JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred by the accused/appellant Salagram S/o Devi Lal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/06/2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 08/2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- 2. For offence under Section 302 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' additional simple imprisonment. 3. For offence under Section 201 of IPC to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. 4. Prosecution story in brief is that on 13/03/2007, the complainant Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Radheyshyam Mali R/o Gram Ratlai submitted a written report (Ex.P-12) to SHO Police Station Asnawar, stating therein that six years ago, marriage of his younger sister, Sanju Kumari was solemnized with Salagram S/o Devi Lal, by caste Mali, resident of village Aktasa, as per tradition and rites of the society, in a mass wedding ceremony (Samuhik Vivah Sammelan) at Ratlai. In the marriage, clothes and domestic items were given by them, as per ceremony committee. His sister was sent to her in-laws after two years of the marriage. Sanju and her husband Salagram were residing in village with parents. Whenever she came to Aktasa, she would complain that her husband and parents-in-laws used to beat her on demand of dowry and said that what did her family members give us and that hers is starving family. Her parents-in-laws used to mislead her husband, therefore, he also beat her. Even then, they persuaded her to go back to her in-laws. During this time, a son was born to her out this wedlock, who is of 8-9 months. One or two days before this Holi, his younger brother Rakesh brought Sanju to us for Holi festival. Then also, she said that her husband beat her till now, at the instigation of his parents, who said that if she died, they would bring ten women for him. On next day of Holi, she returned back to her in-laws. One or two days before this Holi, his younger brother Rakesh brought Sanju to us for Holi festival. Then also, she said that her husband beat her till now, at the instigation of his parents, who said that if she died, they would bring ten women for him. On next day of Holi, she returned back to her in-laws. He got telephonic information through someone from village Aktasa at 6.00 PM on that day that corpse of his sister Sanju was lying in the well of her father-in-law. Informant along with his relatives, soon thereupon reached to the well of Sanju's father-in-law and saw her body there. Her father-in-law was sitting near the corpse. Her husband Salagram and parents-in-laws murdered her and threw her body in the well. Action be taken against them. 5. On the above written report, FIR No. 19/2007 (Ex.P-13) was registered at Police Station Asnawar, District Jhalawar for offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC against the accused/appellant and his parents, and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused/appellant and his father Devi Lal and mother Lad Bai under Section 304-B & 120-B of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhalawar who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. Thereafter, the case was transferred to learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Cases, Jhalawar and later on the case was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. 6. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302, 201 & 304-B of IPC against the accused/appellant and charge under Section 304-B of IPC was framed against Devi Lal & Smt. Lad Bai, the parents of the accused/appellant. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried. In order to prove it's case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. 7. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, to the accused/appellant and co-accused Devi Lal & Smt. Lad Bai under Section 313 of CrPC. In reply to the prosecution evidence, Devi Lal & Smt. Lad Bai stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They are residing separately from his son for last ten years. Accused/appellant denied the prosecution evidence and stated that his marriage was solemnized with deceased Sanju 15 years ago. In reply to the prosecution evidence, Devi Lal & Smt. Lad Bai stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They are residing separately from his son for last ten years. Accused/appellant denied the prosecution evidence and stated that his marriage was solemnized with deceased Sanju 15 years ago. Their relation was quite cordial and affectionate. His parents reside at Chanwli Dam. He never striked or harassed Sanju. He and his wife were living separately for last ten years. No evidence was led in defence. 8. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant and co-accused Devi Lal & Lad Bai from the charge of Section 304-B of IPC and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him as indicated herein above. 9. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 13/06/2008. 10. Mr. Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant contended that no prosecution witness has stated that accused/appellant murdered his wife by administering any toxic substance and thereafter, threw her dead body into the well so that he could escape penalty of murder. Therefore, offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC is not proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Even then, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the said offences without any evidence. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae also contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses on the material facts which the learned trial Court has ignored and thereby committed illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. Therefore, the appeal deserves acceptance and the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Singh Raghav learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence which proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of any substance. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 14. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 14. First of all, it is to be decided whether death of Sanju Kumari is homicidal. 15. The case of the prosecution is that marriage of younger sister of the complainant Ramesh Chand, was solemnized six years ago with Salagram, the appellant, in a mass wedding ceremony. Sanju, the deceased was sent to her in-laws after two years of her marriage. Whenever, she came to her maternal home, she used to complain that her husband and parents-in-law gave her beating for not satisfying demand of dowry. But members of her maternal family always counselled her (Sanju) and sent back to her in-laws. When she came to her maternal family on previous Holi festival, she made the same complaint. On the day of incident, the complainant got telephonic information through someone from village Aktasa that dead body of his sister Sanju was lying in the well of her father-in-law. Then, immediately he along with his relatives reached the well of Sanju's father-in-law and saw her body there. PW-1 Chandra Shekhar is a photographer who deposed that on 13/03/2007, on request of the police, he went to the place of occurrence and took photographs of the place of occurrence. PW-4 Ramesh Chand is brother of Sanju, the deceased, on whose written report the case was registered. The witness deposed that on 13/03/2007, he got telephonic information from village Aktasa that dead body of Sanju was lying in the well. Thereafter, the body was taken out of the well. The witness apprehended that Sanju would have been murdered by giving poison. The witness proved his signatures on written report Ex.P-12, FIR Ex.P-13, Panchayatnama of corpse Ex.P-14, memo of handing over corpse Ex.P-15 and site plan of place of occurrence Ex.P-16. PW-6 Gendi Lal is uncle of Sanju, the deceased, who deposed that on evening of 13th, he got information that Sanju has been murdered by Salagram and the corpse has been thrown into the well. PW-7 Jagdish is another uncle of Sanju, the deceased, who deposed that on evening of 13/03/2007, on receiving telephonic information, they went on the place of occurrence and saw the discharge of saliva from the mouth of Sanju. PW-7 Jagdish is another uncle of Sanju, the deceased, who deposed that on evening of 13/03/2007, on receiving telephonic information, they went on the place of occurrence and saw the discharge of saliva from the mouth of Sanju. PW-8 Indra Singh is also uncle of Sanju, the deceased, who stated that on receiving information of death of Sanju, his whole family went to the well of Sanju's in-laws, where her body was lying. PW-14 Durga Lal has stated that on 13/03/2007, he went to the well of Salagram and took dead body of Sanju out of the well, with the help of rope and net. PW-16 Ram Gopal has deposed that on receiving telephonic information that Sanju has been murdered by feeding poison and thrown into the well, they reached to the place of occurrence, where her body was lying. The witness proved his signatures on memo of Photography Ex.P-1, Panchayatnama of corpse Ex.P-14 and memo of handing over corpse Ex.P-15. PW-9 Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan has deposed that on 14/03/2007 at about 9.00 AM, he performed autopsy on the corpse of Sanju Bai wife of Salagram, as Member of Medical Board on request of police and found that her death took place before 12-18 hours before the post-mortem. The witness also stated that he found two abrasions on left side of stomach and one abrasion of 1/10x1/10 inch on left hand which were ante-mortem in nature. On internal examination, he found special kind of organic phosphorous with smell, which was taken and sealed by him. It was reported that the corpse was taken out of the well but there were no signs of drowning. Pieces of kidney, spleen, liver and small intestine of the corpse were taken and sealed for FSL report. In the opinion of the Medical Board, mode of death was COMA, and cause of death was probably organo phosphorous poison but reserved the final opinion until FSL report. Sealed samples were handed over to police for examination by FSL. The witness proved signatures of his own and other members of the Medical Board on post-mortem report Ex. P- 18. PW-18 Asha Ram, Circle Officer, Jhalawar has conducted the investigation, who deposed that after post-mortem, the corpse was handed over to her brother Ramesh Chand vide Ex.P-15. On 18/03/2007, he arrested the appellant vide Ex.P-25. The witness proved signatures of his own and other members of the Medical Board on post-mortem report Ex. P- 18. PW-18 Asha Ram, Circle Officer, Jhalawar has conducted the investigation, who deposed that after post-mortem, the corpse was handed over to her brother Ramesh Chand vide Ex.P-15. On 18/03/2007, he arrested the appellant vide Ex.P-25. During custody, accused Salagram voluntarily gave information to him with regard to a glass of steel and a bottle of endosulphas (sic endosulfan) which was recovered by him vide Ex.P-29. In pursuance of the information, one glass of steel with smell of poisonous substance was recovered vide Ex.P-19 and an iron bottle with writing Ethyl Ester 38% EC was recovered vide memo Ex.P-21, at the instance of the appellant. The witness also stated that the recovered glass and iron bottle were seized and sealed on the spot and were deposited in Maalkhana and thereafter, sent to FSL for examination. PW-17 Ram Charan was posted as Maalkhana In-charge in Police Station, Asnawar at the relevant time. The witness deposed that on 18/03/2007, Asha Ram Choudhary, Circle Officer handed over him a bottle of iron marked A and a glass of steel marked B in sealed condition, which he deposited in Maalkhana. On 21/03/2007, two sealed jars marked A and B brought by Kalyan Prasad FC from SRG Hospital, Jhalawar, were deposited by him in Maalkhana. On 21/03/2007, he gave all the four sealed packets with forwarding letter to Radhey Shyam FC, who on 24/03/2007, gave him a receipt number 2133 issued by FSL on 22/03/2007. The witness proved entries in Maalkhana Register Ex.P-27 and produced FSL report Ex.P- 18 in Court. PW-5 Radhey Shyam was posted as Constable in Police Station, Asnawar at the relevant time. The witness deposed that on 21/03/2007, Maalkhana In-charge Ram Charan (PW-17) handed over four sealed packets to him with forwarding letter to be deposited in FSL and he accordingly deposited the same in FSL on 22/03/2007 and obtained receipt Ex.P-17. 16. According to FSL report Ex.P-28, four sealed packets received from Police Station, Asnawar on 22/03/2007, were properly sealed bearing impression which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded and the seals were intact. On chemical examination, portions of viscera and washings gave positive test for the presence of Organochloro Insecticides and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquillizers. On chemical examination, portions of viscera and washings gave positive test for the presence of Organochloro Insecticides and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquillizers. Portions of viscera and washings gave negative tests for Ethyl and Methyl alcohol. 17. Conjoint reading of statements of above witnesses, Panchayatnama of corpse Ex.P-14, post-mortem report Ex.P-18 and FSL report Ex.P-28, reveal that cause of death of Sanju Kumari is intake of organochloro insecticides, and not drowning into the well. It also reveals that external injuries found on the corpse were antemortem. 18. Before adverting to the arguments raised by the learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor, it would be appropriate to analyse the evidence of important and relevant witnesses produced by the prosecution. PW-4 Ramesh Chand happens to be the brother of the deceased Sanju and complainant of the case, who deposed that six years ago, marriage of Sanju was solemnized with Salagram. Sanju used to say that her husband and parents-in-law strike her with broom for demand of dowry. They taunted that what did her father give us, and theirs was a starving family. The witness also stated that his younger brother went to in-laws of his sister, Sanju and brought her, then the appellant and his parents quarreled with him, in connection with demand of dowry. The witness further stated that whenever Sanju came to his village, she used to say that her in-laws subject her to beat. PW-6 Gendi Lal, is uncle of the deceased, has deposed that marriage of Sanju was solemnized with Salagram 6-7 years ago. After birth of second child, whenever Sanju came to her maternal house, she used to complain that Salagram, her husband harassed her saying that she had a starving family, and that what did her father give him in dowry. Salagram striked her for demand of dowry. The witness also stated that they counselled her (Sanju) and persuaded her to return to her in-laws. PW-7 Jagdish is another uncle of the deceased. The witness deposed that whenever Sanju came to his brother in Ratlai, she used to meet him. She used to tell us that Salagram demanded money and used to beat her in this regard. He used to threaten to kill her, if the demand was not fulfilled. Salagram once told her to bring Rs.20,000/- from her maternal family, failing which he would kill her. She used to tell us that Salagram demanded money and used to beat her in this regard. He used to threaten to kill her, if the demand was not fulfilled. Salagram once told her to bring Rs.20,000/- from her maternal family, failing which he would kill her. During cross-examination, the witness stated that marriage of Sanju was solemnized in a mass wedding ceremony in May, 1998. PW-8 Inder Singh is another uncle of the deceased, who deposed that marriage of Sanju was solemnized with Salagram 5-6 years ago. Whenever she came from her in-laws, she used to come to meet him. She complained that her husband strikes her and says that what did her mother give him. Salagram also asked Sanju to bring Rs.20,000/- from her brother, failing which he would kill her. PW-10 Kalawati Bai is aunt (father's sister) of Sanju Bai and resident of Aktasa, the village of Salagram also. The witness deposed that marriage of Sanju was solemnized with Salagram in a mass wedding ceremony. Her parents-in-law and husband Salagram used to quarrel with her for dowry and used to say her to bring money from her maternal family. The accused also said that her father gave nothing and threatened to kill her. She informed this to her nephew Ramesh, Gendi Lal and her brother, whenever, she went to her maternal house. The witness further stated that we understood her (Sanju) and sent her in-laws. In cross-examination, the witness stated that she does not remember the month and year of mass wedding ceremony, in which Sanju was married. PW-11 Guddi Bai is sister of Sanju, the deceased, is also married in village Aktasa. The witness deposed that whenever, Sanju Kumari met, she used to tell that Salagram and her parents-in-law used to quarrel with her for dowry. On the day of incident at about 2- 3 PM, the witness was harvesting wheat crop in the field of Prabhulal. At that time, she heard voices, Salagram and Lad Bai were beating Sanju. After some time, voices stopped, then she sent Neelu, who went there and saw that son of Sanju was weeping on the field and Sanju was not there. Thereafter, Neelu returned and asked Guddi Bai to go herself. Therefore, she went there, Sanju was not there, her chappals were lying there. On suspicion, she cried that these persons killed Sanju and threw her into the well. Thereafter, Neelu returned and asked Guddi Bai to go herself. Therefore, she went there, Sanju was not there, her chappals were lying there. On suspicion, she cried that these persons killed Sanju and threw her into the well. On hearing her cry, Durgalal, Banwari and Bhuralal etc. came there and body of Sanju was taken out of the well by these persons with the help of rope, and then they went away. In evening, Salagram came to her and asked as to why the dead body was taken out of the well. Thereafter, Salagram asked them to perform cremation without taking the dead body home. And thereafter he fled away. In cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that Salagram kept his wife Sanju with love and affection, and said that he used to quarrel with her. PW-16 Ram Gopal is maternal uncle of the deceased Sanju, who has deposed that six years ago marriage of Sanju was solemnized with Salagram. Whenever, Sanju came to Ratlai, she used to say him that her parents-in-law and husband Salagram used to strike her with regard to dowry and say that what did she bring from her maternal family. Thereafter, they understood her and sent her in-laws. She came on the festival of Holi, then also she stated about beatings given to her by Salagram. Then also, they counselled her and persuaded to return to her in-laws. 19. From holistic examination of above evidence, following facts emerge :- (a) that the marriage of the appellant Salagram was solemnized with the deceased Sanju Kumari in a mass wedding ceremony organized in village Ratlai. The accused/appellant Salagram used to quarrel with his wife Sanju with regard to giving less dowry by her mother and he used to beat her also. Whenever, Sanju, the deceased met with her brother Ramesh Chand (PW-4), her uncles Gendi Lal (PW-6), Jagdish (PW-7) and Indra Singh (PW- 8), aunt Kalawati Bai (PW-10), maternal uncle Ram Gopal (PW-16) and sister Guddi Bai (PW-11), she said that her husband Salagram used to beat her for dowry. (b) at about 2-3 PM on the day of incident i.e. 13/03/2007, Guddi Bai (PW-11) was harvesting the wheat crop in the field of Prabhu Lal. At that time she heard voices and saw that Salagram was beating Sanju, the deceased. After sometime, voices stopped. (b) at about 2-3 PM on the day of incident i.e. 13/03/2007, Guddi Bai (PW-11) was harvesting the wheat crop in the field of Prabhu Lal. At that time she heard voices and saw that Salagram was beating Sanju, the deceased. After sometime, voices stopped. Then she sent Neelu, who went there and saw that son of Sanju was weeping there and Sanju was not found there. Thereafter, Neelu returned and then, Guddi Bai (PW-11) went there. Sanju was not there and her chappals were lying there. On suspicion, she cried that these persons killed Sanju and threw her into the well. On hearing her cry, Durga Lal, Banwari and Bhura Lal etc. came there and body of Sanju was taken out of the well by these persons. From the site plan of place of occurrence (Ex.P-16) prepared by Asha Ram Circle Officer (PW-18), it transpires that the field of Salagram is one field away from the filed of Prabhu Lal, where Guddi Bai (PW-11) was cutting wheat crop, on the day of incident. Corpse of Sanju Kumari was taken out of the well by Bhura Lal (PW-3), Durga Lal (PW-14) and Devi Lal (PW-19). (c) Investigation Officer, Asha Ram (PW-18) recovered a glass of steel with smell of poisonous substance and an iron bottle with writing of Ethyl Ester 38% EC, at the instance of the appellant, in pursuance of disclosure statement given by him to the Investigation Officer, which were seized and sealed on the spot and deposited in Maalkhana of Police Station. (d) Dr. Gauri Shankar (PW-9) as Member of Medical Board performed autopsy on the corpse of Sanju Kumari and found two abrasions on left side of stomach and one abrasion on left hand, which were ante-mortem in nature. On internal examination, he found special kind of organic phosphorous with foul smell, which were taken and sealed by him. Though, the body was taken out of the well, but there was no sign of drowning. Pieces of kidney, spleen, liver and small intestine of the corpse were taken and sealed for FSL report, which were sent to FSL for examination. Postmortem report Ex.P-18 and FSL report Ex.P-28, reveal that cause of death of Sanju Kumari is intake of organochloro insecticide and there is no sign of drowning. Pieces of kidney, spleen, liver and small intestine of the corpse were taken and sealed for FSL report, which were sent to FSL for examination. Postmortem report Ex.P-18 and FSL report Ex.P-28, reveal that cause of death of Sanju Kumari is intake of organochloro insecticide and there is no sign of drowning. (e) Medical evidence corroborates the evidence given by Guddi Bai (PW-11) that Sanju, the deceased was striked by the appellant on the day of incident. (f) None of the prosecution witness has stated that he/she saw the appellant committing murder of his wife, Sanju, by giving her toxic substance. 20. From the above facts, it is proved that the appellant used to beat his wife Sanju Bai, the deceased on complaint of giving insufficient dowry by her maternal family and on the day of incident also, he gave beatings to Sanju. But the evidence of the prosecution does not prove that the appellant committed murder of his wife, Sanju by giving her any toxic substance, therefore, offence under Section 302 of IPC is not proved against him. Moreover, it is proved that the death of Sanju Kumari occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances. 21. It is not disputed that marriage of Sanju Kumari was solemnized with Salagram, the appellant in mass wedding ceremony of their caste, which was organized in village Ratlai. Brother of the deceased, Ramesh Chand (PW-4) stated that the marriage was solemnized six years ago. Uncle of the deceased, PW-6 Gendi Lal has stated that the marriage was solemnized before 6-7 years. Another uncle of the deceased, PW-8 Indra Singh has stated that the marriage was solemnized before 5-6 years. Maternal uncle of the deceased PW-16 Ram Gopal has stated that the marriage was solemnized before six years. Other uncle of the deceased, PW-7 Jagdish in his cross-examination, has stated that the marriage was solemnized in mass wedding ceremony organized in May, 1998. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, has stated that the marriage was solemnized 15 years ago but he did not produce any evidence to corroborate his statement. On holistic examination of statements of above witnesses, it transpires that the death of Sanju Kumari, wife of the appellant, occurred within 7 years of her marriage. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, has stated that the marriage was solemnized 15 years ago but he did not produce any evidence to corroborate his statement. On holistic examination of statements of above witnesses, it transpires that the death of Sanju Kumari, wife of the appellant, occurred within 7 years of her marriage. From the above evidence, it is proved that soon before death of Sanju Kumari, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, the appellant herein, soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. From the discussions made above, it is also proved that after death of Sanju Kumari, the appellant put the corpse into the well so that he could escape the penalty of dowry death of his wife, Sanju Kumari. 22. In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused/appellant Salagram for offence under Section 302 of IPC and consequential sentence of life imprisonment is set aside. However, he is instead convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- on that count is maintained, however, in default of payment of fine, appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. The conviction of the accused/appellant for offence under Section 201 of IPC is maintained and the rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.2,000/- on that count is maintained, however, in default of payment of fine, accused/appellant shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months. 23. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, 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.