Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 664 (PAT)

Ajay Mahato v. State of Bihar

2019-04-26

ANIL KUMAR SINHA, RAKESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Appellants in aforesaid two appeals were tried together and by common judgment, they have been convicted and sentenced and as such, both the appeals were taken up together under the heading “For Hearing” and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Ajay Mahato [appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] by judgment dated 24-09-2013 was convicted for offence under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.). By order dated 27-09-2013, the appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] under Section 304 (B) of the I.P.C. has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo imprisonment for three months. Under Section 201 of the I.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). In case of default in payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Three appellants i.e. Sanjay Mahto, Keshaw Mahto and Ratan Mahto in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 by the same judgment i.e. judgment dated 24-09-2013 have been convicted under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and by order dated 27-09-2013, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each. In case of default in payment of fine, they have been directed to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed by Sri Sarwajeet, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Judge) in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2010 [arising out of Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 200 of 2009]. 3. Short fact of the case is that on 17-08-2009 at 11:00 AM the in-charge Beslar O.P. namely, Jagat Kishore Prasad recorded fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar Mahto (PW-7) S/o Late Rameshwar Mahto, resident of village Dharampur Bandey, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur. The said fardbeyan was recorded in the house of appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] in village Chaktaiyab, police station-Belsar. The said fardbeyan was recorded in the house of appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] in village Chaktaiyab, police station-Belsar. In the fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that on 25-05-2006, he had solemnized marriage of his sister namely, Vinita Devi aged about 22 years with the appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] as per Hindu rituals. After the marriage, his sister started to live alongwith her husband Ajay Mahato in her in-laws house. He disclosed that at the time of solemnization of marriage, he had given cloths, ornaments, utensils and others as well as an amount of rupees one lakh. While his sister went to her in-laws house, her husband (1) Ajay Mahato (sole app. in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), (2) mother-in-law Kaushalya Devi, (3) elder brother of husband of the deceased Sanjay Mahato [appellant no. 1 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013] and (4) Sumitra Devi (wife of Sanjay Mahto), all started to demand a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) as dowry, which fact was regularly being communicated by Vinita Devi (deceased) to the informant. She was also informing that due to non-fulfillment of the demand, she was regularly being tortured. After getting information, PW-7 went to in-laws’ house of his sister and tried to persuade them that he was not in a position to fulfill such demand, however; the informant was forced to return back. On 16/17 August, 2009 in the morning at about 04:00 hrs. on his mobile, he got an information that the dead body of his sister has already been disposed of. After getting such information, the informant with his uncle Dukhit Mahto (PW-9), Vinay Kumar (not examined), Dhirendra Kumar (PW-2) along with Mahendra Mahto (not examined) reached the in-laws house of his sister, where he did not find his sister and noticed that bhisur (elder brother of the appellant), gotni (wife of elder brother of his sister’s husband) had already absconded after leaving the house. He inquired from the mother-in-law of his sister about his sister, however; she did not say anything. The informant tried to get information by way of moving in the village, then he came to know that in the preceding night, due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, Ajay Mahato (app. in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), Sanjay Mahato (app. 1 in Cr. App. The informant tried to get information by way of moving in the village, then he came to know that in the preceding night, due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, Ajay Mahato (app. in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), Sanjay Mahato (app. 1 in Cr. App. DB No. 1027/13), Kaushaliya Devi and Sumitra Devi all had killed his sister and disappeared the dead body. He also got information that in concealment of dead body, Ratan Mahto and Keshav Mahto (appellant no. 3 and 2 respectively in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013) of village Chaktaiyab had also assisted the accused persons. He further stated that while he was in the midst of searching his sister, the police of Belsar police station, after getting information arrived there and recorded his fardbeyan, which was read over to him and after finding it correct, the informant Manoj Kumar Mahto (PW-7) put his signature. The said fardbeyan on the same date i.e. 17-08-2009 was forwarded to S.H.O. Vaishali for instituting a case under Sections 304(B), 201, 120 (B), 34 of the I.P.C. 4. On the basis of said fardbeyan, on the same date i.e. on 17-08-2009 at 13:30 hrs. (1:30 P.M.), a formal F.I.R. vide Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 200 of 2009, was registered for offence under Sections 304(B), 201, 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. against six accused namely:- (1) Ajay Mahato (husband of the deceased and app. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013). (2) Kaushaliya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased). (3) Sanjay Mahto (elder brother of husband of the deceased and appellant no. 1 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013). (4) Sumitra Devi (gotni). (5) Ratan Mahto (appellant no. 3 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013). (6) Keshaw Mahto (appellant no. 2 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013). 5. The police, after registering F.I.R., investigated the case and recorded confessional statement of mother-in-law of deceased Kaushaliya Devi, in which, she made disclosure that accused persons had gone for disposing of the dead body and on the basis of her disclosure, some part of the dead body was recovered, which was buried in a field on the same date. Thereafter, inquest report was prepare and finally after finding the case true, on 28-02-2010, chargesheet was submitted against all the F.I.R. named accused persons showing appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Thereafter, inquest report was prepare and finally after finding the case true, on 28-02-2010, chargesheet was submitted against all the F.I.R. named accused persons showing appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] and Sanjay Mahto [appellant no. 1 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013] as absconder. Before order of cognizance, the appellant no. 1 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 Sanjay Mahto surrendered in the court and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali on 12-05-2010 took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter, on 04-08-2010 the appellant Ajay Mahato [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] was arrested and then, the case was committed to the court of sessions on 16-09-2010 and it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2010. After commitment, on 02-12-2010, charge was jointly framed against all the six accused persons under Sections 304(B)/34, 201/34 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. 6. During the trial, to establish its case on behalf of the prosecution, altogether 12 witnesses were examined. Out of 12 witnesses, informant Manoj Kumar Mahto was examined as PW-7, whereas PW-1 Pappal Mahto (cousin brother of the deceased), PW-2 Dhirendra Mahto (another cousin brother of the deceased), PW-3 Chintaman Mahto (uncle of the deceased), PW-4 Pankaj Mahto (brother of the deceased), PW-5 Arjun Kumar (co-villager of informant), PW-9 Dukhit Mahto (uncle of the deceased & informant) and PW-11 Dhaneshwar Das (independent witness) were examined on a point that after getting information regarding death of the deceased, all of them visited the village of the appellants and in their presence as well as in presence of Block Development Officer, the investigating officer extracted some part of the dead body, which was buried in a field. PW-12 Dr. Pankaj Kumar has examined the part of the dead body and proved the report. PW-10 Mithilesh Kumar Jha, who on 17-08-2009 was posted at Belsar O.P. is the investigating officer of the case. However, PW-6 Bhushan Singh and PW-8 Nazir Mahto were declared hostile, since they did not support the prosecution case. 7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, on 17-08-2012, the appellants were questioned with incriminating circumstances and evidences brought against them during the trial. Besides this, during the trial, from the prosecution side, documentary evidences were also brought on record. However, PW-6 Bhushan Singh and PW-8 Nazir Mahto were declared hostile, since they did not support the prosecution case. 7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, on 17-08-2012, the appellants were questioned with incriminating circumstances and evidences brought against them during the trial. Besides this, during the trial, from the prosecution side, documentary evidences were also brought on record. Signature of informant on the fardbeyan was got exhibited and marked as Ext.1, his signature on inquest report as Ext.1/1, signature on inquest report of PW-9 was marked as Ext.1/2 and signature of PW-9 on the fardbeyan was marked as Ext.1/3. Formal F.I.R. in the case is Ext.2, fardbeyan Ext.3, inquest report Ext.4, confessional statement of Kaushalya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased) is Ext.5 and forensic bone examination report is Ext.6, which was proved by PW-12/Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Assistant Professor, F.M.T. Department, P.M.C.H., Patna. 8. After recording statement of appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), which was recorded on 17-08-2012, on behalf of defence, altogether 10 witnesses were examined. Those witnesses are:- DW-1 Paltan Mahto DW-2 Sahdeo Mahto DW-3 Sakaldeo Mahto DW-4 Balli Mahto DW-4 "a" Umesh Mahto (son of Balli Mahto) DW-5 Piyus Mahto DW-6 Prabhu Mahto DW-7 Shankar Mahto DW-8 Dr. Yugal Kishore Thakur DW-9 Kailash Mahto DW-10 Kaushalya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased) 9. The aforesaid defence witnesses had taken stand that deceased died due to vomiting, profuse bleeding etc. and her dead body was cremated in Lalganj crematory. DW-8 Dr. Yugal Kishore Thakur was a private medical practitioner and he deposed that on 16-08-2009 he had examined the deceased and he proved the medical prescription, which was marked as Ext.A. 10. After placing entire evidences, Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals has argued that the witnesses are inconsistent and not reliable. He further submits that it is specific case that deceased died due to her ailment and her dead body was cremated at crematory place, in which, informant and other family members of deceased also participated, but thereafter, with a view to demand something, the present false case was instituted. Sri Singh has emphatically argued that though PW-7/informant in his evidence has stated that on disclosure made by Kaushalya Devi (mother of Ajay Mahto appellant in Cr. App. Sri Singh has emphatically argued that though PW-7/informant in his evidence has stated that on disclosure made by Kaushalya Devi (mother of Ajay Mahto appellant in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), the dead body was recovered, but number of other prosecution witnesses have deposed otherwise, as if, no such information was given by mother-in-law of the deceased. He submits that it is glaring contradiction and as such, the prosecution witnesses may not be considered, as credible witnesses. 11. Sri Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants further submits that on the basis of defence evidence, it is established that the deceased died due to ailment and she was cremated at crematory place, where family members of the deceased had also participated and as such, the learned Trial Judge had incorrectly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence, which is liable to be interfered with. 12. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, has argued that the learned Trial Judge has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence, which requires no interference. He submits that in the prosecution evidence, it has been established that deceased was married with appellant Ajay Mahto (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) on 25-05-2006. It has also come in evidence that within few months after the marriage, while she went to her in-laws’ house, the in-laws started torturing her and they were pressurizing her for bringing motorcycle, Rs. 50,000/- etc. and thereafter, the deceased was compelled to return back to her parental house and she remained there for a long period. Only in the month of June, 2009, after persuasion by the informant side, the in-laws of the deceased agreed to take her back and then elder brother of the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) along with others visited the house of the informant and bidagiri had taken place, which occurred in the month of June, 2009 and immediately within few months i.e. on 16-17 August, 2009, in an odd time, the informant got information on mobile that his sister was done to death and her dead body was disposed of. Sri Mishra submits that immediately thereafter the informant with almost all the prosecution witnesses visited the village of his sister. In the in-laws house of his sister, he (informant) did not find his sister. Sri Mishra submits that immediately thereafter the informant with almost all the prosecution witnesses visited the village of his sister. In the in-laws house of his sister, he (informant) did not find his sister. He started to search her in the village, in the meanwhile, police arrived there and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded, which was recorded at 11:00 A.M. on 17-08-2009. After recording fardbeyan, it is evident that the investigating officer recorded confessional statement of Kaushalya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased) and in her confession, she disclosed that sister of the informant died and her dead body was taken away by the accused persons in a clandestine manner for burning and thereafter, some part of dead body was buried in an isolated field. Sri Mishra submits that the confession of Kaushalya Devi led to recovery of some part of dead body of deceased, which was buried in the field and in presence of Block Development Officer, the body was extracted from the field and inquest report was prepared. 13. According to Sri Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, it was specific case that due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the deceased was administered torture just prior to her death and her death, which was not normal, occurred in the house of appellant Ajay Mahto (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) and as such, with the aid of Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as Evidence Act), it is established that it was a case of application of Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. He submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence, which requires no interference. 14. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined entire evidence on record and after going through the same, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge has committed no error in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence so far as appellant Ajay Mahto [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] is concerned. The judgment of conviction and sentence in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 may not be approved, in view of reasons assigned herein-below. Before proceeding, it would be necessary to cursorily refer to the evidences. 15. The informant Manoj Mahto in the case has been examined as PW-7. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013] is concerned. The judgment of conviction and sentence in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 may not be approved, in view of reasons assigned herein-below. Before proceeding, it would be necessary to cursorily refer to the evidences. 15. The informant Manoj Mahto in the case has been examined as PW-7. In his evidence, besides reiterating the fact, which was incorporated in the fardbeyan, he has further stated that his sister was married with the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) on 25-05-2006. After the marriage, she went to her in-laws house and she remained peacefully there for 8-9 days and thereafter, she was taken back to her parental house after bidai. Again, after one and half months, her in-laws member took her back after completion of bidagri and thereafter, Kaushaliya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased), her son Sanjay Mahto [appellant no. 1 (in Cr. App. DB No. 1027/13), Ajay Mahto (sole appellant in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13)] and Gotni Sumitra Devi started demanding one motorcycle, Rs. 50,000/- cash and a golden chain of one bhar in place of weight-less top. His sister replied that her brother was not having such money and as such, these demands may not be fulfilled. Such information was being provided by the sister of the informant, thereafter the informant with his brother PW-2 Dhirendra Mahto and relative Nand Lal Mahto went to village Chaktaiyab and tried to convince the accused persons regarding his incapability for fulfillment of such demand. On two or three occasions, the informant had also gone alongwith his uncle Dukhit Mahto (PW-9) and cousin brother Dhirendra Mahto (PW-2) for bringing back his sister to her in-laws house, however in paragraph-4 of his examination-in-chief, this witness stated that in the month of June, 2009 Sanjay Mahto (appellant no. 1 in Cr. App. DB No. 1027/13) and one of the villager came to the house of the informant and took his sister back and ritual of bidai was completed. On 16-17 August, 2009, in the morning on his mobile, he got an information that his sister was killed and her dead body was disposed of. Then, he alongwith others went to the in-laws house of his sister, there he got an information that accused persons had killed his sister and somewhere they had concealed the dead body. On 16-17 August, 2009, in the morning on his mobile, he got an information that his sister was killed and her dead body was disposed of. Then, he alongwith others went to the in-laws house of his sister, there he got an information that accused persons had killed his sister and somewhere they had concealed the dead body. In concealment of dead body, Ratan Mahto and Keshaw Mahto [appellant no. 3 and 2 respectively in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013] also participated and Ajay Mahto (appellant in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) was not present in the house. In the meanwhile, police arrived there and recorded statement of Kaushaliya Devi (mother-in-law of dececeased), who disclosed that the dead body was cremated in the eastern side of the village and remains of the dead body was buried in the field. Thereafter, the informant and others alongwith the police went there. Police called Block Development Officer and in presence of Block Development Officer, field was digged, from where, the dead body was extracted, which he identified. The police recorded his fardbeyan and he proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.1. He also put his signature on inquest report, which was marked as Ext.1/1. This witness identified the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) and Sanjay Mahto (app. 1 in Cr. App. DB No. 1027/13), who were present in the dock. This witness was cross-examined at length and in paragraph-11 of his cross-examination, he stated that while dead body was recovered, it was in two part and to some extent, it was in burnt condition. Some structure of the dead body was there, which was of a lady and on noticing the feature, he could identify the dead body. The two parts of the dead body were buried in the field, which was in Torha Chawar. In paragraph-12 of the cross-examination, he described regarding the place where the dead body was extracted. In paragraph-16 also, he reiterated that his sister had complained regarding torture for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In paragraph-18, this witness was given suggestion that the dead body, which he had identified, was not dead body of his sister and accused persons were innocent. His sister was ailing and she was under-treatment in the clinic of Dr. Y.K. Thakur and she died due to ailment. In paragraph-18, this witness was given suggestion that the dead body, which he had identified, was not dead body of his sister and accused persons were innocent. His sister was ailing and she was under-treatment in the clinic of Dr. Y.K. Thakur and she died due to ailment. However, all those suggestions were denied by him. 16. PW-9 Dukhit Mahto (uncle of the deceased and informant/PW-7) is signatory to the fardbeyan and his signature on the fardbeyan was marked as Ext.1/3 and he is also witness to the inquest report and his signature on the inquest report is Ext.1/2. This witness in his evidence reiterated that the marriage of the deceased with appellant Ajay Mahto (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) was solemnised in the month of May, 2006 and he further corroborated the fact, which was stated by informant/PW-7 regarding demand of dowry and torture. In his evidence, he too has deposed that on 16-17 August, 2009, his nephew informed him that he had received information regarding some untoward incident and thereafter, he alongwith informant and other 15 persons visited the village Chaktayab. He further deposed that Kaushalya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased) firstly did not disclose the fact, in the meanwhile, police arrived and before the police, she made disclosure, which disclosure led to recovery of part of the dead body after digging the field, which was buried. 17. PW-5 Arjun Kumar, who was co-villager and cousin brother of deceased, too in his evidence has stated that mother of the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) had made disclosure regarding the place where the dead body was buried. 18. In similar manner, PW-1 Pappal Mahto (cousin brother of the deceased), PW-2 Dhirendra Mahto (another cousin brother of the deceased), PW-3 Chintaman Mahto (uncle of the deceased), PW-4 Pankaj Mahto and PW-11 Dhaneshwar Das, who is also independent witness, also in similar manner had deposed, however; in their evidence, they are not consistent on the point that the mother of the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) had made disclosure regarding the place, where dead body was buried, otherwise they are witness on the point that in their presence, part of dead body was recovered. 19. The doctor, who conducted examination on the dead body i.e. Dr. App. DB No. 984/13) had made disclosure regarding the place, where dead body was buried, otherwise they are witness on the point that in their presence, part of dead body was recovered. 19. The doctor, who conducted examination on the dead body i.e. Dr. Pankaj Kumar (PW-12) on 03-09-2009 was posted as Assistant Professor, F.M.T Department, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna. In his evidence, he stated that he had received sealed plastic bag containing different parts of the deceased in a case i.e. Case No. 200 of 2009 dated 17-08-2009 registered for offence under Sections 304(B), 201, 120(B), 34 of the I.P.C. He examined the same, as per order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali. On examination, he noticed following facts:- “One plastic bag sealed was received which contained a part of charred body of female, hair part of skull (burnt) charred, both upper limb charred, scapula, lower part of both femur, tibio fibula absent, five right side ribs, six left side ribs, pelvis present, all limbs charred with some soft tissue present and internal viscera, liver both lungs right and left kidney, uterus normal, stomach contain pasty fluid about 50 gm. A portion of liver lungs left kidney stomach which contain pasty material about 50 gm. was kept in saturated solution of common salt in glass jar properly leveled and sealed and requested to I.O. to make immediate arrangement for transportation of viscera to F.S.L. Patna. No mark of injury was found on bones and soft tissue which were charred. Opinion 1. Bone and viscera found were human in nature and of an individual. 2. Sex-female. 3. Age-about 20 to 25 years approx. 4. Time since death-within two weeks approx. 5. Cause of death could not be ascertained, viscera has been preserved.” 20. He further claimed that the said report was in his writing and signature and it was marked as Ext.6. In the evidence of PW-12, it has come that on examination of part of dead body, it was indicated that it was of a female, who was aged about 20-25 years. This witness was cross-examined and in his crossexamination, in paragraph-6, he stated that body was not completely skeletonized and some soft tissues were present. After 2-3 weeks, there is complete skeletonized of body. He further stated that he had not sent the body to any arthopodix so vertebra was fused. This witness was cross-examined and in his crossexamination, in paragraph-6, he stated that body was not completely skeletonized and some soft tissues were present. After 2-3 weeks, there is complete skeletonized of body. He further stated that he had not sent the body to any arthopodix so vertebra was fused. It may be dead body of 30 years of female. 21. Further, in paragraph-7, PW-12 Dr. Pankaj Kumar has deposed, which is as follows:- “As reported by the police the name of deceased was written. The body was received on which date, it is not mentioned in my report on 03-09-2009. I had examined the dead body. Baring the date of reporting, I have not mentioned any other date, I have not reportedly written the date of examination. I can not say in how many dates the bones were examined and to ascertain the sex, it is false to say that my report is incorrect.” 22. The investigating officer in the case is Mithilesh Kumar Jha (PW-10), who on 17-08-2009 was posted in Belsar O.P. In his evidence, he proved formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.2, fardbeyan Ext.3, inquest report Ext.4 and also confessional statement of Kaushaliya Devi (mother of the appellant Ajay Mahato in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), which was marked as Ext.5. In paragraph-3 of his evidence, he stated that fardbeyan was recorded by Yugal Kishore Prasad, officer in-charge of Belsar O.P. and he was conversant with the writing and signature and he proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.3. In paragraph-4, he deposed that the inquest report was in his writing and it was also signed by Sri Kundan Prasad, Block Development Officer, Vaishali and inquest report was marked as Ext.4. He further proved the confessional statement of Kaushaliya Devi, which was recorded by Jagat Kishore Prasad, the officer in-charge in his presence and it was marked as Ext.5. He inspected the place of occurrence and he found that in the case, there were three places of occurrence. First place of occurrence, he noticed the premises of Ajay Mahato (appellant in Cr. App. He inspected the place of occurrence and he found that in the case, there were three places of occurrence. First place of occurrence, he noticed the premises of Ajay Mahato (appellant in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), second place of occurrence was the place, which was about 500 yards east south of the village of the appellant/Ajay Mahato where dead body was burnt and third place of occurrence he noticed was the field, where the part of the dead body of Vinita Devi was buried and it was recovered in presence of Block Development Officer, Vaishali. He recorded statement of Dhirendra Mahto (PW-2), Dhaneshwar Das (PW-11), Arjun Kumar (PW-5), Dukhit Mahto (PW-9), Pankaj Mahto (PW-4) and Pappal Mahto (PW-1). In paragraph-7 he state that he took up investigation and he referred about the confessional statement which of Kaushaliya which led to recovery of part of the dead body. The confessional statement was marked as Ext.5. 23. We have also examined the confessional statement of Kaushalya Devi, which was recorded by the police. Of course, no reliance can be placed on confessional statement of a witness recorded by the police, however there is exception under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Confessional statement of Kausilya Devi was only to the extent of extracting the dead body, which was buried by the accused persons is the relevant fact, since the fact regarding burial of the part of the dead body was specially within the knowledge of Kausaliya Devi (mother of the appellant Ajay Mahato) and as such, that part of confession is admissible in the Evidence Act, since said confession had led to recovery of the part of the dead body. 24. On examination of entire oral and documentary evidence, it has been established that prior to the occurrence, the deceased was administered torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is also established that death of sister of the informant and wife of appellant Ajay Mahato occurred in his (Ajay Mahato) premises and as such, we are in agreement with the submission of Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that in view of Section 113 (B) of the Evidence Act, in such cases, onus was of the appellant/Ajay Mahato to disapprove the allegation. Public Prosecutor that in view of Section 113 (B) of the Evidence Act, in such cases, onus was of the appellant/Ajay Mahato to disapprove the allegation. Of course, by leading evidence, a plea was taken that deceased died due to ailment and thereafter, cremation of her dead body was done at Lalganj crematory place, however; on examination of trend of cross-examination, it is evident that none of the witnesses were given suggestion that the dead body was cremated at Lalganj crematory place and family members of deceased also participated. In absence of such suggestion to any of the witnesses, at the stage of defence leading such evidence, may not be relied upon. Of course the defence had tried to bring on record a medical report in respect of the deceased to show that on 16-08-2009, she was treated by DW-8 Dr. Yugal Kishore Thakur, who was a private medical practitioner of the locality and that medical prescription/report has been brought on record as Ext.A. On examination of Ext.A, it appears that the said certificate may not be believed. In the body of the report, date of examination has been mentioned as 16-09-2009, whereas occurrence had taken place on 16-08-2009. Even the description in the report also creates some doubt in the mind of the Court. It would be better to simply reproduce Ext. A, which has been brought on record, as follows:- IMAGE 25. Even for the time being, if it is assumed that deceased died due to ailment, there is a big question as to what was the reason that no information was given to the brother or any family members of the deceased and if she died after being treated on 16-08-2009, in the same evening, why hurriedly dead body was burnt and part of dead body was embedded. Besides this, evidence has come that while informant reached the house of the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13), he (Ajay Mahato) was not found. All those circumstances suggest that the appellant Ajay Mahato (in Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) was involved in the crime. Taking aid of Section 113 (B) of the Evidence Act as well as the evidence, which has been brought on record, there is no reason to consider the judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of appellant Ajay Mahato as suspicious. Accordingly, the appeal of Ajay Mahato i.e. Cr. App. DB No. 984/13) was involved in the crime. Taking aid of Section 113 (B) of the Evidence Act as well as the evidence, which has been brought on record, there is no reason to consider the judgment of conviction and sentence in respect of appellant Ajay Mahato as suspicious. Accordingly, the appeal of Ajay Mahato i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013 stands dismissed. 26. So far as appeal of other three appellants i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 is concerned, the appellants were sentenced only for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. however; on examination of entire evidence, it appears that the prosecution has not conclusively been able to establish that they participated in disposing of the dead body, since no cogent evidence has been brought on record and as such, by way of extending benefit of doubt, it is necessary to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence so far as appellants Sanjay Mahto, Keshav Mahto and Ratan Mahto [in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013] are concerned and as such, their judgment of conviction dated 24-09-2013 and order of sentence dated 27-09-2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2010 is, hereby, set aside and appeal i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 is allowed. The aforesaid three appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1027 of 2013 are on bail, accordingly, they are discharged from the liability of their bail-bonds. 27. Appeal of appellant Ajay Mahato i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2013 stands dismissed and judgment of conviction dated 24-09-2013 and order of sentence dated 27-09-2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2010 by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Vaishali, Hajipur in respect of appellant Ajay Mahato is, hereby, approved and his appeal stands dismissed.