JUDGMENT : SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. 1. The father-in-law (Appellant No.1), mother-in-law (Appellant No. 2) and the husband (Appellant No. 3) of the victim Punam Mahato, being convicted under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months each of the offence punishable under Section 498A/34, I.P.C., and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each of the offence punishable under Section 304B/34, I.P.C., with order that said sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently as per judgment and orders of conviction dated 24.02.2010 and of sentence dated 25.02.2010 (hereinafter called is impugned judgment) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 41(8)2006 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 20(3)2006, have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and for their acquittal of the charges framed in trial Court against them. The appellants are detained in correctional home. 2. Admittedly, marriage between appellant No. 3 (A-3) and the victim was solemnized on 29.04.2003 according to Hindu rites and custom and since then the victim lived in her matrimonial home with the appellants. Out of that wedlock a handicapped female child was born and the child passed away at its age of 5 months. The victim house wife Punam Mahato expired on 22.01.2005 in her matrimonial home due to her unnatural death. 3. After the death of Punam her father Indrajit Mahato lodged F.I.R. before police of Belgharia Police Station which was registered on 23.01.2005 at 00.05 hrs. at Belgharia, P.S. 4. In the F.I.R. the informant complained that since after marriage of Punam the appellants subjected her to physical and mental cruelty demanding a television set as dues of dowry from her father’s house. Punam told the facts to her parents but they could not give the T.V. set. On 22.01.2005 at about 9.00 a.m. A-3 picked up quarrel with Punam and also beat her. On that very date 22.01.2005 in the night at about 10.00 p.m. Punam’s father got information over phone about untoward incident in the house of appellants. Punam told the facts to her parents but they could not give the T.V. set. On 22.01.2005 at about 9.00 a.m. A-3 picked up quarrel with Punam and also beat her. On that very date 22.01.2005 in the night at about 10.00 p.m. Punam’s father got information over phone about untoward incident in the house of appellants. Getting such information he along with his wife and others went to the house of the appellants at about 11.00 p.m. and found Punam was lying dead on the floor of their bed room on the first floor of the house and blood came out of her nostrils which trickled down to her waist through chest. Her wearing saree and blouse were stained with blood and bruise mark was found on her person. It was complained that appellant no. 1 (A-1), appellant no. 2 (A-2) and A-3 killed Punam tying noose around her neck. 5. In the trial Court charges under Sections 498A/304 B of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the three appellants as accused. During trial, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and adduced some documentary evidence and also some photographs of Punam’s dead body as Mat. exhibit- I. Among the witnesses PW 1 is the father, PW 2 is uncle, PW 3 is aunt, PW 4 is the mother, PW 5 is another uncle and PW 6 is paternal grandfather of the victim Punam Mahato. PW 7 is a photographer, PW 8, PW 9, PW 10, PW 11 and PW 14 are co-villagers of the accused appellants. PW 12 is a police constable, PW 13 is sub-inspector of police, PW 15 held first part of investigation. PW 16 held post mortem examination over the dead body of Punam Mahato and PW 17 concluded the investigation. Among the witnesses at the instance of prosecution PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 were declared hostile. 6. PW 12 is a police constable, PW 13 is sub-inspector of police, PW 15 held first part of investigation. PW 16 held post mortem examination over the dead body of Punam Mahato and PW 17 concluded the investigation. Among the witnesses at the instance of prosecution PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 were declared hostile. 6. During investigation, PW 15 visited the place of occurrence and drew rough sketch map with index (exhibits 9 and 9/1), held inquest over the dead body (report is exhibit-2/3), arranged for holding inquest over the dead body by Executive Magistrate, (report is exhibit-4) sent the dead body for post mortem examination through dead body challan (exhibit-6/1), seized one torn ganjee (vest) and one cable wire from the place of occurrence under a seizure list (exhibit-5/2), seized wearing apparels and post mortem blood of the deceased under a separate seizure list (exhibit- 7/1), got some snaps of photographs of the victim (Mat. exhibit- I), examined available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) and sent the viscera of the deceased to Forensic Science Laboratory but report could not be collected during investigation. Other documentary evidence are written information (exhibit-1), formal FIR (exhibit-8), post mortem report (exhibit-10) and order for handing over dead body of the victim to PW 1 (exhibit-3). 7. In the impugned judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed in details about the lodging of FIR by PW 1 describing the getting of information over phone about an incident in his daughter’s matrimonial home at about 10:00 p.m. and how he being accompanied by other members of his family went to the house of appellants and came to learn about death of Punam Mahato, and then the FIR was lodged which was registered at police station within reasonably short time. We are convinced that the findings made in the impugned judgment relating to lodging of FIR are acceptable. 8. Since the PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 are close relations of Punam Mahato, their evidence has been scrutinised with care and caution in the impugned judgment as expressed by learned trial Judge at page-5 of the impugned judgment. 9. At the time of hearing this appeal Mr. 8. Since the PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 are close relations of Punam Mahato, their evidence has been scrutinised with care and caution in the impugned judgment as expressed by learned trial Judge at page-5 of the impugned judgment. 9. At the time of hearing this appeal Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW 1 has claimed that due to his financial stringency he could not satisfy demand of appellants for T.V. set which is not believable because during cross-examination PW 1 disclosed that he is senior technician of Indian Railways. Mr. Banerjee, learned APP, for the State argued that this analogy is not at all acceptable to disbelieve the veracity of PW 1. 10. Mr. Bhattacharya urged that according to PW 1, he got information of ill-treatment by appellants on Punam in their house from their neighbours but no such neighbour has been examined to corroborate it. Mr. Banerjee advanced his arguments that prosecution had examined five neighbours of appellants as witnesses and among them three witnesses turned hostile. He submitted that PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 gathered knowledge from Punam herself about torture on her by the appellants in their house demanding T.V. set during her life time. That apart, it is evident from the depositions of said witnesses and in particular PW 5 that before two days of the death of Punam she was tortured demanding T.V. set in her matrimonial house. He drew our attention to the depositions of PW 5 and PW 15 submitting that although PW 5 denied the suggestion that on 23.01.05 he did not state before the police that before two days of Punam’s death she reported to PW 5 over phone about the torture upon her but said evidence was not controverted to the investigating police officer (PW 15). As such, it is evident that soon after death of Punam said fact was brought to the notice of police by PW 5 although it was not specifically mentioned in FIR. He further argued that it is settled principle that FIR is not expected to contain all details of the prosecution case as an encyclopedia. As such, it is evident that soon after death of Punam said fact was brought to the notice of police by PW 5 although it was not specifically mentioned in FIR. He further argued that it is settled principle that FIR is not expected to contain all details of the prosecution case as an encyclopedia. He further submitted that PW 1 and other members of his house got an information at night about serious incident but not death of Punam in his daughter’s matrimonial house and promptly they rushed to the house of appellants availing train of late night and after their arrival which they witnessed is bolt from the blue before them. Under such mental state without causing delay the FIR was prepared and given to police by PW 1. On this point we find much force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Banerjee. Said arguments are fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.K. Mishra and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588 . We like to mention that none of the appellants claimed that the information of death of Punam was communicated to the parents of Punam by any appellant but it is well proved that on the basis of a telephonic information about serious incident Punam’s parents and others rushed to the house of appellants in the fateful night and found Punam’s dead body was lying there. It indicates that someone of the locality of appellants informed them over phone. It is significant to note that the hostile witness PW 11 admitted during his cross-examination on behalf of prosecution that he stated before police that collecting phone number of Gopal’s (A-3’s)father-in-law (PW 1) from Gopal’s father (A-1) he contacted the father-in-law over his phone and requested him to come to the house of Gopal. He denied that he also stated to police that he informed the father-in-law of Gopal that an incident had happened in the house of his daughter and that in the morning Gopal (A-3) had assaulted his wife and many persons witnessed the incident of assault. He denied that he also stated to police that he informed the father-in-law of Gopal that an incident had happened in the house of his daughter and that in the morning Gopal (A-3) had assaulted his wife and many persons witnessed the incident of assault. In our view had the said denied suggestion been not true the PW 11 would have explained why he requested the father-in-law of Gopal in that night over phone to come to the house of appellants specially when as per his cross-examination on behalf of appellants the PW 11 never had seen Gopal’s father-in-law or uncle-in-law. PW 15 stated that PW 11 made such statement during investigation which PW 11 denied during trial. As such, it is obvious that PW 11 tried to make untrue statements during trial for standing in favour of his neighbours appellants. 11. Mr. Bhattacharyya pointed out certain statements of PW 1 to the effect that the victim used to come with her husband to the house of PW 1 and they stayed at night and parents (A-1 and A-2) of A-3 also used to visit the house of PW 1 and that wife and son of PW 1 used to visit the house of appellants when they would be behaved well by appellants but the appellants would not behave well with the victim. He submitted that during life time of Punam the relationship between two families was cordial which evidence goes in favour of the appellants. Mr. Banerjee has given emphasis on the statement of PW 1 recorded during trial to the effect that the victim was not treated well by appellants. According to him the apparent cordiality between the two families was not real on the part of appellants in order to conceal their cruelty towards Punam. On this point also we cannot deny our constraint to accept the reasoning supported by evidence as argued by Mr. Banerjee. 12. Mr. Bhattacharya argued that PW 1 stated that in his written complaint he stated as to how and by whom and when his daughter was tortured at her matrimonial home but there is no such specific averments in exhibit-1. Banerjee. 12. Mr. Bhattacharya argued that PW 1 stated that in his written complaint he stated as to how and by whom and when his daughter was tortured at her matrimonial home but there is no such specific averments in exhibit-1. On this point we are fortified by a catena of judicial pronouncements to say that FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia to contain each and every fact minute details rather, it is an instrument to set the ball of criminal investigation in motion. In our view, learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment discussed the evidence of witnesses elaborately. We do not find any observation in the impugned judgment about the PWs which should be treated as substantially erroneous or illegal. We like to add that according to cross-examination of PW 1, in the fateful night on their arrival in the house of appellants PW 1 came to know on enquiry from local people and grandmother of A-3 that his daughter Punam had been tortured in the morning but the appellants did not examine the mother of A-1 who is grandmother of A-3 as a witness in their favour to say that she did not state to PW 1 that his daughter was tortured in the morning. It speaks about truthfulness of PW 1. We find corroboration of such fact in the post mortem report (exhibit-10) and evidence of PW 1 to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Banerjee. It reveals from evidence of PW 16 and exhibit-10 that during post mortem examination over the dead body of Punam one echymosis measuring 1? X1/2? on the right parital region and another echymosis measuring 1¼ ? X 1? on the left upper lip were found. PW 16 opined that injury on lip may be caused due to hit by fists and blows and the injury on parital region may be caused if the deceased’s head was hit to wall by any person. During cross-examination PW 16 stated that if any one falls on the ground he may receive injuries on lip and parital region as noted in post mortem report. We think it necessary to note that although Punam died in their house, the appellants did not take any defence that during life time Punam fell down and received echymosis on her lip and partial region. We think it necessary to note that although Punam died in their house, the appellants did not take any defence that during life time Punam fell down and received echymosis on her lip and partial region. As such, we find reason to believe and we believe that soon before death Punam received injuries on her lip and partial region in her matrimonial home due to assault on her by appellants. 13. A mysterious circumstance peeped into the mind of the trial Judge during trial regarding possibility of Punam’s alleged committing suicide using a torn vest as ligature hanging from a window placed only three feet above the floor of the room and regarding presence of tearing in front portion of the blouse of Punam, which was found on her body at the time of her death as obvious from photographs marked Mat. Exhibit-I during trial as appears from the trend of examination of PW 15 and PW 16 under Section 311, Cr.P.C. PW 16 and PW 15 and PW 17 claimed the death of Punam as suicidal. In order to remove confusion learned Judge in trial Court examined the said three witnesses under Section 311, Cr.P.C. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge could not be satisfied about explanation of PW 16 that about 200/250 ml. of blood may come out from the nose and mouth of the victim in case of suicidal hanging. Learned Judge also was not fully satisfied that Punam committed suicide with the vest fixing it with window as claimed by A-1 during his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as appears from the observations made in page-20 of the impugned judgment. However, in page-21 starting from page 20 learned Additional Sessions Judge held – “So considering the above evidences of the PW 15, PW 16 and PW 17, the post mortem report, the photos of the dead body of the deceased and the medical science, I hold that the victim committed suicide in the house of the accused persons by hanging but before suicide she was assaulted severely there for which the front portion of her blouse was torn and she received injury on her lip and her blouse and sari were stained with heavy amount of blood and the said blood extended towards her waist by touching her chest. It is true that in their examinations u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. accused Raj Mahato has stated that the victim has committed suicide in his bed room and accused Rambrij Mahato has stated that the victim has committed suicide with the help of one ‘ganjee’. But they have not explained as to why injury on the lip of the victim as per post mortem report was found and as to why the front portion of the blouse of the victim was found torn and why a huge amount of blood came out from the nose of the victim and extended towards her waist by touching her chest and why the blouse and sari of the victim were found blood stained. Absence of the above explanation by the accused persons on the above points sufficiently proves that before her suicide she was assaulted severely in her in-law’s house”. We do not differ with the said findings made in the impugned judgment. 14. Having considered the facts, circumstances and evidence in totality we find and hold that prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that Punam Mahato, while she was living with appellants in her matrimonial home died due to her unnatural death within two years of her marriage with A-3 who is the son of A1 and A-2 and soon before her death she was assaulted in her matrimonial home when all the three appellants remained present there and since the occurrence took place within four walls of the dwelling house of appellants no outsider eye-witness of the occurrence was available. Torture on Punam on demand of a T.V. set made by appellants from Punam and her father’s family as due part of dowry has been well proved by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6. In our view, this is a fit case for drawing our presumption in favour of dowry death of Punam Mahato as per provisions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act first and on the basis of evidence on record to arrive at conclusion that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that each of the three appellants committed the offence of dowry death of Punam in her matrimonial home. 15. 15. Relating to absence of corroboration to the evidence of relatives of the victim it is pertinent to mention that the PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 who deposed corroborating each other might have also been corroborated by the neighbours of the accused appellants. An unfortunate and unhealthy trend is being developed among some people in the society which drives them not to speak the truth against their neighbours who are accused in a criminal case when the truth goes in favour of the persons who are unknown to such neighbours of accused or residents of far distance. Court cannot give indulgence to those persons who actually pollute the society. Shouldering greater responsibility is the duty of Court to exert its all efforts to find out and to establish the truth. 16. On point of law, Mr. Bhattacharya advanced his arguments that although charge was against accused persons framed under Sections 498A/304 B, I.P.C. and not under Section 34, I.P.C. yet in the impugned judgment the appellants were convicted and sentenced with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. causing prejudice to the appellants. 17. In this appeal it is clearly established that the appellants, being accused persons in trial Court were fully aware about the allegations made against them for which they were being tried. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed with reasoning for taking aid of Section 34, I.P.C. for convicting the accused persons of the substantive charges under Sections 498 A/304B, I.P.C. We find no error in the findings of the trial Court regarding inclusion of Section 34, I.P.C. although it was not mentioned with the framed substantive charges under Section 498A/304B, I.P.C. In our opinion no prejudice was caused to the appellants in convicting them of the substantive charges with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. Therefore, omission to mention Section 34, I.P.C. with the substantive charges at the time of framing charges against accused persons is inconsequential as the trial is not vitiated for such omission in view of the provision under Section 464 (1), Cr.P.C. 18. Mr. Bhattarcharya cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hiralal and Others Vs. State (Govt of NCT), Delhi reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016. Mr. Bhattarcharya cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hiralal and Others Vs. State (Govt of NCT), Delhi reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016. It appears to us that the principles relating to a case under Section 304 B, I.P.C. as discussed in the cited case of Hiralal (Supra) have been followed in the impugned judgment as per discussions made in page – 6 onwards with reference to the cited decision. We find no error in the impugned judgment on the point. 19. Mr. Bhattacharya also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2013) 3 SCC 684 in connection with offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B, I,P.C. In our opinion the ratio of that decision is not applicable in this case due to dissimilarity of facts. In the case under our consideration specific case of the prosecution is that at the time of marriage of Punam her father agreed to give a television set also as part of dowry on demand of appellants but the PW 1 failed to satisfy the demand of television set due to his financial crunch during life time of Punam for which the appellants subjected to cruelty on her persistently as informed by Punam to her parents on several occasions and said fact was sufficiently proved by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6. In the cited decision, there was no case of torture on the victim for non-payment of dowry as agreed at the time of marriage but there was allegation of demand of money after considerable period of the marriage. In the cited case there was suicidal note of victim exonerating accused persons which was disbelieved in trial Court and High Court although the handwriting and signature of the victim were proved by the husband of the victim. Such a case is absent in this case under appeal. 20. On behalf of appellants Mr. Bhattacharya relied on another decision of Supreme Court in Maya Devi and Another Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 125 . Such a case is absent in this case under appeal. 20. On behalf of appellants Mr. Bhattacharya relied on another decision of Supreme Court in Maya Devi and Another Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2016 SC 125 . In that case Hon’ble Supreme Court held, “As has been mentioned hereinbefore, in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304 B, I.P.C., it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than, under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Only then would such death be called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of the woman concerned”. 21. It appears to us from the impugned judgment that learned Judge in the trial Court made his findings in consonance with the principles discussed in the Maya Devi case (Supra). 22. In Support of his arguments Mr. Banerjee cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Mishra and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588 (Supra). In that case most of the relevant points of law involved in this case relating to requirements in an FIR, recording of evience of witnesses with reference to Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act and essential ingredients to bring home charges under Section 498 A/304 B, I.P.C. against accused persons and effect of flaw in investigation have been discussed. We are satisfied that said cited decision fortifies the arguments advanced by Mr. Banerjee against the appellants. 23. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that PW 15 stated in his evidence that before receiving the FIR he visited the P.O., examined the witnesses and held inquest on the dead body. Learned counsel for the appellants claimed that such acts of investigation done by PW 15 are highly illegal. Banerjee against the appellants. 23. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that PW 15 stated in his evidence that before receiving the FIR he visited the P.O., examined the witnesses and held inquest on the dead body. Learned counsel for the appellants claimed that such acts of investigation done by PW 15 are highly illegal. Having gone through the deposition of PW 15 read with deposition of PW 13 we find that on 22.01.2005 at 9:45 p.m. an unknown caller reported to Belgharia P.S. over phone about death of the victim in the house of appellants and said information was recorded in G.D. entry no. 1466 dated 22.01.2005 at the police station by PW 13. He made communication of that fact to PW 15 over R.T. with request to look into the matter. Belgharia P.S. U.D. Case no. 7/05 dated 23.01.2005 was started relating to death of the victim. PW 15 was entrusted with investigation of said U.D. Case also. Getting intimation from PW 13 over R.T. the PW 15 went to the place of occurrence. He (PW 15) took up the investigation on 23.01.2005 at 12:15 a.m. in the night. Thereafter, PW 15 received the FIR which was sent from police station to PW 15 authorizing him to investigate the case. In our opinion there is some technical flaw on assuming the investigation by PW 15 before his actual receiving authorization in writing from the officer in charge of the police station. According to the circumstances the PW 15 was out of police station at the relevant time on duty and getting information from PW 13 he went to the place of occurrence and being a sub-Inspector of police did some works there which are part of investigation in criminal case and subsequently he got the endorsement authorizing him for investigation in the case. At the worst, it can be explained as post facto authorization for investigation. In our opinion, it may be termed as irregular but not illegal. It is not established in this case even by preponderance of probability that the appellants were prejudiced in any way due to any act of PW 15. The inquest report speaks that PW 15 held inquest after registration of the case at police station on the basis of FIR lodged by PW 1. It is not established in this case even by preponderance of probability that the appellants were prejudiced in any way due to any act of PW 15. The inquest report speaks that PW 15 held inquest after registration of the case at police station on the basis of FIR lodged by PW 1. We do not find anything on record to hold that due to the acts done by PW 15 for investigation after getting information from PW 13 over radio transmission any right of the accused persons was infringed by PW 15. As such, there was no miscarriage of justice in performing investigation work by PW 15. Therefore, it cannot be held that the trial of the case was vitiated. Consequently, such minor flaw on the part of prosecution is not sufficient for setting aside the impugned judgment. 24. As a result, we find and hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence delivered by the trial Court against the appellants is hereby confirmed. A copy of this judgment along with LCR, be sent to the trial Court from the department. 25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties or their advocates on record in compliance with usual formalities. I agree