JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C No. V, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.374 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the trial court while acquitting the appellants under Section 302 found them guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and also for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 313 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for each of the offences under Section 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-for the offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code and with default clause and were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 201 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause. 2. The case of the prosecution as has been made out in the FIR is that one Rahana Khatoon was married to Farookh Ansari (appellant no.2) in the year 1999. After the marriage, she came to her in-laws’ place. After 2-3 months of the marriage, father-in-law Hasim Ansari (appellant no.1) and sisters-in-law (appellants no.3, 4 and 5) and also the husband (appellant no.2) started putting forth the demand of Rs.20,000/-and one sewing machine. Upon it when Rahana Khatoon (the deceased) asked them that it is not possible for her father to meet the demand, she was abused and was subjected to assault. This continued for quite a long time. On 17.6.2000, when her father (P.W.4) came to her place, accused persons assaulted and abused her by saying that if the demand made is not fulfilled, they will kill her. When the father tried to rescue her, husband gave a kick on her belly, as a result of which, pregnancy got aborted. Seeing all this when her father tried to take her to his house, her husband and father-in-law did not allow her to go with her father. Next morning, i.e.18.6.2000, her father went away. Thereafter on 19.6.2000 her husband took her to Dr. Indira Prasad for cleaning as she had earlier suffered abortion. On 21.6.2000 she was brought home where some medicine was given to her and also some medicine was injected, as a result of which, she fell asleep. Next morning, i.e.18.6.2000, her father went away. Thereafter on 19.6.2000 her husband took her to Dr. Indira Prasad for cleaning as she had earlier suffered abortion. On 21.6.2000 she was brought home where some medicine was given to her and also some medicine was injected, as a result of which, she fell asleep. When she felt extensive heat, she woke up and found herself burning. She shouted for help but nobody came to rescue her and then she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in the hospital where her husband and father-in-law were present, who told her to make statement as per their wishes, otherwise she would be killed. She became quite fearful and as such, she made statement but what statement she could give, she is not remembering. After a while when her mother (P.W.3) came, they asked her to put her signature over a blank piece of paper on the pretext that unless and until it is signed, Doctor will not start treating her. Meanwhile, when Sub-Inspector, Lalan Thakur (not examined) of Bariatu Police Station came to the hospital, he recorded her fardbeyan (Ext.4) on 23.6.2000 at the hospital, upon it a formal FIR was drawn against all the five accused persons-appellants. On 27.6.2000, the deceased in course of treatment succumbed to her burn injuries. Thereupon one Md. Gani Ansari (P.W.5) brother of the deceased made statement before the police to the same effect. During investigation, Investigating Officer held inquest on the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr.R.S.Sahu (not examined). However, post mortem examination report (Ext.7) has been proved by a formal witness. From the post mortem examination report it appears that Doctor did find “Dermo epidermal burn injury involving whole of the body surface except front and back of lower abdomen, a portion of thigh and sole. Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.7) with an opinion that death was caused due to burn injury and on account of its complication. After completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences was taken against all the appellants. Thereupon when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. After completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences was taken against all the appellants. Thereupon when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. Of them, P.W.1, Naim Ansari, brother of the deceased, P.W.2, Mumtaz Ansari, relative of the deceased, P.W.3, Rahamtul Khatoon, mother of the deceased, P.W.5, Gani Ansari, brother of the deceased did depose that the deceased after getting married to appellant no.2 when came to her in-laws’ place, all the appellants started demanding Rs.20,000/-and sewing machine. In order to get the demand fulfilled, she was being subjected to abuse and assault. They also testified about the fact which is there in the fardbeyan relating to deceased being burnt to death. P.W.6, Qurban Ansari has turned hostile. P.W.7, Ajay Kumar, an Advocate clerk has proved post mortem report of the deceased and P.W.8, Dr.Indira Prasad has testified that police had enquired about the matter relating to abortion but she had told him that in absence of any paper, she cannot say as to whether she had ever treated the deceased or not. Upon closure of the prosecution case, incriminating materials appearing against the accused persons were put to the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which they denied. The trial court having relied upon the testimonies of the witnesses and also over the fardbeyan (Ext.4) of the deceased did find the appellants guilty for the offences as aforesaid and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge. 3. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the deceased, earlier to her statement as made under the fardbeyan (Ext.4), had made statement in the hospital itself wherein she had stated that while she was cooking food, she accidentally caught fire from the hearth and tried to put it off but when failed she raised alarm, upon which her father-in-law, who was working in the field came and then put off fire and during that course, her father-in-law received burn injury over his hand. The said statement had been recorded by the same Investigating Officer, Lalan Thakur on 22.6.2000 at 1.30 hours. The said statement had been recorded by the same Investigating Officer, Lalan Thakur on 22.6.2000 at 1.30 hours. Said fardbeyan was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Mandu Police Station (O.P. Kuju) but the prosecution purposely did not bring it on the record and thereby truth was never brought to the court and hence, injustice had been done to the accused persons. 4. Further it was submitted that the prosecution has come forward with a case that accused persons got pregnancy of the deceased terminated but the prosecution has failed to establish that charge as the Doctor, who had examined by the prosecution as P.W.8 did not support the case of the prosecution that she had ever washed off the ovary after the deceased had suffered abortion and that no evidence is there to the effect that the appellants ever did any act for causing disappearance of evidence of any offence for screening themselves from legal punishment and thereby the trial court committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. 5. Further it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances as stated above, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, who had also recorded the earlier statement of the deceased on 22.6.2000 has prejudiced the case of the appellant to a great extent and thereby the order of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that earlier statement, which is said to have been made on 22.6.2000 though seems to have been made by the deceased earlier to his statement which was given on 23.6.2000, upon which FIR was drawn, had been given by the deceased under the pressure of the husband and father-in-law and thereby the same cannot have any adverse effect upon the case of the prosecution when the deceased in her fardbeyan which can be taken to be a dying declaration has clearly stated about she being subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also regarding her cause of death which has been supported by the witnesses examined by the prosecution and thereby the order of conviction and sentence never warrants to be interfered with. 7. As against this submission, it was pointed out by learned Sr. 7. As against this submission, it was pointed out by learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants that the facts and circumstances do suggest that the statement which was made by the deceased on 22.6.2000 could not have been the statement given under fear as claimed rather it appears to be quite natural. It is the second statement which appears to have been made by the deceased at the instance of the nephew of the informant who was in the police service and was present while the deceased was in the hospital and therefore, statement made on 23.6.2000 can easily be taken to be artificial and after thought. 8. In the facts and circumstances stated above, it needs to be examined as to whether the trial court was justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence? 9. The deceased in her fardbeyan given on 23.6.2000 recorded by Lalan Thakur (not examined) of Bariatu Police Station has stated about she being subjected to assault and abuse on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.20,000/-and a sewing machine. She has also stated that when her father-in-law was there in her in-laws’ place on 17.6.2000, her husband assaulted and abused and kicked on her belly, as a result of which, pregnancy got terminated. Thereupon she was taken to Dr.Indira Prasad for washing off her ovary which was done. Next day when she was brought home, she was given medicine and also some medicine was injected, as a result of which, she fell asleep. When she felt extensive heat, she woke up and found herself burning. She shouted for help but nobody came to rescue her and then she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in hospital where she gave statement as per wishes of the husband and father-in-law as they had asked her to make statement, otherwise she would be killed and then when her mother came, they took her signature on a plain piece of paper by saying that unless her daughter signs over the paper, doctor will not start treatment. Earlier to aforesaid statement recorded by the same Investigating Officer on 22.6.2000 has not been brought on the record. Earlier to aforesaid statement recorded by the same Investigating Officer on 22.6.2000 has not been brought on the record. However, suggestion has been given to the mother and father (P.Ws.3 and 4) of the deceased that the deceased on 22.6.2000 had made statement that when she accidentally caught fire, she raised alarm and then father-in-law, who was working in the field came and put off fire and brought her to hospital which the witnesses have denied but from the statement made by the deceased on 23.6.2000 it does appear that she has admitted that earlier also she had made statement but under duress but this theory of giving statement under pressure is not acceptable as P.W.4 has testified in his cross-examination that he along with his wife (P.W.3) and one nephew had arrived at hospital on 21.6.2000. P.W.4 has further testified that though he had left hospital but his wife and nephew remained throughout with the deceased till the deceased died. In such event, it never appears probable that the accused persons would be able to apply force upon the deceased to make statement as per their wishes, particularly when mother of the deceased and nephew of P.W.4 were all along with the deceased. 10. How unnatural is the statement made by the deceased on 23.6.2000 would be evident from the fact that on one hand the deceased makes statement that on being fearful that the accused persons would not allow her to survive she made statement as per wishes of the husband and father-in-law but on the other hand, she simultaneously says that when her mother came, they took LTI of her on the pretext that unless LTI is given on the paper, Doctor will not start making treatment which story itself appears to be unnatural as normally instruction is given by the attendant of the patient. It be reiterated that on 22.6.2000 not only the husband and father-in-law of the deceased but also mother of the deceased (P.W.3) and nephew of P.W.4 were present. Moreover, statement made by the deceased on 22.6.2000 was natural or had been given under duress or pressure could have been ascertained easily if the Investigating Officer who had recorded the statement of the deceased on 22.6.2000 and also on 23.6.2000 could have been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, statement made by the deceased on 22.6.2000 was natural or had been given under duress or pressure could have been ascertained easily if the Investigating Officer who had recorded the statement of the deceased on 22.6.2000 and also on 23.6.2000 could have been examined by the prosecution. On account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer, case of the defence certainly get prejudiced when one of the appellants father-in-law in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has said that he had received burn injury in his hand when he was trying to put off fire from the body of the deceased. 11. Going further in the matter, it be reiterated that it is the case of the prosecution that when the husband kicked on the belly of the deceased, who was carrying pregnancy, pregnancy got terminated but the prosecution has failed to establish this as Dr. Indira Prasad (P.W.8), who was examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge has clearly stated that she had made statement before the police when the police had come to make an enquiry as to whether she had made any treatment to the deceased, she had stated that unless the paper is produced before her, she would not be able to speak out as to whether any treatment was given to her or not. In absence of any evidence of Doctor, it is difficult to find out as to whether pregnancy which got terminated was forceful or it was on account of other reason. Thus, in these circumstances, the fardbeyan of the deceased Rehana Khatoon never inspire confidence to be believed so far it relates to the charge of putting her on fire and of causing miscarriage. 12. Further we do find that nothing is there to establish the charge that the appellants did any act for causing disappearance of evidence of commission of any offence for screening themselves from legal punishment and thereby the trial court committed illegality in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 313 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, it is set aside. 13. However, from the evidence adduced by the witnesses P.Ws. 13. However, from the evidence adduced by the witnesses P.Ws. 1,2,3,4 and 5 and also dying declaration of the deceased, we do find that the prosecution has been able to make out a case that the husband (appellant no.2) and father-in-law (appellant no.1) committed offence under Section 498A by putting demand and subjecting the deceased to torture. 14. It be stated that though evidences are there also against the other appellants, who are sisters-in-law of the deceased but it is not specific against them either to have put forth demand of dowry or subjected the deceased to torture. Moreover, P.W.4 is specific in his evidence that they had never made any demand of dowry in presence of him. P.W.5, brother of the deceased though has stated that demand was being made by the appellants 3, 4 and 5 also but when his attention was drawn to his earlier statement before the police that he had not stated like that, he denied but in absence of Investigating Officer, it could not be confirmed. 15. Under the circumstances, we do find that no cogent material is there against the appellants 3, 4 and 5 for establishing commission of offence under Section 498A though evidences are there against the husband (appellant no.2) and father-in-law (appellant no.1) and accordingly, husband and father-in-law are convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellants, as per the record, seem to have already served sentence for more than three years and thereby no further sentence needs to be passed. 16. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence relating to offences under Sections 304B, 313, 120B and 201 passed against all the appellants are hereby set aside. However, the appellants no.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence under Section 498A and was sentence to three years but they have already served that sentence and hence, they need not to serve any sentence further. Accordingly, the appellants Hasim Ansari @ Hashim Anshari and Md. Farookh Ansari @ Mobin @ Farookh Anshari are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. So far other appellants are concerned, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bond. 17. Thus, this appeal stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.