JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for appellant Siya Ram in appeal No. 1956 of 1993 and for appellant Yog Dutt in appeal No. 1957 of 1993 and Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr dated 5th November, 1993 in Session Trial No. 287 of 1992 arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 1992 under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Under the impugned judgement of the Trial Court, the appellants Dinesh and Yog Dutt had been convicted of an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. They have also been convicted of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, while the appellant Siya Ram had been convicted of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. At the very outset, it may be recorded that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant Dinesh (appeal No. 1957 of 1993) had expired and therefore, under order of the Court dated 16th July, 2014, his appeal was abated. 4. The prosecution story, as reflected from the records, is as follows: A First Information Report was lodged by one Ameerchand son of Sri Diwan Singh, resident of Saman Pur, Police Station Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr on 31st January, 1992 at 17:30 hours at Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that Sarvesh was married with Dinesh Kumar son of Siya Ram, Village Maithana, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr after performance of all Hindu rituals on 9th February, 1991 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as dowry. In-laws of Sarvesh i.e. father and mother of her husband, namely, Siya Ram and Premwati and brother of her husband, namely, Yog Dutt demanded more dowry and harassed Sarvesh, for the same, Sarvesh had told the informant Ameerchand, her father, of the said harassment. In-laws used to beat the victim and did not provide her food and used to lock her in her room. In-laws used to beat the victim and did not provide her food and used to lock her in her room. It is for this reason the informant had brought back his two daughters from the house of their in-laws. Nearly 10-12 days earlier Siya Ram and Premwati had come to the informant house and desired to take both girls after assuring that they shall not ill-treat the daughters-in-law. On the assurance, Sarvesh was sent to the house of her in-laws. On 26th January, 1992 at around 3:00 p.m., an information was received from one Kunwar Pal that Sarvesh has been burnt to death by Dinesh, Siyaram, Premwati and Yog Dut and they had also consigned her dead body to fire. Sarvesh has been done to death by the accused for want of more dowry. It was also stated that information of said incident was forwarded through a registered envelope on the same day to the S.P., C.O. (City), S.I. Sri D.C. Singh, Sri A.K. Singh S.H.O. It was also stated that it was only on the insistence of the S.S.P. that the First Information Report was registered on 31st January, 1992 at Police Station Jahangirabad in G.D., as report No. 31 at 17.30 hours by Head Moharril Khadak Singh. 5. The investigation of the offence was initiated by S.I. Deep Chandra Singh. He visited the spot, where Sarvesh was stated to have been burnt, prepared the site plan. He also visited cremation ghat and prepared a site plan of the said place. He collected ashes of the burnt dead body from the cremation ghat. The investigation was thereafter transferred to Circle Officer (City) Rakesh Pradhan, who recorded the statement of the witnesses. After investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 6. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ramesh Chandra, brother of the deceased Sarvesh, as P.W. No. 1. Jogendari, sister of the deceased and wife of one of the accused Yog Dutt, was examined as P.W. No. 2. It may be recorded that the first informant Ameerchand, father of the deceased, expired during trial. Typed copy of First Information Report was proved by Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1). Kunwar Pal, who had communicated the death of Sarvesh, was examined as P.W. No. 3. Khadag Singh, who had registered Chik First Information Report was examined as P.W. No. 4. It may be recorded that the first informant Ameerchand, father of the deceased, expired during trial. Typed copy of First Information Report was proved by Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1). Kunwar Pal, who had communicated the death of Sarvesh, was examined as P.W. No. 3. Khadag Singh, who had registered Chik First Information Report was examined as P.W. No. 4. Rakesh Pradhan, Circle Officer (City), who had completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet was examined as P.W. No. 5. Sub-Inspector Deep Chandra Singh, who had initiated the investigation, was examined as P.W. No. 6. 7. It was admitted to the accused that the deceased Sarvesh was married to Dinesh Kumar and on the same day, Yog Dut brother of Dinesh Kumar was married to sister of the deceased, namely, Jogendari. However, the accused denied having demanded any dowry. It was admitted that marriage had taken place because of the efforts of Kunwar Pal (P.W.3). Accused admitted that last rites of the dead body of Sarvesh was performed by them. It was their case that Sarvesh had expired due to ailment, namely, Haiza and they have been falsely implicated for the offence. Since the dead body could not be recovered, question of medical examination of the same did not arise. From the evidence on record, it was established that the deceased Sarvesh had expired on 26th January, 1992 and that last rites of the deceased Sarvesh were done by the accused. Only issue, which requires examination, before the trial Court was as to whether Sarvesh has been done to death by the accused as narrated by the prosecution or she had expired because of ailment. 8. Ramesh Chandra (P.W.2) brother of the deceased had stated on oath that few days after the marriage of deceased, her in-laws had started harassing her for dowry. Jogendari, who was married to brother of Dinesh Kumar, in her statement as P.W.2, admitted her marriage with Yog Dutt and that of Sarvesh with Dinesh Kumar. She further stated that both sisters were harassed by their in-laws for more dowry. She further corroborated the facts which were disclosed in the First Information Report qua the accused having visited the house of the informant Ameer Chand and to have assured that they shall not harass the daughter-in-laws in future. While Sarvesh agreed to return to the house of in-laws but Jogendari refused to do so. She further corroborated the facts which were disclosed in the First Information Report qua the accused having visited the house of the informant Ameer Chand and to have assured that they shall not harass the daughter-in-laws in future. While Sarvesh agreed to return to the house of in-laws but Jogendari refused to do so. Kunwar Pal, in his statement as P.W.3, had stated that he had received information from the residents of the village that Sarvesh has been burnt to death by the accused at around 3 p.m. on the same day. He had informed Ameer Chand of the said fact. 9. Before the trial Court, the accused had stated that Smt. Sarvesh had expired due to Haiza but they failed to produce any evidence qua the treatment of such ailment of Sarvesh nor any other evidence was led to establish the said plea. 10. The trial Court on the basis of evidence brought on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home charge the against the accused Dinesh Kumar and Yog Dutt with certainty but so far as accused Siya Ram and Premwati are concerned, it has been recorded that offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could not be established beyond doubt. It has also been recorded that the accused Dinesh and Yog Dutt had tried to destroy the evidence and they were responsible for consigning the dead body of Sarvesh to fire after her death. It has been held that Siya Ram who was the father-in-law was also guilty of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code only while Premwati, mother-in-law of deceased Sarvesh was acquitted of the charges levelled. 11. Challenging the order so passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants vehementally submitted before this Court that there is no direct evidence of Sarvesh having been burnt to death by the accused and therefore, no offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could be established against the appellants Dinesh and Yog Dutt. It is further stated that qua Siya Ram, the father-in-law, the trial Court itself has found that no offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could be brought home without reasonable doubt against him. It is further stated that qua Siya Ram, the father-in-law, the trial Court itself has found that no offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code could be brought home without reasonable doubt against him. Under Hindu-rites the dead body had to be consigned to fire and if such ritual has been performed, no offence can be said to have been committed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. It is further stated that a false First Information Report was got lodged on the instructions of the counsel, namely, Prem Dutt Bhardwaj. 13. It is the case of the accused-appellants before this Court also that Sarvesh had expired a natural death due to ailment. The Sub-Inspector Deep Chandra Singh in his statement as P.W.-6 had disclosed that one Vijay Pal resident of Maithana had informed that he entered the house after coming to know of the incident. Inside the chauk, while standing at place-B, he had seen the burnt dead body of Sarvesh. But for the same reasons best known to the prosecution, they did not produce Vijay Pal as a prosecution witness, which is fatal. 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State disputes the correctness of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. He submits that the prosecution in the facts of the case has been able to bring home the charge with certainty against the accused appellant. 15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present appeals. At the very outset it may be recorded that there is no direct evidence of deceased Sarvesh having been burnt to death by the accused. Having regard to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it was established beyond doubt that Sarvesh expired on 26th January, 1992 within one year of her marriage. The harassment meted out to Sarvesh for want of dowry, immediately after the marriage by the accused was also fully established by the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. It may be noticed that P.W. 2 is none-other than the wife of one of the accused, namely, Yog Dutt, brother-in-law of the deceased. 16. The trial Court has found that the defence will lead no evidence in support of its plea that Sarvesh had expired due to Haiza, documentary or oral. 17. It may be noticed that P.W. 2 is none-other than the wife of one of the accused, namely, Yog Dutt, brother-in-law of the deceased. 16. The trial Court has found that the defence will lead no evidence in support of its plea that Sarvesh had expired due to Haiza, documentary or oral. 17. The trial Court has recorded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was completed and the evidence was more than sufficient to lead to the conclusion that Sarvesh has been burnt to death by the accused. After having done Sarvesh to death, they had cremated her at the cremation ghat. The story as narrated in the First Information Report was corroborated by the testimony of Kunwar Pal (P.W.3). It has also been found that the First Information Report was forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 27th January, 1992, which disclosed Sarvesh has been done to death by the accused. 18. We find in the facts of the case that none production of Vijay Pal as a prosecution witness cannot be said to be fatal in any manner. The trial Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the chain whereof has been completed, more than sufficiently, has rightly held that the appellant Yog Dutt alongwith Dinesh, (who expired during the pendency of the appeal), guilty of an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and similarly Siya Ram has been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 37 , while dealing with the case based on circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court has observed as under: “12. There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion which is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility is that the accused has committed the crime. 13. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.” 20. In the case of Brajendrasingh v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 289 , the Apex Court while reiterating the above principles further added that: “28. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively.” 21. In view of the evidence on record, we find no reason to interfere with the conviction and punishment as per the judgement and order of the trial Court. 22. The conviction of the appellant, namely, Yog Dutt of appeal No. 1957 of 1993 under Section 304-B as also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Siya Ram of appeal No. 1956 of 1993 under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. 23. Both the appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. Both the appellants, Yog Dutt and Siya Ram are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence, awarded to him by the trial Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr may ensure compliance of the judgement delivered by this Court today. ——————