JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kota by which the accused-appellant-Deen Dayal was convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000, in default of which, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. He has also been convicted for offence u/s.201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.500, in default of which, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Both the sentences were order to run concurrently. The learned trial court by the self same judgment acquitted the other four accused respectively mother, father and two brothers of the accused-appellant herein. 2. The brief and relevant facts of present case are that on 05.05.2005 complainant Heera Lal submitted a written report to the police station Kaithun alleging that marriage of his daughter Mamta Bai was solemnized with the accused-appellant Deen Dayal ten years ago and `Gona’ ceremony was preformed after one year of the marriage when she went to her in-laws home to stay with them. After sometime, members of her in-laws family started quarreling with her and driven deserted her out of the matrimonial home on demand of dowry. Thereafter, father-in-law of Mamta Bai come to her maternal home for compromise and took her back. But after sometime, her husband again thrown her out as he asked her to bring a motor cycle, TV, fridge etc. from her father. He threatened her that if his demand was not fulfilled, she would be killed. Some villagers of Keechalheda told him that his daughter was seen moving on the roof at about 12.00 AM. After two hours, her father-in-law reached the village of informant and told him that his daughter had become unconscious and asked the informant to come with him. When they reached near village Tathed, he told to him that his daughter died due to hanging. When relatives of Mamta Bai reached village Keechalheda, they learnt that Mamta Bai had already been cremated at about 2.00 PM. Accused thereby destroyed the evidence of the crime. It was therefore prayed that action be taken against the accused persons. 3. When they reached near village Tathed, he told to him that his daughter died due to hanging. When relatives of Mamta Bai reached village Keechalheda, they learnt that Mamta Bai had already been cremated at about 2.00 PM. Accused thereby destroyed the evidence of the crime. It was therefore prayed that action be taken against the accused persons. 3. On the basis of the said written complaint, police lodged FIR No.144/2005 at Police Station Kaithun for offence under Sections 304-B, 201 read with 34 IPC against the accused persons and started the investigation. After completion of investigation, the police presented negative final report in favour of the accused persons before the competent court. Thereupon, the complainant filed protest petition before the court. His statement under Section 200 and of his witness under Section 202 were recorded. On the basis of statements, cognizance under Sections 302/34 & 201/34 IPC was taken and warrant of arrest was issued. Accused persons were arrested. Thereafter, case was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kota for trial. 4. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and under Section 201/34 IPC against the others co-accused persons. They denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. During the trial, as many as 13 prosecution's witnesses were examined and some documents were also exhibited in support of prosecution case. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the prosecution story and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant due prior enmity. Defence produced four witnesses in support of its case and exhibited four documents. Learned trial court after the completion of trial and hearing the final arguments of the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 19.01.2015 in the manner as stated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri Kamlendra Sihag, learned amicus curiae has argued that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the accused-appellant merely on the basis of presumptions without discussing the evidence on record as no one proved the involvement of the accused-appellant in the said occurrence, beyond reasonable doubt. There are many contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, who are mostly interested witnesses. There are many contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, who are mostly interested witnesses. It did not consider and ignored the evidence and version given by the defence side, which in fact favours the accused appellant. 6. Learned amicus curiae submitted that there was no reason for the accused appellant to kill his wife. No such evidence even otherwise has been brought by the prosecution on record to connect the accused-appellant with the said crime. Prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned court below is also duty bound to scrutinize the evidence minutely, which it failed to do so. 7. Shri Kamlendra Sihag, learned amicus curiae submitted that the trial court had considered/relied on the statement of Dwarka Bai (PW2) and Radheshyam (PW3), who were not even the eye witness of the crime. They could never see the incident from the house of the appellant because there was high wall between both the houses. These witnesses, in fact, deposed in their statement against the accused-appellant due to some prior enmity. It is submitted that the most important aspect of this case is that police did not find any evidence proving that accused-appellant has committed the offence and on the basis of the evidence, which it collected during the investigation, filed negative final report in his favour. 8. In the course of arguments, learned amicus curiae pointed out that the two alleged eye witnesses, who have been relied by learned trial court namely; Dwarka Bai (PW2) and Radhey Shyam (PW3), in fact, they were not eye witnesses, but were planted witnesses. Their police statements were never recorded. It is only when the police proposed a negative final report that the complainant Heera Lal (PW1) filed a protest petition and after recording his own statement, statements of Dwarka Bai and Radhey Shyam were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. one and half years after the incident. Learned amicus curiae submitted that both these witnesses have in their statements failed to explain why, if they had seen accused-appellant dragging the deceased by rope tied in her neck on the roof top of his house, did not inform any villager or the police thereabout. Learned counsel has for this purpose has taken the court through the statements of both the witnesses to point out various discrepancies and contradictions. Learned counsel has for this purpose has taken the court through the statements of both the witnesses to point out various discrepancies and contradictions. While Heera Lal (PW1) in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate has stated that Radhey Shyam told him 3-4 days after the incident that his daughter was murdered by the accused-appellant in the manner as alleged above, but in Court statement as PW1, he has stated that Radhey Shyam told him about the incident, one and half months after the incident. Dwarka Bai (PW2) has come out with an altogether different version. While in examination-in-chief, she has stated that Heera Lal (PW1) visited their house two years after the incident. It was at that time that she and her husband Radhey Shyam told him so, but in cross examination, she has stated that she told Heera Lal three years after the incident when he visited their house as to the manner in which Mamta was murdered by accused-appellant. Radhey Shyam on the other hand appearing as PW3 has stated that he was not related to Heera Lal in any manner, but they were known to each other and that whenever Heera Lal would come to visit his daughter, he would also come to his house and that he (this witness) also visited the house of Heera Lal in his native. He told Heera Lal about the manner in which the deceased Mamta was murdered by accused-appellant two years after the incident. In fact, this witness has stated that he saw Heera Lal on the day of incident coming to the house of the accused-appellant wailing for his daughter in the presence of several villagers, who have been named by him in his statement, but at that time, he did not tell him about what he saw in the day. Neither Dwarka Bai (PW2), nor Radhey Shyam (PW3) could explain why they immediately did not inform any of the villagers or the complainant Heera Lal or even the police about the manner in which incident took place. All that they stated was that since the police did not inquire from them, they did not say so. This clearly proves that they are planted witnesses. 9. All that they stated was that since the police did not inquire from them, they did not say so. This clearly proves that they are planted witnesses. 9. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the only circumstance against the accused-appellant is that the deceased Mamta was cremated before arrival of her father Heera Lal (PW1), but this circumstance was also explained away by defence. Heera Lal himself has stated that Ram Karan, father of the petitioner went to the house of the complainant on the same day and initially told him that his daughter has become unconscious and insisted that Heera Lal should accompany Ram Karan to his village, but on the way he told him that his daughter had hanged herself and therefore died. Thereafter, Heera Lal, his son and his wife came to the village of the accused at Keechalheda, but by the time they reached there, Mamta had already been cremated. Learned amicus curiae submitted that this shows that Ram Karan went to the house of the complainant even before cremation. The evidence has come on record that the deceased was cremated under pressure from the villagers who wanted that before it became a police case, she should be cremated, a fact which is stated by Radhey Shyam (PW3) also and corroborated by other witnesses. Even the uncle of the deceased i.e. younger brother of the complainant, Rajaram has stated that when he came to his village Parlia from Sarola around 12-1.00 in the noon, his wife told him that Mamta has hanged herself. Thereafter, Heera Lal went to village Keechalheda. He is a prosecution witness, who has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and therefore the prosecution would be bound by his testimony. Besides, Heera Lal (PW1) as also Kamla Bai (PW9) have stated that Mamta had twice came to her parents house after quarreling with her in-laws. On the first occasion, her father-in-law came to the house of the complainant and persuaded Mamta to come back to their household and on second occasion, her husband came to take her back. The evidence has also come that she had disputes with her mother-in-law and other members of in-laws family as she did not want to perform the household duties. It is quite evident that deceased was not happy in her in-law house. The evidence has also come that she had disputes with her mother-in-law and other members of in-laws family as she did not want to perform the household duties. It is quite evident that deceased was not happy in her in-law house. In this scenario, it was quite possible that deceased might have committed the suicide, which is also borne out from the overall circumstances of the case or at least accused-appellant has been able to probablise his defence that the cremation of the deceased took place before the arrival of her father owing to pressure of other villagers. Therefore, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence alone, at least not without corroboration from other evidence and attending circumstances. 10. Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that on the basis of evidence on record, the accused-appellant has rightly been convicted for the alleged offences and there is no justification for interference by this Court. The appeal be therefore dismissed. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Police in the present case after collecting the evidence during investigation, did not find a case worth filing charge sheet and therefore presented a final negative report before the Court. The complainant, however, filed protest petition on which his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the statements of Radhey Shyam and his wife Dwarka Bai were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on that basis the cognizance was taken by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has in the impugned judgment singularly relied on the testimony of Dwarka Bai (PW2) and Radhey Shyam (PW3) for convicting the accused-appellant, though other statements have also been relied for the allied purposes. We have to therefore scrutinise their testimony to find out whether it inspires confidence and can be relied to sustain conviction of the accused-appellant. 13. Dwarka Bai (PW2) has stated that their house was adjacent to the house of the accused. On the fateful day, she along with her husband was sitting in the house. They suddenly heard the sound of cry of the mother-in-law and the “jethani”, (wife of the elder brother of the accused-appellant). Both were wailing and on hearing their wail, she along with her husband went upstairs on the roof of the house. On the fateful day, she along with her husband was sitting in the house. They suddenly heard the sound of cry of the mother-in-law and the “jethani”, (wife of the elder brother of the accused-appellant). Both were wailing and on hearing their wail, she along with her husband went upstairs on the roof of the house. They saw that accused-appellant Deena Dayal had put a rope around the neck of the deceased Mamta and was dragging her. Seeing this, they got down from the roof. She has stated that her husband reprimanded Deen Dayal from the roof top of the house for his act. This witness then went to the house of the deceased and gave some water to the deceased Mamta to drink. Then Devi Lal, resident of village Keechalheda came and insisted that she should be cremated. On this, this witness insisted that she should be first taken to hospital. But no one took her to hospital, they rather took her to cremation ground. The parents of Mamta came in the evening around 6.00 pm. This witness has stated that all other residents of the colony knew that Deen Dayal had put Mamta to death by putting a rope around her neck, but when in cross examination, she was asked as to why she did not ever inform the police about this, all that she stated was that since the police did not ask or call her, she had no occasion to tell the police about the manner in which Deen Dayal had murdered his wife. In cross examination, she has also stated that on death of Mamta, the females of the family of the accused were wailing. She also went to her house. Her husband was also there, but he did not enter the house of the accused and stood outside with several other villagers. Police also came to their house in the evening on that day. There was a huge crowd outside the house of Ram Karan. Police inquired from the villagers as to how Mamta died. If that was so, why did she or her husband not inform the police, she could not explain. Rather, she had tried to explain her conduct that whenever police came to their village, her husband would not be available as he would go to his agriculture field for irrigating the crops. If that was so, why did she or her husband not inform the police, she could not explain. Rather, she had tried to explain her conduct that whenever police came to their village, her husband would not be available as he would go to his agriculture field for irrigating the crops. Interestingly, this witness has stated that she did not know complainant Heera Lal from before and that Heera Lal became acquainted with them only two years after the death of Mamta. 14. As against what was stated by Dwarka Bai (PW2), Heera Lal (PW1) has stated that Radhey Shyam and Dwarka Bai were his relatives. She then stated that the villagers who assembled at their house in the evening had seen Deen Dayal dragging the deceased by rope. She named the villagers as; Birdhi Meena, Devi Lal Meena, Dhanna Lal, Pappu Lal, Dhooli Lal, Devi Lal Balai, Ram Karan Meena and Satya Narain. Curiously, none of them has not been produced by the prosecution in the evidence. This witness has also stated that all the villagers told the police about the fact that it was accused-appellant, who had murdered the deceased Mamta. Once Heera Lal also came with the police to their village, but at that time she and her husband did not tell him about the incident. One year after the incident, Heera Lal came to their house and asked her (this witness) and her husband to go to the Court for statement. Then they went with Heera Lal to the Court. The expenses of coming to the Court and going back were incurred by Heera Lal. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, she did not tell the Magistrate the manner in which accused Deen Dayal murdered Mamta as no such question was asked from her. In the concluding para of cross examination, this witness has then stated that she told son of Heera Lal as to how Mamta was murdered by the accused. Radhey Shyam (PW3) in the opening part of his statement has somehow wavered but stated that Mamta was wife of Ram Dayal and confused the name of Deen Dayal as Ram Dayal. He has stated that Ram Dayal had two more brothers named Bheemraj and Bhaiyeda. Kamla Bai was wife of Ram Karan and that Ram Karan, Ram Dayal and Bheemraj were present in the Court. He has stated that Ram Dayal had two more brothers named Bheemraj and Bhaiyeda. Kamla Bai was wife of Ram Karan and that Ram Karan, Ram Dayal and Bheemraj were present in the Court. However, the fact is that there was no accused by the name of Ram Dayal present in the Court inasmuch as name of accused-appellant is Deen Dayal and not Ram Dayal and he was not known by the name of Ram Dayal. Radhey Shyam further stated that on hearing the sound of cry of Mamta, he and his wife went to the roof top of their house adjacent to the house of accused. He saw that Deen Dayal had put rope around the neck of deceased and was dragging her here and there on the roof. He reprimanded Deen Dayal for doing so. Then Deen Dayal jumped from the roof, fled away and straightaway went to his father Ram Karan. Radhey Shyam then further stated that he and his wife came downstairs from the roof and his wife went to the house of accused. Thereafter accused and his family members had cremated the deceased as they did not want the police to know about it. Even this witness has been subjected to intensive cross examination. He has denied the assertion by complaining that he was their relative and has stated that they were not related to each other and that Deen Dayal was only known to him and he would come to his house whenever he would visit his daughter on certain occasions. He also visited the house of Heera Lal. This witness in cross examination had admitted that Heera Lal stayed in front of the house of the accused till 8.00 pm. He was wailing for his daughter. This witness was present when Heera Lal was there. This witness has failed to explain as to why he did not inform Heera Lal about the manner in which the deceased was murdered by the accused-appellant. This witness in cross examination also named several other villagers, who were present at that time namely; Ram Karan Khati, Uma Shankar, Pappu, Brahmani, Roop Chand Master, Gopal, Brij Mohan, Mangi Lal and Babu Lal, who were witnessing the wailing of the complainant. This witness in cross examination also named several other villagers, who were present at that time namely; Ram Karan Khati, Uma Shankar, Pappu, Brahmani, Roop Chand Master, Gopal, Brij Mohan, Mangi Lal and Babu Lal, who were witnessing the wailing of the complainant. When he was asked why did he not explain to any of these persons what he saw, he failed to explain and merely stated that since all of them did not ask him about the incident, he did not narrate the story to them. He then stated that his wife told him that police frequently came to the village, but he did not see the police ever coming to his village. He told Heera Lal about the manner in which the accused-appellant Deen Dayal murdered his wife Mamta, about 12 months after the incident. He especially went to the house of Heera Lal to narrate this story and stayed there for about two hours. Heera Lal told him that no witness was forthcoming to give his statement. On this, he (Radhey Shyam) promised that he would give evidence from his side and that his wife could also give evidence and that he should not worry about the witnesses. When his statement was recorded before the Magistrate (under Section 202 Cr.P.C.), Heera Lal was present there. Police had come to their village and inquired from the villagers, but he did not at that time tell the police the manner in which the accused committed murder of his wife because none of the villagers asked him to do so. 15. Raja Ram (PW4) is real uncle of deceased, being brother of Heera Lal. He has stated that Ram Karan came to their village Parlia and met Heera Lal. At that time, he was not present in the village as he had gone to Sarola. When he came back from Sarola to his village at about 12-1.00, his wife informed him that Mamta had committed suicide by hanging herself. Then he along with Heera Lal went to village Keechalkheda. His “bhabhi”, wife of Heera Lal was also with them. By the time they reached Keechalheda, Mamta had already been cremated. When they demanded explanation from the in-laws of the deceased as to why they cremated her before their arrival, her in-laws told them that now that they have cremated Mamta, they are free to do whatever they like. His “bhabhi”, wife of Heera Lal was also with them. By the time they reached Keechalheda, Mamta had already been cremated. When they demanded explanation from the in-laws of the deceased as to why they cremated her before their arrival, her in-laws told them that now that they have cremated Mamta, they are free to do whatever they like. This witness has admitted that Mamta used to quarrel with her in-laws. Earlier also Mamta was driven out from the house by her in-laws. Then his elder brother Heera Lal persuaded her to go back to her in-laws house. In cross examination again this witness has stated that Parlia was situated 25-30 kms from village Keechalheda. Ram Karan had come to his brother Heera Lal to inform him that Mamta had hanged herself and that they should come to Keechalheda. 16. Jawari Lal (PW5) was another younger brother of Heera Lal, the complainant. Even he has stated that initially the relations of Mamta with her in-laws were cordial, but thereafter quarrel/altercations used to take place between them especially among the female members. After one such quarrel, Mamta came to her parents at village Parlia. Then her parents persuaded her to go back to his in-laws. At that time, Deen Dayal came to fetch her and took Mamta with him. Ram Karan, father-in-law came to village Parlia and told Heera Lal that Mamta was hospitalised at Kaithoon. Heera Lal went with Ram Karan, who then took him to village Keechalheda. He along with Raja Ram followed them. 17. They reached Keechalheda around 5.30-6.30 pm, but by that time Mamta had already been cremated. 18. Nand Lal Meena (PW6), the brother of deceased Mamta has stated that Mamta used to have quarrels with her in-laws. Altercations between Mamta and her in-laws used to take place. Mamta told him that her husband used to beat and harass her. He was not aware as to for what reason, they used to quarrel. In cross examination, he has admitted that Mamta became angry with her in-laws and returned back to her parents. 10-15 days thereafter, her father-in-law came to fetch her. Thereafter, again once Mamta got annoyed with her in-laws and came to her parents about a month thereafter. At that time, Deen Dayal came to fetch her. 19. In cross examination, he has admitted that Mamta became angry with her in-laws and returned back to her parents. 10-15 days thereafter, her father-in-law came to fetch her. Thereafter, again once Mamta got annoyed with her in-laws and came to her parents about a month thereafter. At that time, Deen Dayal came to fetch her. 19. Shivraj Meena (PW7), the cousin of deceased has also stated that Mamta used to quarrel with Deen Dayal and would come to her parents’ house. They persuaded her to go back to her in-laws. Mamta often came to the house of her parents and each time, she was persuaded to go back to her in-laws place. Most of the time, her husband Deen Dayal came to fetch her. On the day of incident, Ram Karan, father-in-law of deceased came to village Parlia and told Heera Lal that his daughter was not well and was admitted in Kaithoon. When Ram Karan went on motorcycle with Heera Lal, others also followed him. When they entered Keechalheda, they found that Mamta had already been cremated. In cross examination, this witness has stated that when they went to village Keechalheda, they did not talk to villagers. He denied the suggestion that 100-50 person were sitting outside the house of Ram Karan. 20. Babu Lal (PW8) has stated that Mamta was cremated around 4-5 pm. Deen Dayal had cordial relations with his wife. They had two children. He did not see any quarrel between them immediately before the death. Ram Karan had a two storied house, which opens towards the east and the opening of the house of Dwarka Bai and Radhey Shyam was in north and that the roof of the house of Ram Karan was not visible from the house of Radhey Shyam. 21. Smt. Kamla Bai (PW9), who is resident of village Parlia has stated that Mamta had come back to her parents at least 2-4 times after quarreling with her in-laws. Her father-in-law came to Heera Lal and told her that his daughter Mamta was sick, but when he reached village Keechalheda, they learnt that Mamta had been cremated. In cross examination, this witness has also stated that Mamta had twice come back to her parents after quarreling with her in-laws. On first occasion, her father-in-law and on second occasion, her husband came to village Parlia and took Mamta with them. In cross examination, this witness has also stated that Mamta had twice come back to her parents after quarreling with her in-laws. On first occasion, her father-in-law and on second occasion, her husband came to village Parlia and took Mamta with them. It was correct that Mamta was angry with her in-laws and therefore used to come back to her parents’ house. 22. Bhura Lal (PW10) is also resident of Parlia where the deceased Mamta originally belonged. He has also stated that Mamta returned back to her parents after quarreling with her in(laws 2-3 times after the marriage. Each time, she was persuaded to go back to her husband’s house. 23. Evidence in this case thus clearly suggests that even though deceased Mamta had two children aged 6 and 3 years, at the time of her death, but she was not happy with her in-laws and that even the prosecution witnesses admitted that she used to go back to her parents’ house after quarreling with her in-laws especially the accused-appellant. At least on two occasions, she stayed with her parents for long duration because she became angry with her in-laws. Evidence also suggests that her father-in-law and her husband went to her in-laws place and persuaded Mamta to come back to her household. Two witnesses namely; Dwarka Bai (PW2) and Radhey Shyam (PW3) cannot be relied in view of the fact that their statement for the first time recorded long after lodgment of the FIR and directly in the Court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they did not offer themselves to the police for any information viz. the alleged manner in which the accused-appellant put his wife to death though they admitted in cross examination that police came to their village on several occasions, but they also admitted not having divulged this to the villagers though in the statement they named several villagers. The statements of these two witnesses therefore do not inspire confidence and cannot be believed. The only circumstance which goes against the accused-appellant is the factum of cremation of the deceased Mamta even before the arrival of her parents, but here also, as already noticed above, there is a several lining in his favour that his father Ram Karan had soon after the death of Mamta headed for village Parlia of the complainant party and informed them about the incident. Not only this, he brought the father of deceased to village Keechalheda on his own motorcycle. He so also in-laws of deceased could not participate in the cremation under pressure from the villagers as the villagers did not want it to become a police case. This might have been an ill advised move on the part of the accused, but nevertheless the evidence in the present case is not such that this factor should form the sole basis for conviction of the accused-appellant unless it is corroborated from any other independent evidence or attending circumstances. Since there is no corroboration at all, the mere fact that the deceased was cremated before her father and father-in-law could reach from village Parlia to village Keechalheda, that this circumstance alone in the present case cannot be relied to sustain conviction of the accused-appellants. The evidence in the present case falls short of the proof beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as accused-appellant has made out a case for grant of benefit of doubt. 24. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Deen Dayal deserves to succeed and is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.01.2015 is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC and is set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. 25. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Deen Dayal is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.