Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1344 (PAT)

Ram Iswar Singh s/o Bigan Singh v. State of Bihar

2019-09-27

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Amicus Curiae Mrs. Alka Advocate for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha appearing for the State and perused the record along with lower court records. 2. The abovestated appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 30.05.1995 and 31.05.1995 respectively, passed by learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 1990 by which and whereunder he having found guilty, convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the abovestated sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated prosecution case is that P.W. 11 namely, Sakhiya Devi gave her fard-e-beyan to P.W. 8 Ram Sagar Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Jandaha P.S., on 06.10.1989 at 9.00 am at the house of deceased, situated in village Chandsarai, to this effect that on the same day at about 7.00 am while she was at her home at village Araniya, she came to know that her daughter was killed by her son-in-law Ram Iswar Singh and parents-in-law namely, Bigan Singh as well as wife of Bigan Singh and having killed her daughter they threw her dead-body in a well, situated in front of their house. Having got the aforesaid information, she along with her mother-in-law and others went to village Chandsarai and found the dead-body of her daughter lying in the well and, thereafter, with the help of villagers, the dead-body of her daughter was taken out from the well and was kept in front of house of her in-laws. Having got the aforesaid information, she along with her mother-in-law and others went to village Chandsarai and found the dead-body of her daughter lying in the well and, thereafter, with the help of villagers, the dead-body of her daughter was taken out from the well and was kept in front of house of her in-laws. She further claimed that the marriage of her daughter had taken place two and half years ago with consent of bride and groom, but after some days of the marriage the relation between her daughter and her son-in-law became strained, as her daughter was not liked by her son-in-law, and the parents-in-law of her daughter used to demand dowry for which, several times panchayati were held and, she further, claimed that 06.10.1989 was fixed for Bidai of her daughter, but in previous night, her daughter was assaulted by her husband as well as her in-laws and the cry of her daughter was heard by neighbours of her daughter. She claimed that her son-in-law as well as parents-in-law of her daughter having committed the murder of her daughter, left their home. On the basis of aforesaid fard-e-beyan of informant (PW 11), Jandaha P.S. Case No. 98 of 1989 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and, on the same date, formal F.I.R was drawn up against the appellants. The formal F.I.R was put up before the court on 17.10.1989. 4. P.W. 8 Ram Sagar Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Jandaha P.S. took the charge of investigation. He stated in his deposition that on 06.10.1989, he got information to this effect that a dead-body was lying in a well at Chandsarai village, and, having got the aforesaid information, he entered Sanha and went to village Chandsarai, where he recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11. P.W. 8 further claimed that in course of investigation, he prepared inquest report of deceased, send the dead-body to hospital for postmortem examination, recorded the statements of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, but before completion of the investigation, he handed over charge of investigation to one Dinanath Singh, who had taken charge of Jandaha P.S. and, subsequently, aforesaid Dinanath Singh submitted chargesheet against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 5. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session, in usual course and, accordingly, appellants stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to appellants to which they pleaded not guilty, and, claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, 13 witnesses and also got exhibited certain documents including the inquest report, and, postmortem report of deceased. 6. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C in which they denied the prosecution case and reiterated their innocence. 7. No evidence was adduced by the appellants in support of their defence, but from perusal of the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as trends of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it is obvious that the appellants completely denied the prosecution story and claimed their false implication. 8. Learned trial court after evaluating the prosecution evidence passed the judgment of conviction having relied upon circumstantial evidences which are as follows:- (1) the relation of deceased as well as appellants was not cordial as several panchayati were held between appellants and informant prior to the alleged occurrence. (2) at the time of alleged occurrence, the deceased was residing at her matrimonial home where she was subjected to torture by the appellants. (3) the dead-body of the victim was found in a well near house of appellants and (4) the doctor found several injuries on the person of deceased and the appellants failed to explain as to how deceased sustained the aforesaid injuries. However, it is pertinent to note here that by the same impugned judgment learned trial court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae Mrs. Alka, Advocate assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that admittedly, none had seen the actual killing of the deceased. She further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements on the point of torture as well as factum of so-called demand of dowry. She further submitted that the learned trial court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and, therefore, it is obvious that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of so-called demand of dowry. She further submitted that the learned trial court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and, therefore, it is obvious that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of so-called demand of dowry. She further submitted that so far as allegation of torturing the deceased is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was ever subjected to torture and cruelty, but the learned trial court only, on the basis of suspicion, came to conclusion that deceased was subjected to torture by the appellants prior to her death. She further submitted that P.W. 11 admitted in her deposition that deceased had solemnized her love marriage with appellant no. 1 namely, Ram Iswar Singh and, therefore, the question of torturing for alleged demand of dowry does not arise. She next submitted that according to statement of P.W. 11, she got information about the death of her daughter at about 7.00 am on 06.10.1989 and, immediately, she went to the place of occurrence, where her fard-e-beyan was recorded on the same day and the P.W. 8 admitted that on the same day, case was registered and formal F.I.R was drawn up, but it is surprising enough that the fard-e-beyan and formal F.I.R were put up before the concerned court on 17.10.1989 that is after eleven days of registration of fard-e-beyan and F.I.R and, therefore, the aforesaid delay in sending the fard-e-beyan and formal F.I.R to the concerned court creates doubt about the genuineness of fard-e-beyan and formal F.I.R. She further submitted that P.W. 8 has admitted in his examination in chief that prior to recording of fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11, he got information regarding the death of the deceased and after that he having entered Sanha, went to the place of occurrence, but the aforesaid Sanha was not brought on the record and, as a matter of fact, the appellants were not named in the information which was given to P.W. 8 and, subsequently, P.W. 8 manufactured and fabricated the so-called fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 implicating the appellants with an ulterior motive. She next submitted that even if, the entire prosecution evidence is taken into consideration, then also except suspicion, there is no cogent and legal evidence against the appellants, and, it is well settled principle of law that suspicion however, may be strong, cannot take place of evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 10. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that almost all the material prosecution witnesses, specifically, stated that the relation of deceased with her husband and parents-in-law was not cordial and some days prior to the alleged occurrence, panchayati was held and in the aforesaid panchayati, it was accepted by the appellants that they used to chide the deceased, though for other reasons. He further submitted that it is also an admitted position that the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from a well which was situated in front of house of the appellants. He further submitted that the injuries found on the person of the deceased speak voluminous as to how she was killed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that moreover, the appellants did not explain as to how and under which circumstance, deceased died and her dead-body was found in a well and, therefore, aforesaid circumstances clearly suggest and point out the involvement of the appellants, in killing the deceased and throwing her dead-body into the well. 11. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, we went through the record along with lower court record. The only question arise for determination is as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order is liable to be confirmed or not. 12. As we have already stated that in course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, 13 prosecution witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1 Mithilesh Kumar Singh, P.W. 3 Nagendra Choudhary, P.W. 5 Dharmnath Singh, P.W. 6 Ram Bilas Rai and P.W. 9 Ram Basishth Singh are formal witnesses. 13. P.W. 1 proved the signature and writing of S.I. Ramawatar Sharma on formal FIR. This witness has stated nothing in respect of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 3 proved the endorsement on the fard-e-beyan as exhibit 2. Similarly, P.W. 5 proved the writing and signature of Ram Sagar Sharma, Daroga of Jandaha P.S. on fard-e-beyan. 13. P.W. 1 proved the signature and writing of S.I. Ramawatar Sharma on formal FIR. This witness has stated nothing in respect of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 3 proved the endorsement on the fard-e-beyan as exhibit 2. Similarly, P.W. 5 proved the writing and signature of Ram Sagar Sharma, Daroga of Jandaha P.S. on fard-e-beyan. P.W. 6 Ram Bilas Rai and P.W. 9 Ram Basishth Singh, have proved their respective signatures on inquest report. 14. PW 2 Awadh Bihari Singh is co-villager of the appellants. This witness claims that at about 6.00 am on 06.10.1989, he learnt that the daughter-in-law of appellant no. 2 namely, Bigan Singh died and having got the aforesaid information, he went to the house of appellant no. 2 namely, Bigan Singh. This witness further claims that he found a dead-body lying at the door of Bigan Singh. This witness further claims that he removed the cloth from the mouth of the dead-body and identified that the aforesaid dead-body was of daughter-in-law of appellant no. 2 Bigan Singh as well as daughter of P.W. 11 Sakhiya Devi. This witness further claims that the marriage of appellant no. 1 had taken place with the deceased two and half years ago, prior to the alleged occurrence. This witness also claims that 10 to 15 days prior to the alleged occurrence, a panchayati was held between appellant Bigan Singh as well as Kedar Singh, who happens to be husband of informant (PW 11). This witness further claims that on the request of Kedar Singh, he attended the aforesaid panchayati which was held at the door of appellants. This witness further claims that Kedar Singh made complain in the aforesaid panchayati that his daughter was being subjected to torture by the appellants, but appellant no. 2 denied the aforesaid allegation of father of deceased and told that deceased was asked to do agricultural work outside the house, but she refused whereupon, she was chided by him as well as his other family members and thereafter, panches asked the appellant no. 2 Bigan Singh not to chide the deceased, but also directed the deceased to do the work, as asked by her in-laws and on the aforesaid terms, both parties agreed. 2 Bigan Singh not to chide the deceased, but also directed the deceased to do the work, as asked by her in-laws and on the aforesaid terms, both parties agreed. This witness also states that the dead-body of deceased was taken out from the well, which was situated towards East side at the distance of 5 to 7 laggi from the house of appellants. This witness admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made any statement before the police. This witness disclosed the name of panches who had attended the above stated panchayati. He also admitted that the panches of aforesaid panchayati are alive. 15. The perusal of statement of this witness goes to show that for the first time, this witness claimed before the trial court that he attended panchayati which was held between the appellants and the father of deceased and, furthermore, this witness for the first time, in trial court, claimed to have seen the dead-body of deceased lying in front of door of appellants. Therefore, it is unsafe to believe on the statement of this witness. 16. P.W. 4 Rajeshwari Devi is grand-mother of the deceased. This witness claims that in the night of Thursday while she was at her home, Umeshwar Singh and Kameshwar Singh of village Chandsarai came to her house at about 6.00 am of Friday and gave information that her grand-daughter was killed. She further states that having got the aforesaid information, she along with her Gotni Guliya Devi (P.W. 7) and informant (P.W. 11) went to the house of in-laws of her granddaughter where she did not find her grand-daughter in her matrimonial home rather her dead-body was lying in a well. She further claims that the appellants were not present at their home and the villagers of Chandsarai village disclosed that the appellants fled away from the village. She further claims that that one Sadhu Singh, who happens to be Mausa of deceased, with the help of others took out the dead-body of deceased from the well and the dead-body was brought on the door of appellant Bigan Singh. She further claims that police came there and recorded the statement of informant as well as her Gotni. She further claims that the marriage of deceased had taken place two and half years ago, prior to the alleged occurrence. She further claims that police came there and recorded the statement of informant as well as her Gotni. She further claims that the marriage of deceased had taken place two and half years ago, prior to the alleged occurrence. She further claims that husband of deceased Ram Iswar Singh used to demand T.V. Cycle and cash in dowry. She further claims that her daughter-in-law came to her home and disclosed that her husband used to demand T.V., Cycle and cash and used to threaten her to kill, if his demand remained unfulfilled. This witness also claims that her grand-daughter had disclosed that she might be killed if the above stated demand is not fulfilled. This witness, on being cross-examined by the defence, stated that prior to the alleged occurrence, a panchayati was held. She further disclosed that the distance between her village and Chandsarai was at about one mile. She admitted that though, the husband as well as parents-in-law of the deceased used to quarrel with the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of illegal demand, but she had not talked with husband as well as parents-in-law of the deceased in respect of the above-stated quarrel as well as illegal demand. This witness also claimed that police had gone in the house of the appellants, but they were not present at their home when police reached there. This witness further claimed to have made statement before the police to this effect that the appellants used to make demand of T.V. and cash. 17. The perusal of statement of this witness goes to show that this witness, specifically, stated that she had seen the dead-body of deceased which was taken out from the well and, furthermore, this witness also stated about the panchayati which was held between appellants and parents of deceased, prior to the alleged occurrence. 18. P.W. 7 Guliya Devi (cousin grandmother of deceased), claims that while she was at her home, two persons of village Chandsarai came to her home and disclosed that deceased was killed. She further claims that she along with P.W. 4 and P.W. 11 went to the house of appellants, but she did not find deceased at her matrimonial home and, subsequently, her dead-body was recovered from a well. She further claims that her grand-daughter was killed by her in-laws and her husband, as their demand of motorcycle, T.V. and cash could not be fulfilled. She further claims that her grand-daughter was killed by her in-laws and her husband, as their demand of motorcycle, T.V. and cash could not be fulfilled. She further claims that police came there and recorded her statement. However, this witness admitted in her cross-examination that she had not claimed before the police that the appellants used to demand T.V., motorcycle and cash. This witness admitted in her cross-examination that deceased had never disclosed before her about the behaviour of her in-laws rather she had disclosed about the behaviour of her in-laws and husband to her parents. This witness also claimed that a panchayati was held between the parties, prior to the alleged occurrence. This witness further claimed that after having got information regarding the killing of deceased, when she went to the matrimonial home of the deceased, the in-laws and husband of the deceased were not present at their house and their house was locked. 19. P.W. 10 Kedar Singh is father of deceased. This witness states that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with appellant no. 1 Ram Iswar Singh two and half years prior to the alleged occurrence, but his daughter was killed by her husband as well as her other in-laws and the information of death of deceased was given to him by his nephew on 06.10.1989 and having got the aforesaid information, he went to village Chandsarai. This witness further states that when he reached at village Chandsarai, he saw the dead-body of the deceased lying on the ground in front of the house of appellants and the police was present there. He also found P.W. 4, P.W. 7 and P.W. 11 who were present there. This witness further states that inquest report of dead-body was prepared. This witness also claims that the husband and in-laws of deceased used to torture the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demand of T.V. motorcycle and cash and for which a panchayati was convened and in the aforesaid panchayati, appellant Bigan Singh agreed not to torture and repeat the mistake in future. This witness further claims that after 8 to 9 days of the aforesaid panchayati, the appellants killed his daughter and threw her dead-body in a well. 20. This witness further claims that after 8 to 9 days of the aforesaid panchayati, the appellants killed his daughter and threw her dead-body in a well. 20. This witness has been cross-examined at length and admitted that he had made statement before the police regarding the demand made by the appellants and also disclosed the name of panches. Although, the attention of this witness was drawn towards her previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, but the defence failed to draw the attention of P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer of this case, towards the statement made by P.W. 10. Therefore, after close scrutiny of the statement of this witness, it would appear that according to this witness, the marriage of deceased had taken place two and half years prior to the alleged occurrence, but she died of unnatural death and her dead-body was recovered from a well which was situated in front of matrimonial home of the deceased and furthermore, the appellants used to torture the deceased due to non-fulfillment of their illegal demand. 21. P.W. 11 Sakhiya Devi is mother of the deceased as well as informant of this case. This witness also claims that in the morning of Friday, she got information about the killing of her daughter and having got the aforesaid information she along with P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 went to the village Chandsarai and found the dead-body of her daughter in a well. She further claims that one Sadhu Singh of village Chandsarai and other villagers came there and the dead-body of deceased was taken out from well and it was kept at the SAHAN of appellants. She also claims that the appellants used to demand T.V., motorcycle etc. and when the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, they used to torture the deceased and subsequently, they committed murder of the deceased. She further claims that prior to the death of deceased, panchayati was also convened, but even then the appellants committed the alleged crime. She also claims that when she reached at the house of appellants after getting information of the alleged occurrence, the appellants were not present at their home. On being cross-examined by the defence, she admitted that her daughter, oftenly, used to visit her home even after the marriage. She also claims that when she reached at the house of appellants after getting information of the alleged occurrence, the appellants were not present at their home. On being cross-examined by the defence, she admitted that her daughter, oftenly, used to visit her home even after the marriage. She admitted that her daughter had written letter mentioning this fact that her parents-in-law as well as husband used to torture her and furthermore, she admitted that there was no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. However, she admitted that she did not hand over any letter written by the deceased to police. The perusal of statement of this witness also goes to show that the marriage of deceased was solemnized two and half years prior to the alleged occurrence and the dead-body of deceased was found lying in a well which was situated in front of house of the appellants. Furthermore, the statement of this witness reflects that the appellants used to torture the deceased due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand. 22. P.W. 12 Doctor Jyoti Prakash claimed to have done postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased on 06.10.1989. This witness claimed that he found following ante mortem injuries on the dead-body of deceased:- (1) multiple pressure marks of fingers present in the area of right side of the neck from below to upward looked like brown, bright and parchment like abrasion. Also crescentic marks of fingers nails were present four in number, dried dark brown parchment like. (2) a thumb pressure mark present in left side of neck in upper part below the mandible. Blood clots and abrasion of 1” X 1/2” X 1/2” brown colour. It was dry, crescentic mark of one thumb finger nail was present. (3) Deep brown colour mark present on right side of chest of 3 ½ ” X 2” at 7th, 8th and 9th ribs lateral side. (4) Brown colour mark of 2” X 1 ½ ” on left chest at middle. (5) multiple abrasion with blood clots 6 in numbers of size ½ ” X ¼ ” X 1/8” to ¾ ” X ½ ” X 1/6” on left forearm from lower part to elbow on anterior surface. (6) multiple abrasion with blood clots 5 in number found at right hand from forearm to elbow anterior surface. (5) multiple abrasion with blood clots 6 in numbers of size ½ ” X ¼ ” X 1/8” to ¾ ” X ½ ” X 1/6” on left forearm from lower part to elbow on anterior surface. (6) multiple abrasion with blood clots 5 in number found at right hand from forearm to elbow anterior surface. Sizes were ¾ ” X ½ ” X 1/6” to ½ ” X ½ ” X 1/6” . (7) Abrasion on left back posterior side with dried blood clots. It was of ¾ ” X ½ ” X ¼ ”. (8) abrasion with dried blood clots at middle of blood back on posterior surface. It was of ¾ ” X ½ ” X ¼ ”. This witness further claimed that on dissection, he found extra vacsation of blood into subentinous tissues under the fingers marks as well as on adjacent muscles of neck. This witness further claimed that the death was caused within 24 hours from the time of examination of dead-body. The doctor opined that the death was caused by asphyxia due to throttling and the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause her death in ordinary course of nature. 23. The statement of this witness as well as exhibit -6 (postmortem report of deceased) goes to show that several injuries were found on the person of deceased and cause of death was throttling and furthermore, the marks of fingers were also found on the neck of the deceased. Therefore, the postmortem report of deceased goes to show that death of deceased was neither suicidal nor accidental rather the death of the deceased was homicidal. 24. P.W. 8 Ram Sagar Singh, is Investigating Officer of this case. As we have already sated that this witness reached to the place of occurrence, having got rumour of death of deceased and recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 at the place of occurrence. This witness stated that he prepared the inquest report of the deceased and sent the dead-body of the deceased for postmortem examination. This witness stated that the place of occurrence was the house of appellant Bigan Singh and he found the dead-body of deceased kept near PALANI of appellant Bigan Singh. This witness stated that he prepared the inquest report of the deceased and sent the dead-body of the deceased for postmortem examination. This witness stated that the place of occurrence was the house of appellant Bigan Singh and he found the dead-body of deceased kept near PALANI of appellant Bigan Singh. This witness also found that adjacent East to the house of appellant Bigan Singh, there was a Kachchi road and towards east of the aforesaid Kachchi road, there was a well. On being cross-examined by the defence, this witness, at para 8 of his cross-examination, admitted that he made Sanha entry at 12.00 noon on 06.10.1989 and after making Sanha entry, he went to the place of occurrence. The close scrutiny of the statement of this witness goes to show that on 06.10.1989 he got information to this effect that a dead-body was lying in a well situated at village Chandsarai and having got the aforesaid information he made Sanha entry and on the basis of that Sanha entry, he went to the place of occurrence where he recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 Sakhiya Devi. This witness proved the fard-e-beyan of Sakhiya Devi as exhibit 3. However, this witness in cross-examination admitted that the above stated Sanha entry was made by him at 12.00 noon on 06.10.1989. The fard-e-beyan of Sakhiya Devi goes to show that fard-e-beyan was recorded at 9.00 am on 06.10.1989. This witness also admitted that he inspected the house of appellants, but no incriminating articles were found in the said house. 25. On careful perusal of entire evidence of the prosecution, we find that none had seen the actual killing of the deceased. Furthermore, we find that the dead-body of deceased having several injuries and marks of fingers on the neck was recovered from a well which was situated near the house of the appellants. Therefore, it is obvious that the dead-body of deceased was not found in the house of the appellants. Learned trial court found that the victim was living in the house of the appellants and her relation with the appellants was not cordial for which panchayati was held about 10 to 15 days prior to the alleged occurrence. Therefore, it is obvious that the dead-body of deceased was not found in the house of the appellants. Learned trial court found that the victim was living in the house of the appellants and her relation with the appellants was not cordial for which panchayati was held about 10 to 15 days prior to the alleged occurrence. Although, the P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 7, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 claimed before the trial court that the relation of the deceased was strained with appellants and panchayati was held to pacify the dispute of deceased as well as appellants, but the aforesaid prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements on the point of panchayati. Furthermore, we find that the P.W. 10 admitted in his cross-examination that several co-villagers of the appellants had taken part in the aforesaid panchayati and the aforesaid witnesses were alive at the time of recording the statement of P.W. 10, but admittedly, not a single panch, except P.W. 2 was examined by the prosecution. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, this witness claimed that the panchayati was held once whereas, P.W. 4 claimed that panchayati was held several times. Moreover, P.W. 2 admitted that in panchayati, P.W. 10 Kedar Singh disclosed that appellants used to assault the deceased, but appellant Bigan Singh stated in the aforesaid panchayati that deceased was not ready to work outside the house for which she was chided and she was never assaulted by the appellants. Admittedly, learned trial court found the story of demand of dowry incorrect and acquitted the appellants of the charge framed under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, it is obvious that the learned trial court found the story of illegal demand incorrect. No doubt, P.W. 4, P.W. 7, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 claimed that deceased was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, but it is admitted case of prosecution witnesses that the deceased had solemnized her love marriage with appellant no. 1 and the learned trial court has found the claim of demand of dowry incorrect and, there is nothing on record to show as to why deceased was put into cruelty by the appellants. Moreover, except the oral statements of witnesses, there is nothing on record to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty or torture by the appellants prior to her death. Moreover, except the oral statements of witnesses, there is nothing on record to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty or torture by the appellants prior to her death. Furthermore, there is also nothing on record to show that the relation of the appellants was strained with the deceased except the oral statements of prosecution witnesses. 26. No doubt, several injuries as well as marks of fingers were found on the person of the deceased and cause of death of the deceased was throttling and the appellants could not succeed to explain the injuries found on the person of the deceased but admittedly, the dead-body of deceased was not found in the house of the appellants and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants had special knowledge about the injuries found on the person of the deceased because there is nothing in the entire evidence of the prosecution that deceased sustained injury inside the house and, therefore, in our view, it was the duty of prosecution to prove as to how deceased sustained injuries. Therefore, even if appellants failed to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased, then also, the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. Learned Amicus Curiae has highlighted the delay in reaching the fard-e-beyan to the concerned court and on that basis it has been argued that the present fard-e-beyan (exhitbit – 3) is a manufactured and fabricated document. Although, the defence did not put any specific question to P.W. 8 in this regard, but defence has, specifically, asked to P.W. 8 as to when he had made Sanha entry and reached at the place of occurrence and, thereafter, P.W. 8 admitted that he made Sanha entry at 12.00 noon on 06.10.1989 and after that he went to the place of occurrence, therefore, the aforesaid admission of P.W. 8 goes to show that he reached at the place of occurrence after 12.00 noon on 06.10.1989. P.W. 8 claimed to have recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 at 9.00 am on 06.10.1989. It is surprising enough that when P.W. 8 reached at the place of occurrence on 06.10.1989 after 12.00 noon, how he recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 at 9.00 am on 06.10.1989. P.W. 8 claimed to have recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 at 9.00 am on 06.10.1989. It is surprising enough that when P.W. 8 reached at the place of occurrence on 06.10.1989 after 12.00 noon, how he recorded the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 at 9.00 am on 06.10.1989. Admittedly, the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 was put up before the concerned court on 17.10.1989 that is after 11 days of recording of aforesaid fard-e-beyan and no explanation regarding the aforesaid delay has been given by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to produce the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 which was recorded by P.W. 8 after 12 noon on 06.10.1989. Therefore, all the aforesaid circumstances create doubt about the exhibit – 3 the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 11 and, in our view, the above stated fact makes the prosecution case doubtful. 28. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution could not succeed to prove the complete chain of circumstances so as to leave any doubt in the mind of this court about complicity of the appellants and, the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order can not sustain in the eye of law. 29. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 30.05.1995 and 31.05.1995 respectively, are, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 30. Let a copy of first and last page of this judgment be handed over to Mrs. Alka Advocate, Amicus Curiae so that she may make claim before the competent authority for her remuneration.