Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1284 (ALL)

Brij Lal v. State of U. P.

2019-05-10

B.K.NARAYAN, GHANDIKOTA SRI DEVI

body2019
JUDGMENT : GHANDIKOTA SRI DEVI, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.06.1985 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur whereby the accused- appellants Brij Lal Verma, Ram Raj, Smt. Vimla Devi and Smt. Maharani were convicted under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life in Session Trial No. 325 of 1985, State vs. Brij Lal and Others, P.S. Bindki, District-Fatehpur. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under: The accused-appellant, Brij Lal is the elder brother of accused-appellant, Ram Raj. Accused-appellant, Smt. Vimla Devi is the wife of appellant, Brij Lal Verma. Accused-appellant, Smt. Maharani is the mother of both Brij Lal and Ram Raj. Ayodhya Prasad was the father of accused-appellant, Brij Lal and Ram Raj, however, he died during the course of investigation of the case. All the appellants are the residents of village Kamrapur, P.S. Bindki, District-Fatehpur. The deceased Maya Devi was the daughter of complainant Devi Charan, who is the resident of village Ninora, P.S. Jahanabad, District-Fatehpur. The deceased Maya Devi was married to accused Ram Raj on 9.5.1984 at village Kamrapur. The marriage was solemnized through settlement and for settlement of marriage, the complainant Devi Charan, Ganga Ram, Babu Lal and Ram Dhani had gone to village Kamrapur and where Sukhnandan, Keshan Lal and Mishri Lal of village Kamrapur had also participated in the said settlement. According to the prosecution case, the appellant Brij Lal and his deceased father Ayodhya Prasad demanded a sum of Rs. 14000/- towards dowry from the complainant and when the complainant Devi Charan expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, the gentlemen who were present in the settlement had intervened and accordingly the amount was fixed to the tune of Rs. 9975/-. In lieu of the settlement, the complainant had paid the entire amount in cash at the time of marriage and also given some articles. Apart from cash and articles, he had also given ornaments to his daughter Smt. Maya Devi. 9975/-. In lieu of the settlement, the complainant had paid the entire amount in cash at the time of marriage and also given some articles. Apart from cash and articles, he had also given ornaments to his daughter Smt. Maya Devi. After the marriage, the deceased Maya Devi had gone to her matrimonial house, she stayed there for about 20-22 days and when she came back to her parental house, she informed to her father that there was a loan on the tube well and the society over her father-in-law because of which her mother-in-law, father-in-law and their sons used to say that as the marriage was settled at Rs. 14,000/-, if the remaining amount of Rs. 4000/- would not be paid to them, they would kill her and perform another marriage to accused Ram Raj. The accused Smt. Vimla Devi wanted half share in the ornaments which she received from her parents at the time of marriage. The accused Brij Lal and others, few days before the occurrence sent a letter through a Barbar for sending the deceased Maya Devi to their matrimonial house. When the deceased Maya Devi did not go to her matrimonial house, the accused Brij Lal had gone to village of the complainant and demanded Rs. 4000/- from him as the balance of dowry amount. On being refused by the complainant, the accused Brij Lal threatened to realize the said amount and stated to the complainant that he had paid only Rs. 9975/- as dowry and he would have to pay the balance of Rs. 4000/- failing which, his daughter would not be allowed to live and he would perform remarriage of the accused Ram Raj. 3. On the intervening night of 29/30.4.1985 the accused-appellant, Brij Lal, Ram Raj, Smt. Vimla Devi and the parents of Brij Lal with the common object had killed his daughter Maya Devi. The information about the death of Maya Devi was given to him on 30.04.1985 at about 6.00 a.m. by one Keshan Lal son of Kallu, resident of village Kamrapur, P.S. Bindki, District-Fatehpur. On getting the information, the complainant and his family members reached village Kamrapur and found the dead body of Maya Devi in the house of Ayodhya Prasad, however the accused were not present at their house. On getting the information, the complainant and his family members reached village Kamrapur and found the dead body of Maya Devi in the house of Ayodhya Prasad, however the accused were not present at their house. Thereafter the complainant went to Bindki Police Station by a tempo got the written report scribed by one Gopal Prasad, resident of village Shahjahanpur at the Lalauli crossing and submitted the same to the police station Bindki on 30.04.1985 at about 7.45 a.m. On the basis of written report, a check FIR was prepared by Head Moharrir Lalta Prasad and Crime Case No. 92 of 1985 under section 302/498-A, I.P.C. and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and relevant entries were made in the general diary. 4. The investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Sri Jag Mohan Tripathi of police station Bindki, District-Fatehpur on the same day. The papers relating to Panchayatnama along with G.D. entries were received by him through constable Krishna Prasad and immediately he initiated the investigation of the case. He along with S.I. Mohan Ram, Constable Rudra Prasad and constable Krishna Prasad reached the place of occurrence at village Kamrapur where he found a huge gathering at the door of the appellants, but they did not find any family members of accused-appellants. Thereafter he conducted the inquest over the dead body of Maya Devi in presence of panch witnesses and prepared the panchnama. He also prepared the relevant papers like, photo lash, challan lash, letter to C.M.O. letter to R.I. he sealed the dead body and prepared the specimen seal and thereafter he handed over the dead body in a sealed condition to constable Krishna Prasad and Chaukidar Bhagwan Din for dispatching the same to the police lines for its postmortem to the District Hospital, Fatehpur. From the place of occurrence the Investigating Officer also collected blood stained soil and simple soil in separate tins so also the pieces of bangles and sealed them in separate bundles, thereafter he prepared the recovery memo in presence of the witnesses namely Chandra Pal and Sheo Nandan. Thereafter he recorded the statement of Panchnama witnesses, namely Anant Kumar, Ram Kishun, Sheo Lal, Sheo Nandan and Satya Prakash, he searched for the accused but they were not traced. 5. Thereafter he recorded the statement of Panchnama witnesses, namely Anant Kumar, Ram Kishun, Sheo Lal, Sheo Nandan and Satya Prakash, he searched for the accused but they were not traced. 5. On 01.05.1985 while he was performing his duties along with constable Immauddin and S.I. Rohan Lal, he came to village Kamrapur and made search of the house of accused- appellants and he took the accused-appellants Brij Lal, Ram Raj, Smt. Vimla and Smt. Maharani into police custody, recorded their statements on the spot and brought them to the police station and placed them in separate cells. Thereafter further investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Begram Singh, Circle Officer, Bindki on 03.05.1985. The second Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence on 07.05.1985 he recorded the statements of complainant Devi Charan and other witnesses, namely Mishri Lal, Sukh Nandan, Keshan Lal, Ram Ratan, Ram Dhani and Kishan son of Ramadheen and he also made inquiry from the neighbours, thereafter at the instance of complainant and the witnesses he made spot inquiry and prepared the spot map. He took the witness Kishan to the tube-well of the accused-appellants where he found plain field (Khalihan) and field of Bhindi. It was stated to him that in the said field a quarrel had taken place just before the occurrence. 200 yards north to the said tube-well the field of the accused-appellants is situate and on the southern edge of the said field, the blood-stained clothes were burnt, and in order to disappear the evidence, the said place was ploughed, however, he did not find any ashes at that place. Thereafter, he went into the house of the accused-appellants and verified about whereabouts of Ayodhya Prasad but he could not find him, thereafter the charges were converted. 6. On 13.05.1985 he had gone to village Nanaura and recorded the statements of Smt. Rama Devi wife of complainant, Ganga Ram and Ram Dhani etc. thereafter he came back to the police station and recorded the statement of Head Constable Lalta Prasad. Again on 6.6.1985 he went to the house of Ayodhya Prasad and he came to know that Ayodhya Prasad died on 4.6.1985 due to illness. After completing the investigation of the case, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellants Brij Lal, Ram Raj, Smt. Vimla and Smt. Maharani in the Court. 7. Again on 6.6.1985 he went to the house of Ayodhya Prasad and he came to know that Ayodhya Prasad died on 4.6.1985 due to illness. After completing the investigation of the case, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellants Brij Lal, Ram Raj, Smt. Vimla and Smt. Maharani in the Court. 7. Since the disclosed offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur vide order dated 30.10.1985 had committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial, where Case Crime No. 92 of 1985 was registered as S.T. No. 325 of 1985 and same was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for trial in accordance with law. 8. The learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur basing on the primary evidence available on record and after giving opportunity to both the prosecution and the accused-appellants, vide order dated 05.12.1985 framed the charges against them under sections 147 and 302 read with section 149, I.P.C. to which the accused-appellants denied to have committed any crime and claimed for trial. 9. The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused-appellants, had examined as many as 9 witnesses out of whom PW-1, Devi Charan, PW-2, Ram Ratan, PW-3 Kishan, PW-4, Mishri Lal and PW-5 Sukhnandan were examined as witnesses of fact. Apart from the above 5 witnesses, the prosecution also rested its case on the oral testimonies of the formal witnesses PW-6, Dr. L.V.P.B. Singh, PW-7, S.I. Jagmohan Tripathi, PW-8 Beg Ram Singh, C.O. Bindki and PW-9 Head Constable Naseer Khan. The prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence such as written report (Ex. Ka-1), Post-mortem report (Ex. Ka-2), Panchnama (Ex. Ka-3), Photo lash, Challan Lash, letter to C.M.O. letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-4 to Ka-7), Sample seal (Ex. Ka-8), recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth and pieces of broken bangles (Ex. Ka-9), site plan (Ex. Ka-10), charge sheet (Ex. Ka-11), Check FIR (Ex. Ka-12) and carbon copy of G.D. Entry (Ex. Ka-13). 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to which all the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to the enmity. Ka-9), site plan (Ex. Ka-10), charge sheet (Ex. Ka-11), Check FIR (Ex. Ka-12) and carbon copy of G.D. Entry (Ex. Ka-13). 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to which all the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to the enmity. The accused Brij Lal further in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. had admitted the relationship between the accused-appellant, Ram Raj and deceased Maya Devi and also admitted that the deceased Maya Devi was married to accused Ram Raj at village Kamrapur on 9.5.1984. He further stated that he was living separately since before the marriage. He admitted that PW-7 S.I. Jagmohan Tripathi prepared the inquest report, sealed the dead body of the deceased and dispatched the same to the District Hospital, Fatehpur for post-mortem examination. He also admitted the collection of the blood stained soil, plain soil and pieces of bangles from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer. He further stated that he filed written report alleging therein that on the night of occurrence at 8 or 9 p.m. when they had gone to attend the marriage at the house of Jai Ram Nai only two ladies were left at their respective houses. After the dinner of the marriage party at about 1.00 a.m. when they had come to their house, they saw that Maya Devi was lying dead in the room her dead body was half naked and her ornaments were missing. He along with accused Ram Raj went to the police station Bindki to lodge the FIR and the police came to their village alongwith him. Ram Raj had gone to give information to the complainant Devi Charan and returned to the village at about 10 or 11 a.m. along with Devi Charan. The police took him and Devi Charan to the police station from the village where all the accused-appellants were challaned, later on it transpired that the report lodged by him was not registered. The accused Ram Raj had also stated the same facts in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. however, both the accused stated to lead evidence in their defence. The accused Ram Raj had also stated the same facts in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. however, both the accused stated to lead evidence in their defence. The accused Smt. Vimla Devi stated about the arrival of marriage party in the night of the occurrence to the house of Jai Ram Nai but she did not desire to lead evidence in her defence. Accused Smt. Maharani stated that the father of the Maya Devi had given nothing in the marriage. After the marriage Maya Devi came to her matrimonial house and stayed there only for about 20-22 days, accused Brij Lal was living separately since before the marriage of Ram Raj. She also stated about the arrival of the Barat at the door step of Jai Ram Nai. She further stated that the complainant Devi Charan came to her house at about 10.00 a.m. alongwith accused Ram Raj and FIR was written by S.I. himself. She also desired to lead evidence in defence, however in support of their defence the accused did not lead any oral evidence but filed certain documents (Ext. Kha-1 to Kha-5). 11. Learned Trial Court after going through the oral and documentary evidence eventually came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused-appellants for the murder of deceased Maya Devi and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302, I.P.C. read with section 34, I.P.C. Learned Trial Court based his conviction primarily relying upon the oral testimonies of the witnesses to be trustworthy. Learned Trial Court also based his conviction on the strong motive which is obvious for the lust of the dowry and came to the conclusion that same has been fully established by the prosecution. Learned Trial Court further based its judgment on the finding that the act of the accused-appellants by fleeing away from their house leaving dead body unattended, not reporting the matter at the police station and not informing the family members of the deceased Maya Devi, their absence at the time of inquest and no attempt made by them to procure the dead body after the post-mortem examination all are the important factors, which lead to the single inference that they were responsible for the murder of Maya Devi and accordingly convicted the accused-appellants as aforesaid. 12. 12. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, accused-appellants preferred the aforesaid criminal appeals, assailing the correctness of the judgment as mentioned above. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that the learned trial court had fallen in error in holding that the charges against the accused-appellants had been proved beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. He further urged that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence and the learned trial court had failed to keep in view the legal requirements necessary for the cases which are based on circumstantial evidence. He further argued that the depositions of the fact witnesses were not reliable for several reasons and the learned trial court had committed a grave error in ignoring those reasons. He further strenuously urged that the learned trial court held that there was a motive, assuming that any such motive had been established in the present case, it was not sufficient by itself to justify the conclusion that the accused-appellants were responsible for the murder off the deceased. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also argued that learned Trial Court had miserably failed to take note of the inherent inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities in the evidence at all the fact witness which makes testimony of these witnesses difficult to be believed. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention towards the circumstances which the learned trial court failed to consider and argued that occurrence is said to have taken place on 29/30.04.1985 and the FIR was said to have been lodged by the informant on 30.04.1985 at 7.45 a.m. itself. The accused-appellants were arrested by the PW-7, S.I. Jag Mohan Tripathi on 01.05.1985, however according to the statement of the witnesses all had remained present at the place of occurrence on 30.04.1985, but admittedly the statements of complainant and other witnesses were recorded by the second Investigating Officer only on 7.5.1985. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged by the complainant on the date and time which was mentioned in (Ext. Ka-12), rather it was registered at a later date and time after consultations and deliberations with the Investigating Officer falsely implicating all the accused-appellants. Thus it was urged that the findings of the learned trial court are perverse and illegal which cannot be sustained and the judgment is liable to be set aside. 15. Ka-12), rather it was registered at a later date and time after consultations and deliberations with the Investigating Officer falsely implicating all the accused-appellants. Thus it was urged that the findings of the learned trial court are perverse and illegal which cannot be sustained and the judgment is liable to be set aside. 15. Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State made submissions in support of the judgment of the learned Trial Court and submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on evidence available on record and there is no perversity or illegality in the said findings, hence there is no need to interfere with the said findings. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by the counsel for the parties and meticulously perused the entire lower court record. 17. In the present case, the moot questions for our consideration is whether the prosecution had succeeded in establishing beyond doubt that the incident occurred inside the house of accused Ram Raj and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution? 18. As per the prosecution version, the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 29.04.1985 and the complainant, Devi Charan was said to have been informed by one Kishun on 30.04.1985 at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning. Thus, according to the prosecution version, nobody had witnessed the occurrence and whole case rested on the circumstantial evidence. 19. The legal position regarding the standard of proof and the test which the circumstantial evidence must satisfy is well-settled by a Catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following five tests to be satisfied in a case based on circumstantial evidence: "(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (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. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (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." 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583 : AIR 2010 SC 773 , depicted the above mentioned requirements in the following words: "In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt. If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive. The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be." 21. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the prosecution relied entirely upon depositions of PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5. 22. PW-1, Devi Charan in his written report mentioned that regarding the death of his daughter he was informed by Kishan Lal son of Kallu, Resident of village Kamrapur, P.S. Bindki, District-Fatehpur on 30.04.1985 at 6.00 a.m. in the morning, however during his examination-in-chief before the Court in para-7 at page 60 of the paper book he had categorically mentioned that on 29/30.04.1985 night at 10-11 p.m. Kishan Lal, resident of village Kamrapur informed him that his daughter was murdered. On 30.04.1985 at about 5.45 a.m. he along with his wife and one boy had gone to village Kamrapur in the tempo of his cousin brother Ram Ratan. On 30.04.1985 at about 5.45 a.m. he along with his wife and one boy had gone to village Kamrapur in the tempo of his cousin brother Ram Ratan. In this regard, Kishan Lal was examined by the prosecution as PW-3 in this case, however, the said Kishan Lal did not at all support the prosecution case and categorically stated that he did not give any such information to the complainant Devi Charan regarding the murder of the wife of Ram Raj. He also stated that he was not aware as to whether any quarrel had taken place in the house of Ram Raj regarding the dowry. This witness was declared hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him, to which he had stated that regarding the incident the Police Inspector did not record any statement. When he was contradicted with his section 161, Cr.P.C. statement, he categorically stated that no such statement whatsoever was given by him to the police Inspector, he denied the suggestion that in connivance with the accused-appellants he was deposing falsehood. Thus the factum of the information given by the witness Kishan Lal to the informant Devi Charan was not proved by the prosecution through any cogent evidence and in view of such situation a doubt arises in our mind, as to whether the written report regarding the incident was lodged by PW-1 at the time as mentioned in the Check FIR (Ext. Ka-12) or not. 23. Regarding the deposition of PW-1, 2, 4 and 5, admittedly they were not eye witnesses to the occurrence, rather these witnesses had in their attempts tried to prove the demand of dowry made by the accused-appellant Brij Lal and the share in the ornaments of the deceased Maya Devi demanded by accused-appellant Smt. Vimla Devi. Particularly PW-2, 4 and 5 in their depositions before the Court have attempted to prove that there was a quarrel between the deceased Maya Devi and accused-appellant Smt. Vimla Devi in the field of Bhindi for the share of the ornaments of the deceased. The depositions of these witnesses PW-2, 4, and 5 hold the key as to whether the accused-appellants are guilty or innocent. 24. Before going into evidence of these witnesses it would be convenient to go through the evidence of PW-1, Devi Charan who was the father of the deceased Maya Devi. The depositions of these witnesses PW-2, 4, and 5 hold the key as to whether the accused-appellants are guilty or innocent. 24. Before going into evidence of these witnesses it would be convenient to go through the evidence of PW-1, Devi Charan who was the father of the deceased Maya Devi. During his deposition before the Court this witness had stated that the marriage of his daughter Maya Devi was performed with accused-Ram Raj on 09.05.1984 at village Kamrapur. During the settlement before the marriage, Sukh Nandan, Kishan Lal and Mishri Lal of village Kamrapur had remained present. Deceased Maya Devi after staying for about 20-22 days in her matrimonial home, was taken to her parental home where she had stated to her mother that her father-in-law had obtained a loan from the society of Rs. 9000/- on Tube-well which they had not been able to repay and for this her in-laws were torturing her and were demanding the remaining amount of Rs. 4000/- which was decided at the time of marriage, otherwise they had threatened to kill her and they would perform another marriage of her husband. The aforesaid facts were stated to him by his wife on which he had given assurance to his daughter that he would talk to her in-laws. Thereafter, the accused Brij Lal had came to his house and told him that he had separated from his parents and was staying separately and thereafter the complainant left his. daughter in the house of her in-laws. Just before 8-10 days of the occurrence his daughter sent a message to him through some body that her-in-laws were torturing her and they were asking for ornaments and also threatening to kill her. When he had gone to the house of the in-laws of his daughter it was told to him that accused-appellant-Brij Lal and his wife were demanding a share in her jewellery and rest were asking for Rs. 4000/-. When he asked to send his daughter with him, they refused and while leaving his daughter's house he had given the sum of Rs. 2400/- to his daughter and told her that whenever they make any demand she would give that amount to her in-laws. 4000/-. When he asked to send his daughter with him, they refused and while leaving his daughter's house he had given the sum of Rs. 2400/- to his daughter and told her that whenever they make any demand she would give that amount to her in-laws. When he reached the house of her in-laws after receiving the information he saw that his daughter was lying and her body was cut, blood was scattered here and there around the body and her body was pooled in blood, her blouse was torn. Only Ayodhya Prasad was present at home and none of the accused were found there and when he asked Ayodhya Prasad he did not say anything thereafter he had gone to the police got the report written by Gopal and lodged the same. 25. After performing last rites to his daughter he had gone to village Kamrapur after 2 to 4 days where he met Ramdhani Khatik, Ramdhani Chamar, Keshan Lal and Ram Ratan and they stated that one day before the occurrence there was a quarrel between Brij Lal, his wife and deceased Maya Devi at the field of Bhindi regarding money and ornaments and his daughter had run away from there. Accused Brij Lal had told that she would not survive the night. On that date the Barat had come to the house of Jai Ram Nai. In his cross-examination this witnesses had stated that he had never entered into the house of Ayodhya before the occurrence. Regarding the demand of dowry by the accused he never complained to police or any higher official. For settlement of the dowry amount there was no demand from the side of accused-appellants. Keshan Lal had told him about the murder of his daughter but he had not told him about the quarrel which had taken place a day before the occurrence in the Bhindi field. He was aware of the fact of quarrel at the Bhindi field, before lodging the written report, however, he could not say as to why this fact was not mentioned in the written report. He also could not say how Gopal had reached the place before he got the written report scribed. He did not inquire from Gopal the reason for his reaching the place. He also could not say how Gopal had reached the place before he got the written report scribed. He did not inquire from Gopal the reason for his reaching the place. The accused-appellant, Brij Lal had came to his house 5 to 7 days before the occurrence and at that time his daughter was present in his house, however, he denied the suggestion that accused Brij Lal had remained present at the police station and told him that when they had gone to attend the marriage, his daughter was murdered by some body. He further deposed that Smt. Vimla Devi was demanding half share in the ornaments given by him to his daughter, but this fact was not mentioned by him in the written report. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Vimla Devi did not quarrel with his daughter. He further stated that, accused-appellant Brij Lal did not meet him at the police station and he did not accompany the police to Kamrapur from the police station. He denied the suggestion that he, alongwith accused-appellant, Brij Lal and the police had gone to Kamrapur. He also denied the suggestion that the report was written after deliberations and consultations with the police. He further denied the suggestion that accused-appellant, Brij Lal told him in the police station that, when they had gone to the marriage, his daughter was murdered by some body. He also denied the suggestion that the accused Ram Raj had gone to inform him and he directly reached the police station. He further denied to the suggestion that the police got the report written by him after police personnel had reached the place of occurrence. 26. PW-2, Ram Ratan had stated before the Court that on the date of occurrence at about 9.30 p.m. he had gone to the house of Jai Ram Nai to receive Barat party crossing the house of Ayodhya Prasad and he saw that Ayodhya Prasad father of accused Brij Lal was sitting on a cot in front of his house having Danda in his hand and his wife was moving in front of door, he also saw the same situation while he was returning at 11.00 p.m. On the next day he came to know that the daughter-in-law of Ayodhya Prasad was murdered by some body. When he came at the door of Ayodhya Prasad he saw the public gathered there. When he came at the door of Ayodhya Prasad he saw the public gathered there. About 6.00 a.m. Devi Charan and his family members reached the house of Ayodhya Prasad. In his cross-examination this witnesses had stated that the accused Brij Lal and Ram Raj were staying in the same house and denied the suggestion that they were staying separately, but he had stated that they had partitioned their property but were staying in the same house, the house was not partitioned. He denied the suggestion that doors of the houses of accused Brij Lal and Ram Raj were separate. He further stated that during the arrival of Barat he did not find any member of the family of Ayodhya Prasad and he denied the suggestion that all the accused were present till the Barat party had finished the meal. He further stated that he had given statement to the police that he had gone to the house of Ayodhya Prasad in the morning. He also stated that whatsoever was seen by him during previous night he stated to Devi Charan, but he expressed his inability as to why his such statements were not recorded by the Investigating Officer. He further stated that on the date of occurrence he did not speak to Ayodhya Prasad because Ayodhya Prasad was not well and he was sitting on a Charpai with the help of Danda, however he denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of Jai Ram Nai to attend the Barat, passing through the house of Ayodhya Prasad. 27. PW-4, Mishri Lal in his statement before the Court deposed that on the date of occurrence during the evening in the field of Bhindi there was quarrel between Smt. Vimla Devi and Maya Devi and the said quarrel was witnessed by him. On that date, the Barat had come to the house of Jai Ram Nai during night and he had gone to the house of Jai Ram Nai at the time of arrival of Barat and while going he saw that Ayodhya Prasad and his wife were present at their door. Ayodhya Prasad was having Danda in his hand and his wife was moving there. Ayodhya Prasad was having Danda in his hand and his wife was moving there. He had seen the same situation while returning back and while he was attending the natural call in the way, he saw accused Brij Lal holding clothes in his hands and running towards tube-well. On the next day in the morning he saw the dead body of Maya Devi which was cut. During his cross-examination he had stated that information regarding the demand of Rs. 4000/- by accused Brij Lal, at Naurara was communicated to him by Devi Charan. The incident of quarrel between Maya Devi and Smt. Vimla Devi at the 'Bhindi field was stated by him to the Investigating Officer, but he did not state to the Investigating Officer that "on the date of incident he heard that in the field there was quarrel amongst the family members of the daughter of Devi Charan." He had also stated to the Investigating Officer in his statement that while he was attending the natural call he saw that Brij Lal was holding clothes in his hands and running towards the tube-well and it was not known to him as to why the aforesaid fact was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. 28. PW-5, Sukhnandan went a step ahead and deposed before the court that, about one year before his deposition during the afternoon at about 12 noon, he had gone to his field to cut the grass and he saw that in the Bhmdi field, the wife of Brij Lal and Maya Devi were quarreling with each other and Brij Lal separated them. The wife of Brij Lal was threatening Maya Devi. About one year back, he was cutting the wheat crop at his tube-well and all his family members were engaged in cutting the wheat crop, for which he used to go to look at his house. While going to his house, he saw that Ayodhya Prasad was sitting at his home and his wife was moving in the chhapar. While he was going back from the house, he heard Ayodhya Prasad asking his wife about some unusual sounds. He also heard some unusual sounds. However, he continued the work of cutting the wheat. After cutting about 25 bundles of wheat, the electrical wire was disconnected and his family members left for their house. While he was going back from the house, he heard Ayodhya Prasad asking his wife about some unusual sounds. He also heard some unusual sounds. However, he continued the work of cutting the wheat. After cutting about 25 bundles of wheat, the electrical wire was disconnected and his family members left for their house. He was lying on a cot (charpai) when he came to know that the wife of Ram Raj was cut and she was murdered for dowry. During cross-examination, he stated that, his in-laws' house is situate in the village Naunara. He had heard in the village that, Brij Lal was demanding Rs. 4000/- from Devi Charan. He did not attend the Tilak ceremony and marriage of the daughter of Devi Charan. Devi Charan told him that he had paid the entire settled amount, but he did not inquire from Brij Lal, regarding the same. He was not on visiting terms to the house of Ayodhya Prasad. They used to quarrel with each other and he asked Devi Charan to put an end to the quarrel. He told to the Investigating Officer that Ayodhya Prasad was asking his wife about unusual sounds. He did not ask Ayodhya Prasad after hearing unusual sounds. He personally did not send information to Devi Charan regarding the death of Maya Devi. Kishan Lal had gone to inform him. Devi Charan met him on the date of occurrence at about 11-12 hours in the day time. Devi Charan met him on the way at Bindki. After the murder, Devi Charan did not meet him in the village. He had gone to the house of Ayodhya Prasad at about 8.30-9.00 a.m. when the dead body was brought out by the police. He could come to know about the murder during the night itself at about 12.00-1.00 a.m. From that time, till the police reached, he did not go to the house of Ayodhya Prasad. He could not give the reason as to why he did not go there. He had seen the dead body in an open condition. He denied to the suggestion that, he was deposing falsehood. 29. He could not give the reason as to why he did not go there. He had seen the dead body in an open condition. He denied to the suggestion that, he was deposing falsehood. 29. According to PW-8, Beg Ram Singh, the statements of PW-1, Devi Charan, PW-2, Ram Ratan, PW-4, Mishri Lal and PW-5, Sukh Nandan were recorded by him under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 7.5.1985 after about 7-8 days of the occurrence but whatever they had deposed before the Court, they had not given any such statements to the Investigating Officer which were recorded by him. The witnesses did not offer any explanation in this regard, much less to say any cogent and acceptable explanation for their silence when the facts which were deposed by them in the court, were already within their knowledge, while their statements were being recorded by the Investigating Officer, at the initial stage of the occurrence. All the witnesses have made material improvements in their versions at the time of their depositions before the court and it is wholly unsafe to rely upon their evidence. 30. It is pertinent to mention here that ac-cording the first Investigating Officer, PW-7, S.I. Sri Jag Mohan Tripathi, he had gone to the place of occurrence on 30.04.1985, immediately after lodging of the report. He categorically stated that the report of the incident was lodged in front of him and he initiated investigation. He found several persons at the house of the accused-appellants, but did not find any of the accused-appellants, including Ayodhya Prasad. In this regard, PW-1, Devi Charan stated that only Ayodhya Prasad was present in the house, when he reached. PW-7 also deposed that along with the inquest report, he also prepared the post-mortem related papers, sealed the dead body and handed over the same along with the papers to constable Krishna Prasad and Chowkidar Bhagwandin, to carry for post-mortem. PW-6, Dr. L.V.P.B. Singh, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, had deposed that, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Maya Devi on 01.05.1985 at 3.30 p.m. He received the papers relating to the post-mortem on 01.05.1985, evening at 1.00 p.m., whereas, the dead body was received in the evening of 30.04.1985 itself. PW-6, Dr. L.V.P.B. Singh, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, had deposed that, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Maya Devi on 01.05.1985 at 3.30 p.m. He received the papers relating to the post-mortem on 01.05.1985, evening at 1.00 p.m., whereas, the dead body was received in the evening of 30.04.1985 itself. In order to explain the delay in handing over the post mortem related papers at a belated stage, the prosecution did not produce either constable Krishna Prasad or Chawkidar Bhagwandin, nor there is any plausible explanation available on record, for such lapses on the part of the prosecution. Moreover, according to PW-9, head constable Nasir Khan, check FIR (Ext. Ka-12) was prepared by Head Moharrir Lalta Prasad, immediately after the written report was lodged, mentioning the case crime number and the offences under sections 302, 498-A I.P.C. and section (3-A), of the Dowry related case. But in the inquest report, only the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was mentioned and not even the names of any of the accused. Another important aspect in this case is that according to all the fact witnesses, PW-2, 4 and 5, they remained present at the place of occurrence, during the time of inquest or thereafter, but none of them were cited as the panch witnesses. In this regard PW-7 categorically stated that, when he reached the place of occurrence, the house was found open, he did not find anybody inside the house, for which he nominated panch members to enter into the house as well as to conduct inquest of the dead body. He had also stated that he did not prepare the site plan, because the informant was not available at that time, and the site plan was supposed to be prepared at the instance of the informant. Non presence of the informant at the place of occurrence on 30.04.1985, was also fortified by the evidence of PW-5 Sukh Nandan, who had already deposed that he had not seen Devi Charan in the village on 30.04.1985. Another interesting aspect in this case is that, according to PW-1, except Ayodhya Prasad, none of the accused-appellants were present at the place of occurrence while PW-7, the first Investigating Officer stated that none of accused including Ayodhya Prasad were present, by the time, he reached the place of occurrence. Another interesting aspect in this case is that, according to PW-1, except Ayodhya Prasad, none of the accused-appellants were present at the place of occurrence while PW-7, the first Investigating Officer stated that none of accused including Ayodhya Prasad were present, by the time, he reached the place of occurrence. But the relatives and the other family members were present. He made search for them but they could not be traced out on 30.04.1985. Surprisingly on 01.05.1985 he again went to the house of the accused, he found them all at the house and accordingly took them into custody and brought them to the police station. According to this witness, he did not record the statements of the informant and the other witnesses till the charge was handed over by him to PW-8. He, even did not record the statement of Lalta Prasad, the scribe of the check FIR. According to PW-8, C.O. Beg Ram Singh, he recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses on 07.04.1985, whereas investigation of case was taken over by him on 03.05.1985. He recorded the statement of Lalta Prasad on 13.05.1985 after coming back from the village Naurana. He prepared the site plan on 07.05.1985 at the instance of PW-1 and the other witnesses. According to the fact witnesses, there was quarrel between the accused-appellant Smt. Vimla Devi and the deceased Maya Devi in the Bhindi field, in the evening before the occurrence, but the said Bhindi field or Khalihan was not shown in the site plan (Ext. Ka-10) prepared by the investigating officer. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, the clothes were burnt in the field and in order to get the evidence dis-appeared, the said place was ploughed by the accused-appellants. This place was also not found mentioned in the site plan. Thus, from a perusal of the above discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, a grave doubt has crept up in our mind regarding the existence of the FIR on the date and time as mentioned in Ext. Ka-12. A bare perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that, the whole prosecution story was cooked up and all the so-called fact witnesses were planted and got up in order to give colour to the prosecution version. We do not find any trust-worthiness in the veracity of these witnesses. 31. Ka-12. A bare perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that, the whole prosecution story was cooked up and all the so-called fact witnesses were planted and got up in order to give colour to the prosecution version. We do not find any trust-worthiness in the veracity of these witnesses. 31. In the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (1) JIC 539 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 3352 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while discrepancies in the testimony of a witness which may be caused by memory lapses were acceptable, contradictions in the testimony were not. It was observed that:- "Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution become doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person." 32. In the present case, the statements made by PW-2, Ram Ratan, PW-4, Mishri Lal and PW-5, Sukh Nandan are in complete contrast with the statements made by them before the police under Section 161, Cr.P.C. several improvements were made by these witnesses at the time of their deposition before the Court and they are of very vital character, which shatter the credibility of these witnesses and in their version to the police, have not given the correct picture. 33. Apex Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , classified witnesses into three categories namely, (i) those that are wholly reliable, (ii) those that are wholly unreliable and (iii) who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of first and second categories, there is no difficulty for arriving at an appropriate conclusion. It is only in the case of witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the Courts have to be circumspect and have to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial. 34. In the case of first and second categories, there is no difficulty for arriving at an appropriate conclusion. It is only in the case of witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable that the Courts have to be circumspect and have to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial. 34. In the present case as already stated earlier, the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses cannot be wholly reliable or wholly unreliable. All the witnesses have made substantial improvements in their version before the Court without there being any acceptable explanation as to why they had not mentioned in their statements to the Investigating Officer when they had knowledge about the things which were witnessed by them before the date or on the date of occurrence. No independent corroboration is available on record, particularly, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of Jai Ram Nai under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Regarding the presence or non presence of the accused-appellants in the Barat was very well within his knowledge and he could have been the best witness to speak the truth but the reasons best known to the prosecution, this witness was withheld from his examination before the Court. Regarding motive, the prosecution did not lead any cogent evidence and so called motive was not enough for supporting the conviction of the accused-appellants. Moreover, the prosecution had come up with the story that, the deceased Maya Devi was being tortured by her in-laws, for the remaining dowry amounting to Rs. 4000/- and she was murdered for the same. Interestingly, no charge in this regard was framed by the learned trial court. As already stated above, it is well settled that the chain of circumstances should be such as to lead to an irresistible conclusion that is incompatible with the innocence of the accused-appellants and in the present case several links of the chain are missing. 35. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants who are, in our opinion, entitled to acquittal giving them the benefit of doubt. 36. In the result, the appeals are allowed. 35. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants who are, in our opinion, entitled to acquittal giving them the benefit of doubt. 36. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.06.1985 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur whereby the accused-appellants Brij Lal Verma, Ram Raj, Smt. Vimla Devi and Smt. Maharani were convicted under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life in Session Trial No. 325 of 1985, State vs. Brij Lal and Others, P.S. Bindki, District-Fatehpur is hereby set aside. 37. The accused-appellants are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. The accused-appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. They need not surrender, however, the appellants are directed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. 38. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.