-examination that at the time of marriage it was a big concern which had to be closed. In these circumstances, it is clearly proved that the husband of the deceased demanded money from his wife and her parents to quench his thirst and to press his demand he used to harass and torture the deceased. Further from the letters of the deceased it is also spelt out that accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain was having bad habits of gambling, drinking and socialising. 24. The next core question for decision is whether the deceased suffered death on account of hanging or strangulation. It is not disputed that on 10.10.1999 at about 9.13 p.m. a call was made from accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain's residence to the parents of the deceased. 24. The next core question for decision is whether the deceased suffered death on account of hanging or strangulation. It is not disputed that on 10.10.1999 at about 9.13 p.m. a call was made from accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain's residence to the parents of the deceased. The contention of the defence is that accused Sanjiv Kumar Jain informed his in-laws about the suicidal death of the deceased, while the case of the prosecution right from the inception of FIR is that at about 9.00 p.m. the deceased rang up her home telling them that the accused persons are quarrelling with her and she suspected threat to her life, so they should immediately come. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have spoken about this telephone call of the deceased, which also finds corroboration from the testimony of Inspector Narendra Singh PW-10, who has collected and proved the call details. On getting information on phone about the atrocities being committed by the accused on the deceased, her family members rushed to Muzaffarnagar by road in the night itself and they reached at the residence of accused at about 1.00 a.m. and found the deceased dead in her bed room. They also found both the daughters of the deceased crying on the ground floor of the house. 25. Accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain has stated in his written statement that at the time of incident his two daughters were studying in S. D. Public School, Muzaffarnagar and the school was closed from 9.10.1999 to 20.10.1999, so they had gone to Saharanpur along with their mother. In the evening of 10.10.1999, the deceased came alone to Muzaffarnagar and the daughters remained at Saharanpur. The parents of the deceased were not returning jewellery of Alpana which was given by them ( accused in-laws) and in his absence she committed suicide by hanging from the fan. On his information by phone the parents of the deceased and his both the daughters came at his residence and put down the dead body from the fan and kept on the floor. The accused has not stated that the spot position was changed by brothers of the deceased. He has not informed the police or his neighbours about alleged suicide of her wife, which was quite natural. This conduct of accused Sanjeev Jain creates strong doubt about truthfulness of his story. 26. The accused has not stated that the spot position was changed by brothers of the deceased. He has not informed the police or his neighbours about alleged suicide of her wife, which was quite natural. This conduct of accused Sanjeev Jain creates strong doubt about truthfulness of his story. 26. Since the unnatural death of the deceased took place in her bed-room which was shared by accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain, so as per requirements of Section 106 Evidence Act, he was required to give plausible and convicting explanation about the circumstances in which the deceased was found dead in his bed-room. He has not even stated where was he, when his wife allegedly committed suicide in his bed-room. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2006) 10 SCC 681the Apex Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in paras 13 to 14 as under: ''13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in Court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished. 14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. ( See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh ( 2003) 11 SCC 271 ). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration ( b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: ( b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation." 27. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 we may refer to the classic case of Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer 1956 SCR 199 reported more than half a century ago. In paragraph-11 their Lordships have observed thus: "This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not." 28. In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others 2000 ( 8) SCC 382 , the Apex Court has observed in paras 31 to 33 as under: 31. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case." 29. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case." 29. Now medical evidence available on record may also be seen to find out whether it was case of suicide or strangulation. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, suicide by self strangulation is very rare and without a contrivance, with which sufficient pressure required to bring about death can be generated, suicide by self strangulation, can not be performed because after application of some force, there would be insensitivity thereby loosening the grip on the neck. As in this case, no contrivance with which such self strangulation could have been committed was found, the case of suicide by self strangulation is ruled out. 30. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of Apex Court in the case of Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat ( 1992) 4 SCC 69in which it has been held as follows : "3.......... It is needles to say that the doctor who has examined the deceased and conducted the post-mortem is the only competent witness to speak about the nature of injuries and the cause of death. Unless there is something inherently defective the court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the doctor." 31. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by a team of two doctors and Dr. P. K. Jain, PW-4 has proved the autopsy notes. On external examination he has found her eyes and mouth slightly open. Face was swollen and cynosed. Lines were blue. Conjunctives were deeply congested. Frothy blood was coming out from nostrils. Hands were clenched. Prominent ligature mark of 19.0 cm x 3.0 cm on front and both sides of neck with gap at back, 5.5 cm from chin, 5.5 cm from left ear and 4.5 cm from right ear was found. The base of mark was pale with reddish and ecchymosed margins. 32. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-third Edition contained Chapter 18 of Section I: Medical Jurisprudence regarding Asphyxia. Hanging has been defined by Modi as the ligature compression of the neck by the weight of one's own body. Cause of death is one of the indicators to determine whether deceased died due to hanging or strangulation. 32. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-third Edition contained Chapter 18 of Section I: Medical Jurisprudence regarding Asphyxia. Hanging has been defined by Modi as the ligature compression of the neck by the weight of one's own body. Cause of death is one of the indicators to determine whether deceased died due to hanging or strangulation. Modi has observed as under on page No.576: "Causes of Death Death is usually due to asphyxia ( anoxic hypoxia), but it may be due to other causes, namely, cerebral ischaemia or venous congestion, asphyxia and venous congestion combined, or shock due to reflex cardiac arrest ( it accounts for at least half the deaths from manual strangulation). Very rarely, the cervical vertebrae may be fractured. Probably, one or more causes may operate during strangulation. A pale face would indicate a rapid death from reflex cardiac arrest, while face with petechiae would suggest a delayed death." Another indicator is appearance due to Asphyxia. It has been noticed by Modi as under on page No. 579: "( b) Appearances due to Asphyxia: The face puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae. The eyes are prominent and open. In some cases, they may be closed. The conjunctivae are congested and the pupils are dilated. Petechiae are seen in the eyelids and the conjunctivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam escapes from the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes, pure blood issues from the mouth, nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. There may be evidence of bruising at the back of the neck. The hands are usually clenched. The genital organs may be congested and there may be discharge of urine, faeces and seminal fluid." After noticing all these parameters, Modi has drawn the following table on page No.583-4: Hanging Strangulation 1 Mostly suicidal 1 Mostly homicidal 2 Ligature mark, oblique, non- continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or the below the thyroid, the furrow being hard, yellow and neck base of the groove or parchment like. 2 Ligature mark horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the nech below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 2 Ligature mark horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the nech below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 3 Abrasions and eccbymoses round the edges of the ligature round about the edges of the mark, rare. 3 Abrasions and echoymosis round about the edges of the ligature mark common. 4 No evidence of sexual assault 4 Sometimes evidence of sexual assault. 5 Subcutaneous tissues under the mark white, hard and glistening . 5 Subcutaneous tissues under the mark, ecchymosed. 6 Injury to the muscles of the neck rare 6 Injury to the muscles of the neck common. 7 Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop. 7 Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinarily ruptured. 8 Fracture of the larynx and trachea, very rare and that too in judicial hanging 8 Fracture of the larynx and trachea, often found also hyoid bone. 9 Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae common in judicial hanging.. 9 Fracture dislocation of the cervical vertebrae rare. 10 Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body, usually not present. 10 Scratches, abrasions finger nail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body usually present. 11 Face, usually pale and petechiae rare. 11 Face, congested, livid and marked with petechiae. 12 Neck, stretched and elongated on fresh bodies. 12 Neck, not so. 13 External signs of asphyxia usually not well marked. 13 External signs of asphyxia, very well marked ( minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect). 14 Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears very rare. 14 Bleeding from the nose mouth and ears may be found. 15 Saliva, dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. 15 Saliva, no such dribbling. 16 Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs not present. 16 Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs, may be present. Note:- ( We have highlighted those symptoms only, which have been found by the doctors in their autopsy notes of the deceased). 33. Classical treatise on medical jurisprudence is found in Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Eleventh Revised Edition, published by J & A Churchill Ltd. Taylor also laid much emphasis on post mortem appearances to determine whether one has died in case of asphyxia due to strangulation or hanging. 33. Classical treatise on medical jurisprudence is found in Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Eleventh Revised Edition, published by J & A Churchill Ltd. Taylor also laid much emphasis on post mortem appearances to determine whether one has died in case of asphyxia due to strangulation or hanging. Broad indicators, according to Taylor, are the general external appearances, the injuries found on dissection of the neck and general internal appearances. Taylor has observed as under on page Nos. 494-5: "Proof of the Cause of Death The general features of asphyxial death found in strangled bodies have been noted above, viz., intense venous congestion in general, capillary stasis, hemorrhages into the substance of the lung and into mucous membranes, punctate petechiae in the skin and conjunctivae, prominence of the eyes, protrusion of the tongue, or its pressure against the teeth, and bloody froth and mucus in the trachea. Circulation ceases with life, so it is utterly impossible that a ligature placed round the neck after death could produce these appearances: the presence of these signs strongly suggests that death was due to asphyxia. Nevertheless they are not in themselves pathognomonic, for, as Gordon and Turner have insisted, they occur in other subtoxic deaths. Their local distribution in the head and neck is, however, strongly presumptive of strangling. Evidence of violent compression or constriction of the neck during life is obtained from the presence of ecchymoses about the marks on the neck, haemorrhages above the level of the constriction, and swelling and lividity of the face. These are phenomena which cannot be simulated in a dead body by the application of any degree of violence. When the constriction is produced within a few minutes after death, a depression results, but it is highly unlikely that there will be any lividity or swelling of the tissues above. The experiments of Casper showed the impossibility of producing on a dead body anything at all resembling an ante-mortem strangulation mark. In the absence of ecchymoses in the neck, it will be difficult to form an opinion, unless from circumstantial evidence. It must be remembered, however, that there may not always be any well defined marks, for a person may be strangled by the application of pressure to the neck through some soft medium. In the absence of ecchymoses in the neck, it will be difficult to form an opinion, unless from circumstantial evidence. It must be remembered, however, that there may not always be any well defined marks, for a person may be strangled by the application of pressure to the neck through some soft medium. In the absence of all marks of violence round the neck, we should be cautious in giving an opinion which may affect the life of an accused party, for it is difficult for homicidal strangulation to be accomplished without the production of some appearances of violence on the skin. It is doubtful whether strangulation ever takes place without some marks being found on the neck indicative of the means used, but there is a remote possibility that death could be caused in this manner, without leaving any appreciable trace of violence. Suicides and murderers generally employ much more violence than is necessary for the purpose of taking life. If a soft and elastic band were applied to the neck with gradually increased force, it might be possible that death from strangulation would result without there being any external sign indicating the cause of death." 34.. Dr. Jain PW-4 along with his colleague at the time of conducting post-mortem examination had given categorical finding that the deceased has suffered death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. In the instant case the circumstances show that the deceased was strangulated with the telephone wire. It will be useful to quote some excerpts of his cross-examination: "@Hindi@" 35. It is well accepted in medical jurisprudence that hyoid bone can be fractured only if it is pressed with great force or hit by hard substance with great force, otherwise the hyoid bone is not a bone which can be easily fractured. Modi has pointed out a broad difference between hanging and strangulation that in case of strangulation abrasions and ecchymosis round about the edges of the ligature mark are common while in the case of hanging they are rare. Further scratches, abrasions finger nail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body are usually present, but in hanging these symptoms are usually not present. Further in strangulation face is congested and livid, however, it is rare in case of hanging. 36. From the symptoms, which have been pointed out by Modi and statement of Dr. Further in strangulation face is congested and livid, however, it is rare in case of hanging. 36. From the symptoms, which have been pointed out by Modi and statement of Dr. Jain PW-4 it is crystal clear that in the present case most of the symptoms found ( highlighted by us in the table para-32 aforesaid) correspond to the symptoms of strangulation as noted by the doctors in the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, and they clearly rules out the possibility of self hanging by the deceased without any contrivance and the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased was done to death by strangulation in her bed room in the night of 10.10.1999 by the accused. 37. The most important witness examined by the prosecution in the case is Km. Sanchita PW-3, who is daughter of deceased and accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain. She was aged about 11-12 years at the time of the incident. The trial Court has wrongly taken her age to be 14 years on the date of death of deceased. Statement given by her in examination-in-chief had been mentioned in para-20 above. Her testimony is criticized on the ground that after the incident she is living with her maternal grand parents at Saharanpur and she had been tutored by them. Her statement was recorded in the trial Court on 11.1.2005 and 17.1.2005 and at that time she was aged about 17 years i.e. quite mature young lady. She must be having hatred emotions against the accused persons. The defence has disputed her presence on 10.10.1999 at the time of alleged incident, and accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain has stated in his written statement that she came to Muzaffarnagar after the incident along with her maternal grand parents. The defence has also examined DW-1 Suresh Kumar a senior official of S. D. Public School, Muzaffarnagar who has filed the 'school diary' Ex. 29 for the academic year 1999-2000 and has stated that from 9.10.1999 to 20.10.1999 the school was closed. However, Sanchita PW-3 has pleaded ignorance about closure of school on account Dushhera holidays on the above dates. The school diary shows that from 11.10.1999 to 20.10.1999 it was Autumn Break in the aforesaid school, on 9.10.1999 ( Saturday) it was 'Pitra Visarjani Amawasya' holiday and 10.10.1999 was Sunday. However, Sanchita PW-3 has pleaded ignorance about closure of school on account Dushhera holidays on the above dates. The school diary shows that from 11.10.1999 to 20.10.1999 it was Autumn Break in the aforesaid school, on 9.10.1999 ( Saturday) it was 'Pitra Visarjani Amawasya' holiday and 10.10.1999 was Sunday. During this period there was Dushhera festival, which is an important festival and everybody likes to celebrate it at his home. Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that it was not proved that Sanchita along with her sister and mother had gone to Saharanpur during the aforesaid period. 38. Sanchita PW-3 had stated in her deposition before the trial Court that on the day of incident all the five accused were quarelling with her mother and on hearing her screams she along with her elder sister Ankita went upstairs where her mother was also present in the room, but they were sent back by the accused. They were frightened and climbed down. After some time the cries of the mother stopped and then again they went on the 1st floor, saw all accused persons coming out nervously from the room and found the mother lying dead on the floor. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she had not seen any weapon in the hands of the accused persons. 39. Accused Dharam Das Jain in his written statement has stated that after he suffered loss in the business, except Sanjiv he shifted with his family to Delhi, where he started business and resided in House No. 61 in Yadav Nagar. He has filed the original ration card wherein the names of Dharam Das, his wife Memlata, son Rajeev with his wife Babita and infant son Babaloo and Ajay s/o Dharam Das are mentioned. The date of issue of this ration card is 16.9.1996. PW-1 to PW-3 have also admitted in their cross-examination that Mangey Ram father of accused Dharam Das had died in Delhi and the marriage of accused Rajeev and Ajay also took place from Delhi. The cross-examination of the witnesses of fact further show that the relations between the two families were not cordial, which may be due to matrimonial disturbance of the deceased. Km. The cross-examination of the witnesses of fact further show that the relations between the two families were not cordial, which may be due to matrimonial disturbance of the deceased. Km. Sanchita PW-3 has stated in her cross-examination that she had told the investigating officer about presence of all accused in the house stating that they all lived jointly, but Inspector Ajay Kumar PW-8 has stated in cross-examination, as under: "@Hindi@" Thus we find that there is material omission in the statement of PW-3 given by her to the police, which amounts to contradiction and it is duly proved as per provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Evidence Act.. The trial Court fell in error in holding otherwise. Mode of contradicting a witness in respect of his former statement is that the former statement of the witness in writing must be shown to him for contradicting him. If the witness disowns to have made any statement which is inconsistent with his present stand, his testimony in court on that score would not be vitiated until the cross-examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure prescribed in the 2nd limb of sec. 145 Evidence Act. ( See Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar, 2003 ( 47) ACC 1068 ( SC) & Rajendra Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2000 ( 4) SCC 298 ). 40. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution become doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. We are conscious of the fact that if there are no material discrepancies or contradictions in the testimony of a witness, his evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, embellishments etc. The distinction between material discrepancies and normal discrepancies are that minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case but material discrepancies do so. 41. The distinction between material discrepancies and normal discrepancies are that minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case but material discrepancies do so. 41. If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. 42. PW-1 has stated in cross-examination that he does not know whether the marriage of accused Ajay took place on 30.6.1999. However, later he has admitted the marriage invitation card of Ajay's marriage. This witness has stated that he has not attended the marriage of Ajay. Km. Sanchita PW-3 has admitted in her cross-examination that the marriage of her uncle Ajay took place six months prior to the instant incident. However, she does not remember whether any one from her maternal uncle's side attended the marriage. She has further stated that marriage of uncle Rajeev was solemnized at Delhi 2-2½ years before this incident. Although she had reiterated that accused Dharam Dass and others lived with them in Muzaffarnagar, but the other evidence on record belies her statement. Thus, it is proved that at the time of incident only accused Sanjeev Jain, with his wife and two daughters resided in Muzaffarnagar and his parents and brothers Rajee and Ajay with their families were staying in Delhi and pursuing their business. 43. Inspite of stringent laws prohibiting dowry demand and atrocities on women such cases are rising alarmingly. Young brides are being done to death on account of dowry demand at the hands of their in-laws. But on the other hand lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurise the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. The Apex Court very illuminatingly has highlighted this malpractice in the case of Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 in the following words: " For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. The Apex Court very illuminatingly has highlighted this malpractice in the case of Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 in the following words: " For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case. 44. In view of the above principles and the facts of the case the involvement of other accused persons than accused Sanjeev Kumar Jain in demanding money from the deceased or torturing/harassing her on this score is doubtful. We may reiterate that doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over-emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. 45. In the instant case general allegations have been made against other accused regarding demand of money from the deceased or treating the deceased with cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Since accused Sanjieev Jain was staying with his family in Muzaffarnagar, so other accused were not likely to be benefited by the demand of money from the in-laws of Sanjeev Jain. Since accused Sanjieev Jain was staying with his family in Muzaffarnagar, so other accused were not likely to be benefited by the demand of money from the in-laws of Sanjeev Jain. The trial Court without framing any charge for the offence punishable u/s 147 IPC against all the accused persons has convicted them u/s 302/149 IPC, which is quite illegal. In this connection, we may refer to the case of Ramchandran and others Vs. State of Kerala ( 2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases ( Cri) 677 cited on behalf of the complainant, wherein the Apex Court in para-27 has observed as under: "Thus, this court has been very cautious in the catena of judgments that where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague. It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object, it yet may fall under second part of Section 149 IPC, if the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. Further inference has to be drawn as what was the number of persons; how many of them were merely passive witnesses; what were their arms and weapons. Number and nature of injuries is also relevant to be considered. "Common object" may also be developed at the time of incident." In view of the above principles as well the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the deceased was strangulated to death in direct prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly of all the five accused persons. Even the case does not fall under second part of Section 149 IPC, as the presence of all accused except Sanjeev Jain could not be proved, so the question of their knowledge that murder of the deceased was likely to be committed does not arise at all. 46. In the totality of the circumstances, in our considered view the prosecution has not proved its case against appellants no. 2 to 4 who are entitled to acquittal on account of benefit of doubt. Thus, the trial Court has fell in error in finding them guilty for the offences punishable u/s 302/149 and 498-A Indian Penal code. 46. In the totality of the circumstances, in our considered view the prosecution has not proved its case against appellants no. 2 to 4 who are entitled to acquittal on account of benefit of doubt. Thus, the trial Court has fell in error in finding them guilty for the offences punishable u/s 302/149 and 498-A Indian Penal code. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed in respect of accused-appellants no. 2 to 4. These appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them giving them the benefit of doubt. 47. As regards accused Sanjeev Jain, the husband of the deceased is concerned, his complicity in the crime is well proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, maintaining his conviction u/s 498-A IPC and the sentences awarded to him by the trial Court on both the counts, his conviction is altered from Section 302/149 I.P.C. to 302 IPC. The trial Court's findings with regard to conviction and sentence of accused Sanjiv Jain u/s 498-A IPC is maintained and with this modification his appeal is dismissed. He is in jail and would serve out the remaining part of his sentence on each count. 48. Accused-appellants no. 2 to 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 302/149 I.P.C. Appellants no. 2 and 3 Ajay Kumar and Rajeev Kumar are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Smt. Memlata, appellant no. 4 is on bail. She need not surrender to her bail bonds, which are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged. 49. Let certified copy of the judgement be immediately sent to the Court concerned for compliance.