JUDGMENT 1. - In both these criminal appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellants are challenging the 2 of 21 validity of judgment dated 05.12.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in Session Case No.29/2008 (State v. Lahar Singh & Anr) , by which the trial court convicted the appellant, Lahar Singh for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC, and so also convicted the accused appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar for committing offence under Section 498-A of IPC and passed following sentence, which reads as under : Appellant Lahar Singh : 498A of IPC: Three years' Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 302 of IPC: Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Appellant Smt. Sohani Kunwar: 498A of IPC: Three years' Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. As per brief facts of the case upon written complaint dated 09.11.2007 (Ex.P/4) filed by complainant, Pratap Singh (PW.1), the S.H.O., Police Station-Gogunda, District Udaipur, registered an FIR No.208/2007 (Ex.P/12) on 09.11.2007 against the appellants for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 3. Before registration of above FIR, proceeding under Section 176 Cr.P.C. was commenced upon first report dated 09.11.2007 (Ex.P/1) submitted at 11.45 AM by the witness PW.1, Pratap Singh, father of the deceased, Smt. Sita Kunwar. The S.H.O. (PW.8 Ratan Lal) went on the spot and prepared site plan (Ex.P/2) on 09.11.2007 itself, and the "Panchayatnama" of the dead body was also prepared at 01.30 PM on 09.11.2007 in the proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. 4. The S.H.O. (PW.8 Ratan Lal) went on the spot and prepared site plan (Ex.P/2) on 09.11.2007 itself, and the "Panchayatnama" of the dead body was also prepared at 01.30 PM on 09.11.2007 in the proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C. 4. In the complaint submitted by the complainant PW.1 Pratap Singh, before the S.H.O., Police Station-Gogunda, at 11.45 PM on 09.11.2007, following allegations were levelled against the family members of in-laws of his daughter: lsok esa Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc Fkkuk xksxqUnk ftyk& mn;iqj jktLFkku fo"k;&dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkus ckcr~A egksn; th] fuosnu gS fd esjh iq=h lhrk daoj mez djhc 22 o"kZ dh 'kknh vkt ls djhc rhu lky igys Jh ysgj flag firk xqykc flag fuoklh eksjh;ksa dh dM+h;ka esa djkbZ Fkh vkt fnuakd 9@11@2007 dks yxHkx 8 cts dM+h;k ls nsojksa dk [ksM+k esa jru flag fuoklh vok.kh xqykc flag fuoklh dMh;ka okys esjs ?kj vk, vkSj eq>s dgk fd rqEgkjh cPph lhrk daoj chekj gSA fQj eSa vkSj esjs lkFk esjk HkkbZ lksgu flag] ine flag] r[kr flag] tks/k flag] nsoh flag o 10 15 vkSj tus Hkh vk, vkSj esjh cPph ds llqjky igqaps rks esjh cPph lhrk dh yk'k dks ?kj esa fyVk j[kk FkkA eSaus mlds llqjky okyksa dks iwNk rks mUgksaus dgk fd lhrk dh e`R;q chekjh ls gqbZ gSA ysfdu eq>s dM+h;ka esa irk pyk fd lhrk dy jkr dks gh ej xbZ FkhA ysfdu eq>s blds llqjky okyksa us lgh lwpuk ugha nh rFkk ckr dks Nqik dj j[kk Fkk eSa rhu fnu ls esjh cPph ls Qksu ij ckr djus ds fy, mlds llqjky okyksa ds eksckbZy ij Qksu fd;k ysfud ckr ugh djkbZ eq>s 'kadk gS fd esjh iq=h lhrk ds lkFk dksbZ okjnkr gks ldrh gSA fjiksVZ djrk gwa fd dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkos rFkk yk'k dks iksLVekVZe djok dj tkap djkos ftldk fookg gq, rhu lky gh gq, gSA fnukad 9@11@2007 gLrk{kj izrki flag le; 11 45 ,0 ,e0 " 5. After commencement of the proceedings u/s 176 Cr.P.C., on the same day at about 06.00 PM, the complainant, Pratap Singh submitted another written report (Ex.P/4), on that FIR No.208/2007 was registered at Police Station Gogunda on 09.11.2007 itself. After commencement of the proceedings u/s 176 Cr.P.C., on the same day at about 06.00 PM, the complainant, Pratap Singh submitted another written report (Ex.P/4), on that FIR No.208/2007 was registered at Police Station Gogunda on 09.11.2007 itself. The following allegations were levelled against the appellants in written complaint (Ex.P/4), which reads as infra: lsok esa Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc Fkkuk xksxqUnk ftyk& mn;iqj jktLFkku fo"k;& dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkus ckcr~A egksn;th] mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd esjh iq=h lhrk daoj dh 'kknh yxHkx 3 o"kZ igys gqbZ xkao eksjh;k dh dM+h;ka fuoklh ygj flag S/o xqykc flag jktiwr ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA tks vius llqjky vkrh tkrh Fkh rks dgrh Fkh fd esjk ifr ygj flag o tsBkuh lksguh daoj esjs lkFk >xM+k djrs Fks rFkk ekjihV djrs Fks rFkk dgrs Fks fd rw Hkw[ks ?kj dh gS rsjs ?kj Hkkx tk ;gka rsjs dks ugha jgussa nsaxs rFkk vk;s fnu ekjihV djrs FksA 2 eghus Hkj igys Hkh esjh iq=h ds mij mlds ifr vkSj tsBkuh us xeZ ikuh mlds mij M+kyk vkSj ekjihV dj ?kj ls Hkxk fn;kA vkt lqcg eq>s esjh iq=h ds chekj gksus dh [kcj nh ftl ij eSa dM+h;k x;k ogka ij esjh iq=h dh yk'k mlds ?kj iM+h FkhA lhrk dks dy mfYV;ka gqbZ eq>s iwjk fo'okl gS fd esjh iq=h dks mlds tsBkuh o mlds ifr us ijs'kku fd;k gS ftlls mls ijs'kku gksdj dksbZ tgjhyh oLrq [kk yh gS ftlls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ esjh iq=h dks mlds ifr o tsBkuh vk;s fnu ekjihV djrs Fks rFkk rkus ekjrs FksA vkSj ckj ckj ihgj Hkxk nsrs FksA izrki flag le; 11 45 ,0 ,e0 6. In the proceedings initiated under Section 176 Cr.P.C., the dead body of deceased Smt. Sita Kunwar, was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Gogunda on 09.11.2007 at 04.00 PM for postmortem,where after postmortem, the Postmortem Report (Ex.D/6) was obtained by the Investigating Officer. After postmortem, dead body of the deceased was handed over to the father of deceased, Sh. Pratap Singh vide Ex.P/5 at 05.30 PM for cremation. 7. During investigation, the accused appellant, Lahar Singh was arrested vide Ex.P/8 on 22.11.2007 at 08.30 PM in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Narnedra Singh and Laxmilal and accused appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar was arrested vide Ex.P/9 on 11.12.2007 at 08.15 AM. 8. Pratap Singh vide Ex.P/5 at 05.30 PM for cremation. 7. During investigation, the accused appellant, Lahar Singh was arrested vide Ex.P/8 on 22.11.2007 at 08.30 PM in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Narnedra Singh and Laxmilal and accused appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar was arrested vide Ex.P/9 on 11.12.2007 at 08.15 AM. 8. Upon information given by the accused appellant, Lahar Singh, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/10 on 23.11.2007 the place of occurrence was identified. The same was information was given by accused appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar vide Ex.P/7 to identify the place of occurrence. 9. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded in the investigation and the pieces of liver, lung, heart, spinal and kidney, so also, VISRA preserved by the medical Board were sent for chemical analysis to the FSL, Udaipur vide communication dated 10.12.2007 through the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. Vide Ex.P/14, the same were deposited in the FSL on 11.12.2007. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, from where case was committed to the Sessions Court, Udaipur, for trial. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, transferred the case for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur. The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A against both the appellants and proceeded with trial. 11. In the trial, statements of ten prosecution witnesses were recorded and fifteen documents were exhibited from the prosecution side. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, appellants denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses. In defence, the appellants pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of doubt only to grab the property of Sita Kunwar. In defence, two witnesses were produced before the trial court, namely, Banshilal Dholi and Amar Singh. 12. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence and after hearing both the sides proceeded to pass the judgment dated 05.12.2008, whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant, Lahar Singh, for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. In defence, two witnesses were produced before the trial court, namely, Banshilal Dholi and Amar Singh. 12. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence and after hearing both the sides proceeded to pass the judgment dated 05.12.2008, whereby convicted and sentenced the appellant, Lahar Singh, for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. As far as appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar is concerned, she was acquitted from the offence under Section 302 IPC in absence of sufficient evidence, however, she was convicted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and passed the sentence mentioned above. 13. In both these appeals, the judgment dated 05.12.2008 is under challenge. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence that too is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. While inviting attention of the Court towards the fact that complainant, Pratap Singh, in first information (Ex.P/1) filed at 11.45 AM on 09.11.2007 no allegation for demand of dowry or cruelty was made by him, but later on in written complaint (Ex.P/4) filed on the same day in the evening at 06.00 PM and the statements recorded in the trial, the complainant, Pratap Singh (PW.1) levelled serious allegations against the appellants for demanding dowry and cruelty. The said witness improved his statement at every level and made baseless allegations against appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is no evidence on record to corroborate the allegations levelled by PW.1, Pratap Singh, father of the deceased except his brother, PW.7 Sohan Singh, therefore, findings of conviction are not sustainable in law. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that a false allegation with regard to illicit relation of appellant, Lahar Singh, with appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar, wife of his real brother has been levelled but there is no evidence on record to substantiate or prove the said allegation. More so, other witnesses, viz. PW.2 Ratan Singh, PW.3 Lahar Singh, PW.4 Ratan Singh and other witnesses have categorically said that relation of accused appellants with deceased were cordial, therefore, the motive which is concocted by the complainant, has no substance. More so, other witnesses, viz. PW.2 Ratan Singh, PW.3 Lahar Singh, PW.4 Ratan Singh and other witnesses have categorically said that relation of accused appellants with deceased were cordial, therefore, the motive which is concocted by the complainant, has no substance. Therefore, in absence of motive, it cannot be said that the finding of the learned trial court for recording conviction against the appellants for the offences under Section 498A and 302 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of interested witnesses viz. PW.1 Pratap Singh, father of the deceased but that cannot be accepted because in the first information (Ex.P/1) filed at 11.45 AM on 09.11.2007 before the police, no allegation was made against the appellants that they administered any poisonous substance to his daughter or that the appellants have harassed her in connection demand of any dowry prior to the said incident. The complaint (Ex.P/1) was filed only on the basis of apprehension and doubt. 16. Later on, the complainant, in the evening of 09.11.2007 at 06.00 PM submitted another written complaint (Ex.P/4) in which allegations were levelled against the appellant, Lahar Singh and Smt. Sohani Kunwar with regard to cruelty being meted out to his daughter at the hands of the appellants. 17. In the cross-examination of PW.1, Pratap Singh, author of FIR categorically stated that Ex.P/4 was not written by me and that Ex.P/4 was written by the S.H.O. himself. 18. With regard to improved allegations made in the statement by Pratap Singh, PW.1, specific questions were put to him, as to why these facts were not stated by him in the complaint (Ex.P/1), and in response thereto, the complainant stated that "I don't know". Meaning thereby, the said witness is accepting the fact that Exhibit-P/1 and Exhibit-P/4 were not written by him. Therefore, this fact itself creates a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW.2, Ratan Singh and PW.3, Lahar Singh, do not support the prosecution case, so also, the witness PW.4, Ratan Singh S/o Gop Singh, did not make any allegation against the appellants and the PW.5, Pratap Singh, turned hostile. Therefore, this fact itself creates a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW.2, Ratan Singh and PW.3, Lahar Singh, do not support the prosecution case, so also, the witness PW.4, Ratan Singh S/o Gop Singh, did not make any allegation against the appellants and the PW.5, Pratap Singh, turned hostile. PW.6 Madan Singh stated before the Court that police obtained his signatures upon blank papers. PW.7 Sohan Singh, is the real uncle of deceased, Smt. Sita Kunwar. The said witness levelled the allegations against the appellants and he being interested witness, his testimony cannot be accepted so as to hold the appellants guilty for the offences. PW.8, Ratan Lal, is the investigating officer. The said witness accepted in his statement before the Court that complainant, Pratap Singh submitted Written Report (Ex.P/1) upon which proceedings u/s 176 Cr.P.C. were initiated and later on another written report (Ex.P/4) was submitted by him upon that FIR was registered. Thus, there is major contradiction in the statements of PW.1 and PW.8 with regard to fact that who has wrote the complaint (Ex.P/1 & P/4). Therefore, it is a case in which as per evidence serious doubt is in existence, thus in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 it is obvious that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt because there is no corroboration of allegations levelled by PW.1, Pratap Singh, except his real brother, Sohan Singh PW.7. Therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be set aside. 20. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that although there is no direct evidence against the appellants but the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of testimony of PW.1, Pratap Singh, father of deceased, and so also, PW.7, Sohan Singh, therefore, there is substance in the argument that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the testimony of relatives cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they are close relative of the deceased. The allegation made by the complainant, PW.1 Pratap Singh, is corroborated by the medical evidence and statement of PW.7, Sohan Singh, therefore the judgment impugned is perfectly justified and based upon correct appreciation of evidence. 21. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the testimony of relatives cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they are close relative of the deceased. The allegation made by the complainant, PW.1 Pratap Singh, is corroborated by the medical evidence and statement of PW.7, Sohan Singh, therefore the judgment impugned is perfectly justified and based upon correct appreciation of evidence. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that PW.1 Pratap Singh and PW.7 Sohan Singh, so also the Investigating Officer (PW.8 Ratan Lal) have categorically stated before the Court on oath that Smt. Sita Kunwar, died in the house of accused appellant, Lahar Singh (husband) and, therefore, learned trial court has rightly relied upon the testimonies of these witnesses on the basis of theory of presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act because the accused appellant, Lahar Singh is the husband of deceased, who died in her matrimonial home. He, therefore, argued that no interference is required in the judgment impugned and both the appeals be dismissed. 22. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scanned the entire evidence of the prosecution, so also, the findings given by the learned trial court so as to convict the appellant, Lahar Singh, for the offences u/s 498A and 302 of IPC and recording conviction against the appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. 23. There is not dispute that Smt. Sita Kunwar, the deceased, was the wife of appellant, Lzhar Singh. It is also not in dispute that in first information (Ex.P/1) submitted at 11.45 AM on 09.11.2007 by the complainant, father of deceased, no allegations of cruelty or demand of dowry soon before the death were levelled against the appellants. But, later on, another written report (Ex.P/4) was submitted on the same day by the complainant, in which allegations were levelled against the appellants. 24. But, later on, another written report (Ex.P/4) was submitted on the same day by the complainant, in which allegations were levelled against the appellants. 24. Upon perusal of the Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/4, and the statements of PW.1, it is obvious that there is no evidence of motive except the allegation of cruelty, but at the same time we cannot loose sight of the fact that none of the allegations levelled in Ex.P/4 and statements recorded before the court of PW.1, Pratap Singh (father of deceased), no FIR or complaint was filed earlier by him before the police nor any "Panchayat" was held for the purpose of peaceful living and to resolve the dispute of his daughter. For the first time, the allegations were levelled by complainant, Pratap Singh (PW.1) in Exhibit-4 with regard to cruelty being committed by the appellants with his daughter. In Ex.P/4, the complainant has stated that " vkt lqcg eq>s esjh iq=h ds chekj gksus [kcj nh ftl ij eSa dM+h;k x;k ogak ij esjh iq=h dh yk'k mlds ?kj ij iM+h FkhA lhrk dks dy mfYV;ka] eq>s iqjk fo'okl gS fd esjh iq=h dks mldh tsBkuh o mlds ifr us ijs'kku fd;k gS ftlls mlus ijs'kku gksdj dksbZ tgjhyh oLrq [kk yh gS ftlls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ esjh iq=h dks mlds ifr o tsBkuh vk;s fnu ekjihV djrs Fks rFkk rkus ekjrs FksA vkSj ckj ckj ihgj Hkxk nsrs Fks] " 25. The above complaint was based upon doubt that due to harassment my daughter might have consumed poison. There is no eye witness of the incident but the learned trial court convicted the appellants while taking presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, however, upon perusal of the statements of other witnesses, except PW.1, Pratap Singh, father of deceased, and PW.7, Sohan Singh, uncle of the deceased, there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that behaviour of the appellant was cruel towards the deceased. Similarly, the Dr. O.P. Rajpuriya, who was working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Gogunda, and who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, categorically stated before the Court that there was only one simple injury on the body of the deceased and there was no mark of ligature upon the neck of deceased. 26. PW.10, Dr. O.P. Rajpuriya, gave following statement with regard to cause of death. 26. PW.10, Dr. O.P. Rajpuriya, gave following statement with regard to cause of death. The relevant portion of the statement of PW.10 is quoted herein below for ready reference: " esjh o cksM+Z dh jk; esa e`rdk dh e`R;q dk dkj.k 'okl :dus ls mldh e`R;q gqbZ FkhA tks ,UVhekVZe uspj dh FkhA cksMZ+ dh iw.kZ jk; dsfedy tkap ds ckn rd ds fy;s fjtoZ j[kh x;h FkhA ,lQsDlh;k M~;w Vw LV~saxqys'ku e`R;q dk dkj.k FkkA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 6 gSA ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA b ls ,Q Mka0 pSu flag th ds gLrk{kj gSA tks esjs lkFk cksMZ+ esa esjs lg;ksxh o cksM+Z ds lnL; FksA cksM+Z dh jk; th ls ,p vkSj , ls ch Hkkx esa vafdr gSA izn'kZ M+h 6 dh pksV la0 1 vkbZ ls ts ,UVhekVZe gSA ysfdu ,UVhekVZe gksus vkbZ ls ts Hkkx esa vafdr fd;k gqvk ugh gS fd iksLVekVZe uspj dh Fkh ;k ,UVhekVZe uspj dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izn'kZ Mh0 6 dh pksV la0 1 vkbZ ls ts okyh pksV vxj dku esa dksbZ vkHkw"k.k iguk gqvk gks vkSj mldks [khap ds fudkyk tk;s rks ;g pksV ugha vk ldrh gSA ;g dgha lgh gS fd izn'kZ Mh0 6 dh pksV la0 1 fdlh gfFk;kj ls dkfjr ugha gks ldrh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd xnZu ij fdlh Hkh izdkj ds dksbZ fyxspj ekdZ ugh FkhA gk;MkbV cksu o V~sfd;k esa dksbZ QzsDpj ugha FkkA 'olu rU= esa dgha ij Hkh ck/kk dk vFkZ :duk mRiUu gksus ij e`R;q gks ldrh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd e`rdk ds ukd o gksaB ij dksbZ pksV ds fu'kku ugha FksA jDr ifjlapj.k o 'olu rU= dk vkil esa lEcU/k jguk gSaA ,d nwljs ij fuHkZj jgrs gSA ,d fdz;k :dus ij nwljh fdz;k Hkh :d tkrh gSA fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds lHkh rU= Qsy gks tkrs vkSj mldh e`R;q gks tkrh gS izn'kZ Mh0 6 dk Hkkx , ls ch lgh fy[kk gqvk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd e`rdk vdM+u dh ekStwnxh o vU; iksLVekVZe LVsfuax o cksM+h dh dUM+h'ku dks ns[kdj izn'kZ M+h0 6 esa vafdr gSA e`rdk esa vdM+u izkjEHk gks pqdh FkhA 'kjhj ds lHkh Hkkxksa esa ekStwn FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh e`R;q gksus ds 8 ?k.Vs ds ckn e`rd ds gzn; ds pkjksa psEcj [kkyh gks tkrs gksA ;gh dguk lgh gS fd izn'kZ M+h0 6 esa e`rdk ds ey }kj dk rkieku vafdr fd;k gqvk ugh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd cksMZ+ ds nksuksa lnL;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh esfM+dy T;qfj"V ugha FkkA izn'kZ M+h0 3 dk ds ls ,y Hkkx lgh fy[kk gqvk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd iqfyl Fkkuk xksxqUnk ls iksLVekVZe djus ds fy;s eq>s dksbZ vkosnu i= ugh fn;k FkkA " 27. Upon perusal of the statements of doctor, we have no hesitation to say that the findings of learned trial court with respect to commission of offence u/s 302 IPC against the appellant, Lahar Singh, is not sustainable in law because whole prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence but there is serious doubt upon the evidence for the allegations of murder against the appellant, Lahar Singh, because the testimony of complainant, PW.1 Pratap Singh has not been corroborated by any independent witness or by the medical evidence. Therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant, Lahar Singh, for the offence u/s 302 IPC on the basis of presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act, is not sustainable in law because for taking presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act, at least, complete chain of circumstantial evidence for the allegation of murder, is required to be proved by the prosecution. 28. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, if the allegation is based on circumstantial evidence. The following parameters/ guidelines are laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which reads as under:- "A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193 has observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21) "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 30. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence." 31. However, in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations for the offence u/s 302 of IPC against the appellant, Lahar Singh, because the complainant PW.1 Pratap Singh, has improved his statement at every level and his testimony has not been corroborated by any of the independent witness or evidence, therefore, while following the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the conviction of the accused appellant, Lahar Singh, for the offence u/s 302 of IPC deserves to be quashed. 32. So far as conviction recorded against the appellants for the offence u/s 498A of IPC is concerned, we have perused the allegations made in Ex.P/4 submitted by the complainant, Pratap Singh, before the SHO, Police Station-Gogunda, and his statements recorded in the Court as PW.1, so also, statement of PW.7, Sohan Singh, uncle of deceased. In the statements of these witness, there are allegations of cruelty against the appellants, therefore, even if we have held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case for the offence u/s 302 of IPC, we cannot loose sight of the fact that allegations with regard to cruelty can be disclosed by the daughter only to her parents and other family members. Therefore, the allegations with regard to cruelty levelled by these two prosecution witnesses, cannot be disbelieved so as to maintain their conviction for the offence u/s 498A of IPC. 33. Accordingly, and in view of above discussion, both these appeals are partly allowed. 34. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, Lahar Singh, for the offence u/s 302 IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur, 05.12.2008 in Session Case No. 29/2008, is hereby quashed and set aside. 35. So far as the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial court for the offence u/s 498A IPC against the appellants, Lahar Singh, and Smt. Sohani Kunwar, is hereby maintained. The appellant, Lahar Singh has already served the sentence of three years imposed against him, because he is in custody since 22.11.2007, therefore, he may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 36. The appellant, Lahar Singh has already served the sentence of three years imposed against him, because he is in custody since 22.11.2007, therefore, he may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 36. So far as accused appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar, is concerned, admittedly she was arrested on 11.12.2007 and remained in custody till 18.12.2008, therefore, she served the sentence for more than one year, therefore, the sentence of three years imposed against her for offence u/s 498A of IPC, is reduced to the sentence already undergone by her. The accused appellant, Smt. Sohani Kunwar is on bail, therefore, her bail bonds arehereby discharged. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount each, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.Appeal No. 4/2009 and 913/2016 party allowed. *******