JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. - The appellants in this appeal assail the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chatrapur for commission of offences under Sections 498A/302/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) has sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for three months each for the offence under Sections 498A/34, IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month each for the offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act, which are to run concurrently. The prosecution case is that appellant No. 1, who is the son of appellant No. 2, had married the deceased Jyochhana Panigrahi as per Hindu rites and customs. Before the marriage, appellant No. 1 had made a demand of Rs. 14,000/- in cash and Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing furniture as dowry. Out of the said demand of Rs. 24,000/- the bride party had given only Rs. 14,000/- at the time of marriage and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- later. After the marriage, the deceased stayed in her matrimonial home and sometime thereafter, the appellants demanded the balance amount of dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the said demand was not fulfilled, both the appellants tortured and assaulted the deceased every now and then. Whenever the deceased visited her parental home, she intimated her family members about the demand advanced by the appellants to bring the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- and also about the torture and assault made by the appellants to which her family members consoled saying that they would make payment at a later stage. Sometimes thereafter, the deceased and appellant No. 1 went to Bombay and stayed there for sometime. Thereafter, they returned to the village. In the village, the deceased was subjected to assault and torture. Sometimes thereafter, the deceased and appellant No. 1 went to Bombay and stayed there for sometime. Thereafter, they returned to the village. In the village, the deceased was subjected to assault and torture. On 26.6.2002 in the early morning at 5 A.M., appellant No. 1 came to the house of the informant (P.W.4), who is the brother of the deceased and informed that his wife-Jyochhana Panigrahi had died of scorpion bite in the previous night. Getting the information the informant along with his other brother and some of his villagers went to the house of the appellants and noticed injuries on the person of the deceased. The informant suspected that her sister was beaten to death and after gathering information of such assault on the deceased by the appellants in the previous night, he lodged F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Hinjili Police Station, which led to the registration of the case and commencement of the investigation. The I.O. visited the spot, made inquest of the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and started investigation of the matter. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet as against the appellants. 2. The plea of the appellants was complete denial. Their plea was that the deceased had committed suicide by taking poison and that the appellants never tortured or assaulted her for dowry. The appellant No. 2 took a plea of alibi by stating in her statement u/s 313, Cr.P.C. that she was absent from her house in the night of occurrence and had stayed in the house of her daughter Rajkumari and came to know about the death in the following morning. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. On the other hand the defence examined none. Upon completion of trial and after a detailed examination of materials, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established that both the appellants were guilty under Sections 498A/302/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and accordingly he convicted them thereunder. However, the learned trial court held the appellants not guilty u/s 304B/406/34, IPC and acquitted them of the said charges. 4. In assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. However, the learned trial court held the appellants not guilty u/s 304B/406/34, IPC and acquitted them of the said charges. 4. In assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions; (i) There exists major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and therefore, the learned trial court has gone wrong in convicting the appellants under Sections 498A/302/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. (ii) There exists no legal proof of demand of dowry and accordingly there exists no motive to commit the crime as alleged. (iii) In the alternative there exists no clear cut legal proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellants for committing the murder of the deceased by administering poison. In this context, Mr. Nayak relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, According to him the prosecution evidence may at best point to the guilt of the appellants only u/s 306, IPC. Maximum punishment for 306, IPC being imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years with fine, since appellant No. 1 has already undergone imprisonment for more than 9 years and appellant No. 2 is an old lady of 70 years and has already undergone imprisonment for more than 6 years, they have been sufficiently punished. Accordingly, the jail criminal appeal may be disposed of. 5. On the other hand Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State while defending the impugned judgment submitted that there exists no major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there exists enough legal proof relating to the demand of dowry and mere fact that the learned trial court recorded an acquittal order u/s 304B, IPC does not mean the evidence relating to demand of dowry has been completely wiped out. According to him the conviction u/s 498A, IPC itself shows that the deceased suffered harassment as she failed to meet unlawful demand of dowry. Lastly, Mr. Zafarulla submitted that the chain of circumstances in the present case was complete in all respects so as to attract a conviction under Sections 302/34, IPC. 6. Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the evidence on record carefully. P.W.1 scribed the F.I.R. under Ext.1 and proved the same. Lastly, Mr. Zafarulla submitted that the chain of circumstances in the present case was complete in all respects so as to attract a conviction under Sections 302/34, IPC. 6. Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the evidence on record carefully. P.W.1 scribed the F.I.R. under Ext.1 and proved the same. In his examination-in-chief he made it clear that he scribed the F.I.R. as per instruction of the informant (P.W.4) and later read over and explained the contents of the report to P.W.4, who admitted the contents and signed the same. He further made it clear that he did not know anything else. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was examined by the police. P.W.2 is a co-villager of P.W.4. In the examination-in-chief he deposed that he attended the marriage of appellant and the deceased Jyochhana. He did not know anything else. P.W.2 was declared hostile. In the cross-examination he stated that he could not attend the marriage of the deceased and appellant No. 1 as he was ill. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief she deposed that at the time of marriage they had paid Rs. 14,000/- as dowry as per the previous settlement and they could not give the rest dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of furniture. For one year her daughter Jyochhana remained well at her in-law's house. A son was born to her. After the birth of the son, demanding the balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- appellant No. 2 and her daughter Raja Kumari had assaulted her daughter Jyochhana and had denied to give food to her. At times she was also driven out by them from their house. When the deceased daughter was nine months pregnant she was left at the house of P.W.3 for delivery. Seven months after the delivery, the deceased daughter was taken to her in-law's house and there she was assaulted by appellant No. 1 and denied food by appellant No. 2 by demanding dowry amount. The deceased was not allowed to come to her father's place for about two years despite her approach. Thereafter, a daughter was born to the deceased (Jyochhana). Then, the deceased stayed at the house of P.W.3 for about one and half years. Sometimes after the deceased was taken to her in-law's house and again assault on the deceased by both the appellants along with sister-in-law Rajkumari started. Thereafter, a daughter was born to the deceased (Jyochhana). Then, the deceased stayed at the house of P.W.3 for about one and half years. Sometimes after the deceased was taken to her in-law's house and again assault on the deceased by both the appellants along with sister-in-law Rajkumari started. They continued to torture the deceased and she was kept in a miserable condition. About one year three months back appellant No. 1 came to the house of P.W.3 in the morning at about 5.00 A.M. and informed P.W.3 that her daughter Jyochhana had died due to scorpion bite. After informing her, appellant No. 1 had left her house. Thereafter P.W.3 informed her two sons one of whom is P.W.4 and they went to the house of the appellants. After returning from the house of the appellants, both the sons informed her that they noticed injuries on the dead body of Jyochhana. In her cross-examination. P.W.3 made it clear that she had paid the dowry amount of Rs. 14,000/- to the appellants at the time of marriage and the entire money was given in five hundred currency notes and one hundred currency notes. She also stated that she had heard from her deceased daughter about the torture and assault to her. During visit of P.W.3 to the house of the appellants, she had also seen that a very little food was given to her daughter and her daughter told her about assault and torture to her by the appellants and had shown the injuries on her body caused to her due to assault. P.W.3 also deposed that she had questioned about the torture of the deceased to appellant No. 2 and her stock reply was usually the husbands assault the wives. While at Bombay, the deceased sent a letter to P.W.3 intimating regarding assault and torture to her by her husband appellant No. 1. Thinking that the torture and assault might aggravate, she did not report the matter to the police. Thus nothing has been elicited from P.W.3 in her cross-examination to demolish her version relating to core prosecution story. P.W.4 is the informant and brother of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he deposed that at the time of marriage Rs. 14,000/-was given as dowry and a promise was made to pay Rs. 10,000/- later towards the wooden furniture like cot and almirah. P.W.4 is the informant and brother of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he deposed that at the time of marriage Rs. 14,000/-was given as dowry and a promise was made to pay Rs. 10,000/- later towards the wooden furniture like cot and almirah. During the first year of marriage, the deceased was looked after well. As they could not give the balance dowry amount as promised, the appellants along with Rajkumari started assaulting and torturing the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased was also not given proper food at her in-law's house and assault and torture by the appellants continued till the death of the deceased. About one year and four months back appellant No. 1 came to the house of P.W.4 at about 5.00 A.M. in the morning and informed that due to scorpion bite his sister had suffered from 'Sanipata' and had expired. After giving this message to P.W.3. appellant No. 1 went away. Thereafter, on getting the information P.W.4 along with his brother and other persons went to the house of the appellants. On reaching there, they saw that the dead body of the deceased lying in the front room of the house of the appellants and appellant No. 1 was making arrangements for cremation of the dead body. P.W.4 and Sibaram kept guarding the dead body of his sister so that the dead body would not be cremated. Thereafter, P.W.4 proceeded to his village and called P.W.1 to scribe a report. Accordingly, he proceeded with the report under Ext.1 to Hinjilicut Police Station. Within one hour, the police reached near the dead body of the deceased and made inquest over the dead body. Ext.2 is the inquest report prepared by the police. The police sent the dead body of the deceased to Berhampur Hospital for post-mortem examination and released the dowry articles given by the father of the deceased at the time of marriage, after seizure of the same from the house of the appellants. Ext.4 is the Zimanam executed by P.W.4. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that his parents had promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of the wooden furniture afterwards in presence of Rajkumari and others. During the life time of his father, none of the appellants or anybody on their behalf had made any demand for payment of the promised balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 10,000/- for purchase of the wooden furniture afterwards in presence of Rajkumari and others. During the life time of his father, none of the appellants or anybody on their behalf had made any demand for payment of the promised balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/-. About four months after the death of his father, the appellants started making demand for the dowry. While P.W.4 returned to his village from the house of the appellants, the neighbourers of the appellants had informed him that the appellants had beaten his sister to death. Thus nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to doubt the core prosecution story as deposed by P.W.4. P.W.5 is the neighbour of the appellants. In his examination-in-chief he deposed that his house was situated one house apart from the house of the appellants. After the marriage the deceased was being assaulted by her husband appellant No. 1 but he could not say the reason for the assault. According to him, assault on the deceased by the appellants started sometime after the birth of the second child. About one year and four months back on a Tuesday in the night at about 9 P.M. both the appellants assaulted the deceased, Jyochhana inside their house. When the deceased came outside of their house towards the back yard during the assault she was again dragged inside the house by both the appellants. While the assault was continuing on the deceased, P.W.5 slept in his house after taking meal. He got up in the morning on the next day. He heard that Jyochhana had died. The dead body of Jyochhana was inside the house of the appellants. As he belonged to scheduled caste, he did not enter into the house of the appellants, who were Brahmins. He saw the dead body of the deceased, when the appellants brought the dead body from inside in order to take it for the cremation. The dead body was covered by a cloth. In the cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that in the night of occurrence both the appellants, the deceased Jyochhana and two children were only staying in their house and that he never had any quarrel with the appellants. Further he stated that none of the appellants had cried after the death of Jyochhana. The dead body was covered by a cloth. In the cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that in the night of occurrence both the appellants, the deceased Jyochhana and two children were only staying in their house and that he never had any quarrel with the appellants. Further he stated that none of the appellants had cried after the death of Jyochhana. However, the I.O. (P.W.10) in the cross-examination stated that P.W.5 had not stated before him that the deceased had come out to back yard while she was being assaulted by the appellants. P.W.5 also did not state before the I.O. that the appellants assaulted the deceased in the night of occurrence. P.W.6 happens to be another neighbour, who in his examination-in-chief stated that for first six months of marriage the deceased lived peacefully. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 used to assault the deceased almost every day demanding dowry. He further stated that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased in the back yard of their house and inside of their house demanding more dowry. Whenever the deceased asked for food, the appellants used to say her to bring dowry from her parents house so that food would be given to her. She was not given food most of the time. Appellant No. 2 also used to assault the deceased demanding her to bring dowry. As the assault on the deceased by the appellants was almost a daily affair, he did not attach much importance. On 25.6.2002 at about 9 P.M. in the night when P.W.6 was taking his food, he heard the crying sound of Jyochhana Panigrahi saying "Marigali Marigali" coming from the house of the appellants. He went to the back yard of the house of the appellants and saw appellant No. 1 holding tuft of hair of the deceased and assaulting her by a stick and appellant No. 2 by holding at the waist portion of the deceased was pulling her towards their house. The deceased was taken inside the house and the door of the backyard was closed. Then P.W.6 returned to his house and after taking meal, he went to sleep. At about mid night when he went out of his house, he saw appellant No. 1 came out of the house holding a bamboo basket and proceeded towards the river. Thereafter P.W.6 went inside his house and slept. Then P.W.6 returned to his house and after taking meal, he went to sleep. At about mid night when he went out of his house, he saw appellant No. 1 came out of the house holding a bamboo basket and proceeded towards the river. Thereafter P.W.6 went inside his house and slept. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that whenever he heard the row resulting from the assault to the deceased, he went to the house of the appellant and witnessed the assault on the deceased by the appellants. He never interfered during the assault on the deceased as the appellants used to shout at him saying that he should not interfere in their family matter. He further stated that assault on the deceased in the night of occurrence had taken place for about half an hour in the backyard. Further in the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion to the effect that appellant No. 1 had never demanded dowry and had never tortured and assaulted the deceased at any time including in the night of occurrence on 25.6.2002. P.W.6 denied a suggestion that he was inimical towards the appellants. Thus, nothing has been elicited from P.W.6 in cross-examination to draw adverse inference. P.W.7 is the family priest, who presided over the marriage of appellant No. 1 and the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he stated that during the marriage, the father of the deceased paid Rs. 14,000/- as dowry at the marriage pandal and he promised to pay Rs. 10,000/- later on towards the wooden furniture and other articles. After marriage, the deceased stayed at her in-law's house and about one and half years back, P.W.7 heard that Jyochhana was murdered while staying at her in-law's house. In the cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that nobody had forced the father of the deceased to pay money and to make promise for payment of further money at the marriage pandal. P.W.8 was the Tahasildar of Hinjilicut and proved the inquest report. P.W.9 the witness to the seizure and proved the seizure list under Ext.5, containing the dowry articles. P.W.10 was the I.O. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he received the written report of the informant (P.W.4) and registered the case. He sent the requisition to the S.D.M., Chatrapur and made inquest over the dead body. He issued command certificate to the police constable-Nakula Nayak (P.W.11) and examined the witnesses. P.W.10 was the I.O. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he received the written report of the informant (P.W.4) and registered the case. He sent the requisition to the S.D.M., Chatrapur and made inquest over the dead body. He issued command certificate to the police constable-Nakula Nayak (P.W.11) and examined the witnesses. He issued dead body challan to the police constable for post-mortem examination of the dead body and also prepared the spot map. He proved the same as Ext.7. He forwarded the appellants to court on 27.6.2002. He examined P.W.2, who stated that the appellants demanded Rs. 14,000/- as dowry money and Rs. 10,000/- towards purchase of wooden articles to be given to them at the marriage pandal and after the marriage he was informed by the appellants that only Rs. 14,000/-was given to them towards dowry and the rest of Rs. 10,000/- was promised to be paid later on. P.W.2 also stated before the I.O. that due to nonpayment of balance dowry amount, both the appellants used to assault the deceased and denied food to her. However, it may be noted that as indicated earlier P.W.2 turned hostile during his examination in the court. In the cross-examination, P.W.10 stated that he had examined P.W.3, who has not stated before him that the settlement of dowry was made about one month prior to the marriage. She had not stated before him that Rs. 3,000/-out of the balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to their daughter. P.W.3 has not stated before him that the deceased was sent to her house once and she was not allowed to come to her house, when her father died and that the appellants asked the deceased not to see the face of her parents. P.W.10 in his cross-examination, further stated that he examined P.W.4 and P.W.4 had not stated before him that at the time of settlement of the dowry amount, the sworn friend of the father of the appellants were also present. He had not also stated that appellant No. 1 had demanded for the balance dowry amount by going to the house of his in-law. He had also not stated before P.W.10 that he had been to the house of the appellants about six months prior to the death of the deceased and at that time the deceased had complained before him about the torture by the appellants. He had also not stated before P.W.10 that he had been to the house of the appellants about six months prior to the death of the deceased and at that time the deceased had complained before him about the torture by the appellants. The appellants had not allowed the deceased to accompany him to his house. P.W.10 in his cross-examination also stated that he had also examined P.W.5, who had not stated before him that the deceased had come out to the backyard when she was assaulted and the appellants took her inside the house by dragging in the night of occurrence. P.W.5 had not stated before P.W.10 that he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased in the night of occurrence. P.W.10 denied that his investigation is perfunctory and he filed the charge sheet falsely. P.W.11 is the Constable, who in his examination-in-chief spoke about the command certificate issued to him and issuance of dead body challan and direction to take the dead body of the deceased to Berhampur Hospital for post-mortem. He identified the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer, who had conducted the post-mortem. In the cross-examination he denied a suggestion that the Medical Officer had not handed over M.O.I and M.O.II after post mortem examination to him. P.W.12 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. On 26.6.2002 he found the following external and internal injuries; External injuries i. A parallel bruise 6 cm x 1.25 cm on the front of the chest over right mammary area. ii. A parallel bruise 6 cm. x 1.25 cm on the outer aspect of right forearm. iii. A parallel bruise 5 cm. x 1.25 cm on the outer aspect of left forearm. iv. A parallel bruise 4 cm. x 3 cm. on the outer aspect of left arm. v. A parallel bruise 10 cm. x 1.25 cm. on the back over right scapular region. vi. Contusion with echymosis 12 cm. x 12 cm over the right shoulder joint embedding 3 No. of elongated bruises overlapping each other. vii. A parallel bruise 7 cm. x 1.25 cm on the outer aspect of the right thigh. viii. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm. on the right thigh 7 cm. below the injury No. vii. ix. A parallel bruise 4 cm x 1.25 cm on the outer aspect of the right knee. vii. A parallel bruise 7 cm. x 1.25 cm on the outer aspect of the right thigh. viii. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm. on the right thigh 7 cm. below the injury No. vii. ix. A parallel bruise 4 cm x 1.25 cm on the outer aspect of the right knee. Internal Injuries i. The under surface of the scalp was found contused 3 cm. x 3 cm. over left parietal eminence. ii. The stomach contained about 200 grams of partially digested identifiable rice food mixed to it some dirty semi-liquid substance emitting kerosene like odour. The mucosa of the stomach looked smooth, hyperemic and edematous with patchy hemorrhagic area. The meussa of the intestine also looks hyperemia All other internal abdominal organs were found intact and congested. iii. Both the lungs were found congested and oedematous. No internal mechanical injury of any type could be detected in the internal organs. On observation of the injuries, P.W.12 opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the parallel bruises could have been caused by blow from a lathi like cylindrical weapon. The injuries were not fatal to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The external injuries since were purplish blue in colour might have been caused within 24 hours prior to the death. He further opined that the death of the deceased could have been due to ingestion of an oral poison possibly an insecticidal. The time of death was within 12 to 18 hours from the time of the post mortem. The external injuries noticed by him on the dead body of the deceased might be possible at about 9 to 10 P.M. on 25.6.2002. In the cross-examination, P.W.12 admitted that there was internal bleeding in the underlying soft tissues of the external injuries. But there was no external bleeding. All the external injuries were simple in nature. From the nature of the food contents and odour and the nature of the injuries that he had noticed in the stomach and the other internal organs, he could conclusively say that it was the case of poisoning. He further stated that chemical test of the viscera would only confirm the nature and character of the poison. 7. From the nature of the food contents and odour and the nature of the injuries that he had noticed in the stomach and the other internal organs, he could conclusively say that it was the case of poisoning. He further stated that chemical test of the viscera would only confirm the nature and character of the poison. 7. All the above discussion and analysis would show that except on the factum of assault made by the appellants on the deceased from time to time including prior to the date of occurrence on account of non-payment of dowry, there does not exist any direct evidence with regard to the death of the deceased. However, from an analysis of evidence following circumstances are found in this case; (a) At the time of marriage of appellant No. 1 with the deceased, Rs. 14,000/- was paid as dowry and the balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- was promised to be paid later. (b) On account of non-payment of the balance dowry, the appellants used to assault and torture the deceased. On that ground she was also denied food. (c) On 25.6.2002 at about 9 P.M., both the appellants assaulted the deceased inside their house. Appellant No. 1 assaulted the deceased by a stick in presence of appellant No. 2. As per the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.12), the deceased suffered around 11 injuries out of which 9 injuries were external and 2 injuries were internal injuries. The external injuries were simple in nature. The doctor further opined that the injuries were not fatal to cause death in ordinary course of nature. (d) In the same night intervening 25.6.2002 and 26.6.2002 at about mid night the deceased expired due to poisoning. (e) Appellant No. 1 was found in the dead of the night of 25.6.2002/26.6.2002 proceeding towards the river side of the village from his house holding a basket. (f) Both the appellants were last seen together with the deceased inside the same house from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. (g) Appellant No. 1 went to the house of P.W.3 and informed her that her daughter had died out of scorpion bite which information has not turned out to be true and has not been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor. 8. In the above background, let us examine the submission made by Mr. (g) Appellant No. 1 went to the house of P.W.3 and informed her that her daughter had died out of scorpion bite which information has not turned out to be true and has not been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor. 8. In the above background, let us examine the submission made by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants that there exist major contradictions with regard to the version of prosecution witnesses and on that ground the impugned judgment of the learned trial court ought to be set aside. In this context he drew attention of this Court to some contradictory statements of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 vis-a-vis the evidence of P.W.10. On examination of the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 vis-a-vis the evidence of P.W.10, according to us there exists some minor contradictions without affecting the core prosecution evidence relating to cruelty inflicted on the deceased all throughout on account of non-payment of balance dowry amount. So far as this part is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 corroborate one another. Inflicting of cruelty on account of non-payment of dowry amount has also been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6, who is a neighbour of the appellants. It may be noted here that P.W.6 is a trustworthy witness, who inspires confidence. He is an eye-witness to the part of occurrence, i.e., assault on the deceased from time to time and on the night of occurrence. He clearly stated about participation of both the appellants on assault on the night of occurrence thereby falsifying the plea of alibi being taken by appellant No. 2. Therefore, much cannot be read into the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 those being minor in nature. So far as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, we accept the contention urged by the leaned counsel for the appellants that there exists some major contradictions in his evidence with regard to the deceased being dragged inside the house and P.W.5 having seen the assault on the deceased by the appellants inside their house on the date of occurrence. So far as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, we accept the contention urged by the leaned counsel for the appellants that there exists some major contradictions in his evidence with regard to the deceased being dragged inside the house and P.W.5 having seen the assault on the deceased by the appellants inside their house on the date of occurrence. Even if we ignore the evidence of P.W.5 with regard to his version relating to occurrence at 9 P.M. of 25.6.2002, still then on a cumulative reading of rest part of evidence of P.W.5 along with evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 12 clearly make out a case under Sections 498A/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the appellants. 9. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel of the appellants that there exists no proof relating to demand of dowry and therefore, this is a case where no motive for committing the crime has been proved by the prosecution and in such background, the learned trial court's judgment cannot stand the scrutiny of law; our response would be that such a contention has no legs to stand. A scanning of evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 would show that on account of non-payment of balance dowry amount, the deceased suffered torture and assault till her death. Though, answers to questions u/s 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be strictly construed as evidence, however, we want to remind the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No. 1 while answering first two questions has admitted that they had demanded Rs. 14,000/- and the said dowry amount was paid on the date of marriage. All these would show that there exists enough proof with regard to demand of balance amount of dowry and on account of nonpayment of same the deceased was subjected to torture. In such background, it cannot be accepted that the appellants have no motive to commit the crime. 10. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that with regard to death of the deceased the appellants could not be fastened with liabilities under Sections 302/34, IPC and at best the prosecution could be said to have made out a case under Sections 306/34, IPC. In this context, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. In this context, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, We accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants for the following reasons. In this context, we may make it clear that we are not satisfied that the chain of circumstances, as proved provide a complete chain in order to hold the appellants guilt under Sections 302/34, IPC. It may be seen that the doctor (P.W.12) in his evidence has made it clear that though all the injuries on the deceased were ante mortem in nature, but those were not fatal to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He, however, made it clear that the cause of death was due to poisoning. Now the question remains as to whether there is enough evidence on record to show that it was the appellants and appellants alone who administered poison to the deceased. The learned trial court has come to a conclusion that as the appellants did not rush the deceased to a nearby doctor and since one of them was found moving towards the river at the dead of night, and as the appellant No. 1 had given false information that the deceased died of scorpion bite, since there has been a failure of the plea of alibi taken by appellant No. 2, all these things form additional links in chain of circumstances to prove the charge of murder against the appellants notwithstanding the fact that there existed no injury on the face of the deceased, pointing towards forcible administration of poison. According to the learned trial court at that point of time the deceased must have been completely subdued and exhausted by the merciless beating before administration of poison and in such circumstances there cannot be much of resistance from the side of the deceased. To us such conclusion of the learned trial court is based on conjectures and surmises. In this context we cannot ignore the dictum that the graver the offence higher should be the standard of proof. In this context, let us examine the citation relied by the learned counsel for the appellants on the case law relating to death on account of poisoning. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. In this context we cannot ignore the dictum that the graver the offence higher should be the standard of proof. In this context, let us examine the citation relied by the learned counsel for the appellants on the case law relating to death on account of poisoning. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been authoritatively laid down that four important circumstances are required to be proved in order to convict a person u/s 302, IPC for causing death by poisoning. These are (1) there has to be a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased; (2) that the deceased should have died on account of poison said to have been administered; (3) that the accused must have had the poison in his possession; and (4) that accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. It was further made clear in the said case that merely because the accused had the opportunity to administer poison and the same was found in the body of the deceased, it can not be presumed that the accused was in possession of poison. Possession of the poison by accused has to be proved either by direct/circumstantial evidence. If the same is not proved, on that ground alone prosecution must fail. In the present case, there exists no legal proof to the effect that the appellants possessed the poison in question, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Thus one of the most essential ingredients/requirements for proving, causing of death by the appellants by administering poison is missing. Further prosecution has not led any evidence to completely exclude the possibility of deceased having committed suicide by consuming poison on account of continuous torture. This part has been completely lost sight of by the learned trial court. It appears that the learned court below while ignoring the fundamentals, has been unnecessarily swayed by additional links, which includes false defence. Thus, according to our considered opinion, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants is right in contending that the appellants cannot be fastened with liability under Sections 302/34, IPC. For all these reasons conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34, IPC and consequent sentence is set aside. Thus, according to our considered opinion, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants is right in contending that the appellants cannot be fastened with liability under Sections 302/34, IPC. For all these reasons conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34, IPC and consequent sentence is set aside. However, since the appellants all throughout tortured the deceased and since the prosecution has not led evidence to completely exclude the possibility of suicide, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased committed suicide out of desperation in order to escape from such torture. This clearly establishes the factum of abatement by the appellants. Under such circumstances, we find that the appellants are guilty under Sections 306/34, IPC and accordingly, we convict them thereunder. It is stated at the Bar that appellant No. 1 has already undergone imprisonment for more than 9 years and appellant No. 2, who is an old lady of 70 years has undergone imprisonment for more than 6 years. In such background while directing that their sentence for having been convicted under Sections 306/34, IPC would be confined to the period of incarceration already undergone by them, we impose on them a fine of Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand) which if realized shall be deposited in the names of two children of appellant No. 1. In case of default in payment, both the appellants will undergo further imprisonment for three months. Before closing the matter, we make it clear that we maintain the conviction of the appellants under Sections 498A/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, but no separate sentence is imposed. Accordingly, the Jail Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Final Result : Partly Allowed