JUDGMENT : Shailendra Shukla, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. preferred against the judgment dated 19.9.2001, pronounced in S.T. No. 179/2000 pronounced by ASJ, Biaora District Rajgarh, acquitting the respondents from charges framed under Section 302 in alternative 302/34, Section 304-B and Section 498A of IPC. 2. The admitted facts are that the respondent No. 1-Beeramlal is the father-in-law of the deceased-Geetabai and respondent No. 2-Hukum Singh is the husband of the deceased Geetabai. 3. The prosecution story in short was that Geetabai was married to Hukum Singh, respondent No. 2, 4 to 5 years prior to her death. Geetabai's mother had expired and her father Anar Singh had contracted Natra marriage with another woman and Geetabai and her two siblings were reared by her maternal grandfather Ramlal and he had solemnized the marriage of Geetabai with Hukum Singh. Whenever Geetabai used to come to her maternal grandfather house, she would complain that the respondents and her mother-in-law are harassing her on account of dowry. They used to tell Geetabai to arrange money from Dev Singh who is her maternal uncle. As per the prosecution story, Panchayat was then called by Ramlal which was attended by Mangilal, father of the respondent No. 1 and who assured that Geetabai would not be harassed any more. Geetabai was sent with Mangilal from her maternal home. However, the harassment again commenced against her and Geetabai was sent to her parental home to fetch money. Mangilal again came to fetch Geetabai. Thereafter on the next day Geetabai was found to have died. A merg was instituted. On postmortem it was found that Geetabai had died as a result of throttling. The respondents were arrested whereas the mother-in-law Laadbai absconded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondents abjured their guilt. Charges were read over to them and they pleaded alibi. It was stated that Beeramlal, the father-in-law was in his agriculture field at the time of incident and husband Hukum Singh along with his mother had gone to village called as Ness. One defence witness namely Nathulal (DW1) was examined on behalf of the respondents. The trial ultimately resulted on acquittal. The trial court although found it proved that Geetabai was murdered by strangulation, but accepted the plea of 'alibi' of accused and acquitted them. 4. One defence witness namely Nathulal (DW1) was examined on behalf of the respondents. The trial ultimately resulted on acquittal. The trial court although found it proved that Geetabai was murdered by strangulation, but accepted the plea of 'alibi' of accused and acquitted them. 4. In the appeal it has been stated that there is ample evidence to show that Geetabai was harassed constantly. That it was wrongly concluded that marriage of Geetabai had taken place more than 7 years before the incident and that the trial court was at fault in concluding that no dowry had been demanded from her by respondents. 5. The question before this court is whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeal, the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside?. 6. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, the father of Geetabai Anar Singh (PW2), the maternal uncle Dev Singh (PW4), maternal grandfather Ramlal (PW12), maternal uncle Hari Singh (PW11) neighbours of the respondents namely Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) and other witnesses including police witnesses. 7. The question was whether the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 less than 7 years before the incident of her death. Ramlal (PW12) stated that Geetabai was married to Hukum Singh 4 to 5 years earlier. However, in para 6 of his cross examination he states that when Geetabai was married she was only 7 to 8 years old and when Gauna was performed she was 12 to 15 years old and Gauna was performed two years after the marriage. However in her postmortem report Exhibit P/9, age of Geetabai was shown to be approximately 18 years which shows that Geetabai must have been married 10 years earlier to the date of incident. Anar Singh (PW2) in examination-in-chief in para 3 states that marriage of Geetabai with Hukum Singh was solemnized two years earlier. However, in cross-examination in para 8 he admits that marriage of Geetabai has taken place 10 years earlier. Dev Singh (PW4) who is maternal uncle of Geetabai also states that Geetabai, marriage with Hukum Singh was solemnized 8 to 10 years earlier. All these 3 witnesses have thus claiming that the marriage of Geetabai with respondent No. 2-Hukum Singh was solemnized more than 7 years ago. 8. Dev Singh (PW4) who is maternal uncle of Geetabai also states that Geetabai, marriage with Hukum Singh was solemnized 8 to 10 years earlier. All these 3 witnesses have thus claiming that the marriage of Geetabai with respondent No. 2-Hukum Singh was solemnized more than 7 years ago. 8. Thus, it is apparent that provision of Section 304-B of IPC would not apply as the marriage of the deceased with respondent No. 2-Hukum Singh had been solemnized more than 7 years from the time of death of the deceased. The conclusion on this point drawn by the learned trial court stands affirmed. The question now for consideration is that whether the deceased had been subjected to cruelty by the respondents?. It would be pertinent to peruse the statement of Ramlal (PW12), the maternal grandfather of Geetabai as to the manner in which Geetabai was being treated by her in-laws as also Dev Singh PW4, the maternal uncle of Geetabai land Hari Singh (PW11), elder brother of Ramlal. Ramlal (PW12) has stated that Geetabai had made no allegations against the respondents, i.e., Hukum Singh and Beerumlal, but had only made allegations against her mother-in-law. He further states that Geetabai had not told him that Hukum Singh used to harass her but only had complained against Beerumlal that Beerumlal quarrels with her. This witness has been declared hostile, but denies the suggestion that he has compromised with the respondents. In cross-examination he again reiterates that Geetabai had not spoken against Hukum Singh. Contrary to Ramlal (PW12), Dev Singh (PW4) has stated that the respondents used to harass Geetabai for money and therefore, Panchayat was called in which Mangilal, the father of Beerum had come and ensured that Geetabai would not be harassed. He has been confronted with police statement Exhibit D/2 and has been asked that if there is no mention of such demand in Exhibit D/2 then what he has to say. The witness replies that he had given statements regarding demand of "Rakam" by the respondents but if it is not written then he does not know the reason thereof. 9. A perusal of Exhibit D/2 shows that Dev Singh has categorically stated in his police statement that the husband and in-laws of Geetabai used to harass her saying that she has not brought money. 9. A perusal of Exhibit D/2 shows that Dev Singh has categorically stated in his police statement that the husband and in-laws of Geetabai used to harass her saying that she has not brought money. Word 'Dhan' has been used in Exhibit D/2 instead of word 'Rakam' which means the same thing. 10. This witness also states that Geetabai had been beaten by the respondents so severely that her tooth was broken. This witness has again been cross examined and has been confronted with his police statements Exhibit D/2 and asked the witness as to why there is no mention of breaking of tooth of Geetabai by accused. The witness states that he had made such a statement before the police also and if it is not there in police statement, he cannot explain. However, a perusal of Exhibit D/2 again shows that there is explicit statement of Dev Singh that the upper tooth of Geetabai had been severed by the respondents due to assault upon her. 11. Thus, it is clear that misleading suggestions have been given to Dev Singh (PW4) in his cross-examination intending to state that he has not made any allegation in police statement Exhibit D/2. However, as explained above, the police statement of Dev Singh contained such allegation which he has mentioned in his examination-in-chief. Witness Dev Singh (PW4) states that he was called to Panchayat in which Mangilal had come and had ensured that Geetabai would not be treated badly. In para 11 Dev Singh (PW4) states that there is no village Panchayat in his village and the Panchayat pertaining to his village is held in another village and the Panchayat he has called in relation to Geetabai was a Panchayat of his own village in which number of persons such as Anar Singh, Ramlal, Hari Singh etc have appeared. However, he states in para 9 that there was no written document executed in Panchayat. He admits that while sending Geetabai on the last occasion back to her matrimonial home, all such articles had been sent with her which the accused have gifted in her marriage. However, later on he also states that all these articles were not those which had been gifted by accused. He has been asked as to why no report was lodged in the police station regarding assaulting Geetabai resulting in breaking of her tooth?. However, later on he also states that all these articles were not those which had been gifted by accused. He has been asked as to why no report was lodged in the police station regarding assaulting Geetabai resulting in breaking of her tooth?. This question has been answered in para 10 by Dev Singh (PW4) who states that police report was not lodged because then there would not have been any settlement between the parties. 12. Statements of Dev Singh (PW4) have been corroborated by Har Singh (PW11). This witness is the grandfather of the deceased (brother of Mangilal). He states that after Gauna, Geetabai used to go to her maternal house for two years. This witness first states in para 2 that Geetabai had told him nothing but then states that Geetabai had earlier told him that she is being harassed by the accused for bringing less dowry. As per this witness a Panchayat was organized and the Geetabai was sent to her maternal house. However, her husband Hukum Singh again brought her back 15 to 20 days later and thereafter the grandfather-in-law of Geetabai namely Mangilal came 15 to 20 days afterwards and Mangilal assured that Geetabai would not be ill-treated. However, on the second occasion barely a day later it was informed that Geetabai has died. In para 9 he has been asked as to the manner in which accused used to harass Geetabai. The witness responds that Geetabai used to tell him that she was being harassed ill-treated but in what manner she is being ill-treated she did not tell. The word ill-treatment includes mental as well as physical harassment. The mental harassment can be such behaviour which may lead a woman to think that she is undesired, unwanted and can also extend up to expletives abuse etc. Hence, not explaining as to how Geetabai was ill-treated does not weak the statements of this witness. 13. Regarding holding of Panchayat, the witness in para 10 states that in Panchayat no villagers were called only two persons were called who are Mangilal and Anar Singh. 14. Thus there is difference in the statements of Hari Singh (PW11) and Dev Singh (PW4) regarding Panchayat as far as the number of persons called in Panchayat are concerned. 13. Regarding holding of Panchayat, the witness in para 10 states that in Panchayat no villagers were called only two persons were called who are Mangilal and Anar Singh. 14. Thus there is difference in the statements of Hari Singh (PW11) and Dev Singh (PW4) regarding Panchayat as far as the number of persons called in Panchayat are concerned. Dev Singh (PW4) states that number of persons were called in Panchayat whereas Haring Singh (PW11) states that only two persons were called in Panchayat. However, it has not been denied in cross examination that Mangilal had indeed gone and brought back deceased Geetabai. In fact, the accused in response to question No. 23 in accused statement has admitted that Mangilal had gone to fetch Geetabai. The allegations of cruelty with Geetabai had also been made by Anar Singh (PW2) who is father of Geetabai. He states that Geetabai had told him that Hukum Singh and her in-laws assaulted her for money and that her tooth has been broken because of the same. In cross-examination he has admitted that he had married after demise of his wife but refuses the suggestion that since then he had no connection with Geetabai. He states that Geetabai used to come to him after marriage. He has been given a suggestion that in police statement Exhibit D/1 he had made no mention regarding Geetabai harassed by accused. He states that he had in fact made such statements and that the statements are not there in Exhibit D/1, he does not know. A perusal of the police statement of Anar Singh show that Anar Singh has stated that Geetabai was being reared up by her maternal relatives "Nana" and "Mama" and that he had come to know from them that Geetabai was being harassed. Hence his statements in examination-in-chief are not reliable when he states that Geetabai had told him about the harassment. 15. After due consideration of the evidence as above, it is found that the statements of Hari Singh (PW11) and Dev Singh (PW4) are reliable whereas Anar Singh (PW2) has not been found to be a reliable witness. Another witness Ramlal (PW12) has turned hostile. 15. After due consideration of the evidence as above, it is found that the statements of Hari Singh (PW11) and Dev Singh (PW4) are reliable whereas Anar Singh (PW2) has not been found to be a reliable witness. Another witness Ramlal (PW12) has turned hostile. However, looking to unimpeachable character of evidence of Dev Singh (PW4) and Hari Singh (PW11), it is found proved beyond reasonable doubt that Geetabai used to he harassed on account of dowry by the respondents and was being subjected to cruelty by them. Hence, the trial court was incorrect in returning a finding acquitting the respondents under Section 498-A of IPC. Consequently, the respondents stand convicted for committing offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 16. Now the question is whether the finding arrived at by the trial court acquitting the respondents under Section 302/34 of IPC is appropriate or not?. As per prosecution story death of Geetabai was on account of strangulation and the trial court has also found no reason to controvert the same. The trial court, as already stated earlier accepted the prosecution story that Geetabai was murdered but acquitted the accused by accepting their plea of alibi. However, learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that such conclusion of death by strangulation is not appropriate and it cannot be denied that Geetabai's death could have occurred because of ingestion of some poison. Attention was drawn to the evidence of Dr. K.K. Dwivedi (PW8) who has stated that in order to rule out death by poisoning the viscera was sent for medical analysis. Learned counsel points out that viscera report has not been made available and therefore, the possibility of death by poisoning cannot be ruled out. 17. The aforesaid submissions were considered. 18. Dr. K.K. Dwivedi (PW8) in his report Exhibit P/9 made following observations regarding the condition of dead body in following terms:- (i) tongue was between teeth, lips were blue, conjunctiva markedly congested showing patches of hemorrhage. (ii) Bloody froth was coming out of nose and mouth. (iii) irregular contusions on left side of neck 3" length horizontal and 2" vertically. (iv) Contusion also on right side of neck 2" cross 2". Subcutaneous tissue under contusion on region on right and left side of neck showed ecchymosis and extra Vessation of blood and muscles of neck on left side were found to be lacerated. (iii) irregular contusions on left side of neck 3" length horizontal and 2" vertically. (iv) Contusion also on right side of neck 2" cross 2". Subcutaneous tissue under contusion on region on right and left side of neck showed ecchymosis and extra Vessation of blood and muscles of neck on left side were found to be lacerated. Tracheal rings were found to be fractured and contained frothy blood and the breathing passage was found to be congested. 19. Dr. K.K. Dwivedi (PW8) submits that after conducting the postmortem both the doctors including the witness had come to the conclusion that the death had occurred due to strangulation and time of duration of death was between 24 to 36 hours and the report is Exhibit P/9. 20. Exhibit P/9 is a report which is signed by two doctors, Dr. K.K. Dwivedi (PW8) and another Dr. S. Dattu who has not been examined. The postmortem was conducted on 6.7.2000 at about 11.00 AM. Thus, the death as per the doctor must have occurred at 11.00 AM on 5.7.2000 or earlier as well. The doctor has stated that in order to rule out that death had occurred by poisoning, viscera was sent for medical examination. The doctor has been asked a question by the court that in his view whether the death could have been caused by poisoning as well. The witness has answered that from examination during postmortem, all physical signs were pointing to death by strangulation and such opinion was definite. However, the witness submits that in asphyxiation also occurs due to poison and it was to rule out that possibility that viscera was sent for examination. 21. Thus, the doctor has answered query made by the court and has stated that it was a definite conclusion that death had occurred due to strangulation. The witness admits that marks of thumb or fingers were not found on the neck and there was no ligature mark presence on the neck. He denies that there was any abrasion or nail marks found on the neck and it was only contusion. He submits that there was a fracture of trachea ring but there was no fracture of hyoid bone. He states that absence of hyoid bone fracture, absence of ligature mark, absence of thumb or finger impressions on neck were such missing signs which may occur during strangulation. He submits that there was a fracture of trachea ring but there was no fracture of hyoid bone. He states that absence of hyoid bone fracture, absence of ligature mark, absence of thumb or finger impressions on neck were such missing signs which may occur during strangulation. The witness in para 16 states that because of such mixing signs it could not be determined as to what degree of pressure was used. However, he again reiterates that a death has occurred only because of pressure on the neck. The witness states that generally there is accompanying fracture of hyoid bone and carotid artery due to strangulation. 22. Learned counsel has pointed out that the missing signs of strangulation as admitted by the witness make it doubtful that death was caused by strangulation. 23. The above submission was considered. 24. While the witness Dr. K.K. Dwivedi (PW8) has pointed out there are some missing signs which are generally found in case of strangulation were there. However, the witness has very emphatically stated that death was caused by strangulation only. It has not been established by the appellant that fracture of hyoid bone or damage of carotid artery is imperative sign which must occur during strangulation. The witness states that strangulation may occur even without the above signs. The presence of contusion on neck, constriction of breathing passage, fracture of trachea rings, congestion of conjunctiva etc are such telltale marks invariably pointing at strangulation. 25. Had there been death by consumption of poison substance, the deceased would have vomited which is not the case here. 26. Had she been bitten by poisonous Snake etc, there would have been bite marks on her body and she would have cried and run for help which she did not do. No bottle etc containing poisonous substance has been found near the body of the deceased and therefore, death by poison stands ruled out and the only conclusion is that deceased died due to strangulation. The finding of the trial court stands affirmed. Now the culpability of accused would be considered. 27. It has already been found that just one day prior to the death, Ramlal, the father of the respondent Beerum had brought deceased from her parental home to her matrimonial home. There were respondents, mother-in-law and brother-in-law-Ghanshyam who were residing when deceased was brought back. Now the culpability of accused would be considered. 27. It has already been found that just one day prior to the death, Ramlal, the father of the respondent Beerum had brought deceased from her parental home to her matrimonial home. There were respondents, mother-in-law and brother-in-law-Ghanshyam who were residing when deceased was brought back. Deceased was found strangulated inside her matrimonial home next day and therefore, in ordinary course, presumably it was within the knowledge of respondents and mother-in-law of the deceased to show as to how she was strangulated. Provision of Section 106 of Evidence Act would apply in such matter. This provision has not been considered by the trial Court. The provision of Section 106 of Evidence Act runs as under:- "Section 106 of Evidence Act:-States that if the burden of proving fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact will henceforth lie on him." 28. The respondents have sought to discharge the aforesaid burden by producing a defence evidence in order to show that the respondents were not present in the house when the incident took place. Thus, the respondents have sought to raise plea of alibi. However, in their accused statements no such plea has been raised and it has only been mentioned that the respondents have been falsely implicated and thereafter a defence witness namely Nathulal (DW1) has been examined. The best person to depose regarding absence from the spot were the respondents only who have however not ventured to depose themselves. 29. Surprisingly, the prosecution has tended to aid the respondents by examining certain witnesses who are neighbours of the respondents only and who have supported the respondents which is quite natural. These witnesses Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) are the witnesses who emphasized that at the time of incident the accused were not in the house. What was the purpose of including these persons as witnesses has not been explained by the prosecution and therefore, there appears to be an attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer to some how bring about such evidence which would support the accused/respondents. It is strange to find that accused in their accused statements have not stated that they were not present in the house but these prosecution witnesses have been included as witnesses by investigator for a purpose which atleast does not help the prosecution story. 30. It is strange to find that accused in their accused statements have not stated that they were not present in the house but these prosecution witnesses have been included as witnesses by investigator for a purpose which atleast does not help the prosecution story. 30. The ultimate aim is to bring about the truth and even an attempt by the Investigating Officer to cast a shadow in bringing out a truth must be dealt with by the courts in firm manner. 31. As has already been found, the deceased had been strangulated inside the house of the respondents. The onus tied upon the respondents to show as to how the deceased was strangulated. There are thus 3 witnesses in the case to show that the respondents were not present in the house. The evidence of these 3 witnesses, two of whom are prosecution witnesses and one of whom is the defence witnesses has to be read together in order to see whether there is any substance in such defence. Firstly, the defence evidence would be considered. Nathulal (DW1) states that on the day of the incident he had seen Geetabai in the morning who was fetching water from her hand pump and on that day Hukum Singh and his mother had gone to Ness village for paying obeisance to a deity and both of them left early morning and some times later Beerumlal along with his help (Hali) had left for his agriculture field and only Geetabai was at her home. This witness states that after quite sometime, when sun had been shining over head, a child namely Jagdish had gone to Beerum's house and after sometime he came running over to this witness and told that deceased was lying with face down. This witness states that he went to house of Beerum and deceased was lying on the floor in her house and then Beerum was called. A person was sent to village Ness for fetching Hukum and his mother. Other persons were sent for calling the father and other relatives of the deceased. He states that Geetabai and respondents had very cordial relations and he had seen Geetabai with them for 8 to 10 years. 32. The falsity of this witness becomes apparent when he says that he had seen Geetabai with respondents for 8 to 10 years. Other persons were sent for calling the father and other relatives of the deceased. He states that Geetabai and respondents had very cordial relations and he had seen Geetabai with them for 8 to 10 years. 32. The falsity of this witness becomes apparent when he says that he had seen Geetabai with respondents for 8 to 10 years. It has been found that Geetabai had come to her matrimonial home only two years prior to her death after Gauna and contrary to the prosecution story, the witness has made a false statement. Further, it has been held that Geetabai was subjected to cruelty time and again and contrary to such finding witness submits that the relations were cordial between Geetabai and the respondents. In cross-examination, witness states that his house lies after two houses from the house of Beerum Singh. He states that Hukum Singh had come over to his house in order to tell him that he is leaving for village Ness. It is quite unnatural that Hukum Singh would go over to the house of Nathulal who is barely an acquaintance of Hukum Singh and not a relative. Hence, necessity of informing him did not arise. The only truthful statement made by the defence witness is that Geetabai had come to her matrimonial home only one day earlier to the incident. 33. Thus, it is found that this witness made certain false statements and his statements are unnatural as well. 34. As already seen there are two other witnesses propounding the theory that the respondents were not at home when the incident had taken place. These are Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10). It would be appropriate to appreciate the evidence of these witnesses as well. Ramesh (PW1) is the help of Beerum Singh. He states that he had been working as help (Hali) of Beerum Singh since 8 to 9 months before the death of Geetabai. He submits that on the day of the incident he came to the house of Beerum Singh at about 8.00 AM. He saw Geetabai fetching water and then he proceeded to the agriculture field along with 'Bakhar' (agriculture implement) and then at about 10.00 to 11.00 AM one Amrut arrived at the agriculture field and told that Geetabai is frothing and she is dead then Beerum asked Ramesh to bring Hukum Singh and her mother from village Ness. 35. He saw Geetabai fetching water and then he proceeded to the agriculture field along with 'Bakhar' (agriculture implement) and then at about 10.00 to 11.00 AM one Amrut arrived at the agriculture field and told that Geetabai is frothing and she is dead then Beerum asked Ramesh to bring Hukum Singh and her mother from village Ness. 35. While this witness Ramesh (PW1) states that he was sent by Beerum Singh to fetch Hukum Singh and his mother. Nathulal (DW1) states that he had sent a person to fetch Hukum Singh and his mother. 36. Ramesh (PW1) has stated that when he had gone to house of the respondents at 8.00 AM at that time Geetabai and Beerum were present in the house and Hukum and his mother had already left. He is declared hostile and then he admits that when he went to the house of Beerum at that time not only Beerum was present but Hukum Singh and his mother were also present and then he had left. He has been cross-examined on behalf of the respondents. In cross-examination, he admits that Hukum Singh and his mother had left in front of him to village Ness and he also states that after sometime he along with Beerum had left for agricultural field. 37. If this witness Ramesh (PW1) were to be believed then at 8.00 AM, on the day of incident when he reached the house of Beerumlal, he had seen both the respondents and the mother of Hukum Singh also in the house. Such statements are contrary to the defence witness Nathulal (DW1) who states that Hukum Singh and his mother had left for village Ness early in the morning. It can be seen that Ramesh (PW1) has made mutual inconsistent statements in sense that in examination in chief he states that he had left by himself to the agricultural field of Beerum Singh but he admits in cross-examination that he left along with Beerum Singh to the agricultural field of Beerumlal. Such suggestion in cross-examination has been given in order to create the defence that Beerumlal was not present in the house when the incident occurred. Such suggestion in cross-examination has been given in order to create the defence that Beerumlal was not present in the house when the incident occurred. There is one more discrepancy in the evidence of Ramesh (PW1) and Nathulal (DW1) which is that Nathulal (DW1) has stated that he had sent a man to inform Beerumlal about the death of Geetabai, but Ramesh (PW1) states that Amrut had come to field for informing him. A perusal of prosecution document show that Amrut is infact a 10 years old boy who has not been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, this witness is interested witness, being the servant of accused. 38. Now we shall consider the deposition of Kumer Singh (PW10). This witness states that on the day of the incident at about 8.00 AM he saw Geetabai fetching water from hand pump and at about 11.00 to 12.00 AM, Amrut came over to him and told him that Geetabai is frothing and on hearing this the witness ran over to the house of the respondents and saw Geetabai lying on the floor but there was no one in the house. In cross examination he states that his house is also situated after two house of Beerumlal and then he improvises and states that his house is one house away from Beerumlal house. He states that Hukum Singh and Laadbai (mother-in-law of the deceased) had left for village Ness at about 7.00 to 8.00 AM only and even before their departure Beerumlal and his help had left for his agriculture field. 39. The statement of this witness runs contrary to those of Ramesh (PW1) and Nathulal (DW1) both of whom have stated that Beerumlal left for his agriculture field only after departure of Hukum Singh and his mother. This witness then states that Beerumlal was called by him and his help was also called and both of them came. However, help, i.e., Ramesh (PW1) states that Beerumlal told him to go to village Ness from the agricultural field only. Kumer Singh (PW10) states that Geetabai and respondents used to have cordial relations which again is a false statement. Thus, one can see that there are mutually inconsistent statements between Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) on one hand and also the statements of these witnesses do not match with the defence witness of Nathuram (DW1). Kumer Singh (PW10) states that Geetabai and respondents used to have cordial relations which again is a false statement. Thus, one can see that there are mutually inconsistent statements between Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) on one hand and also the statements of these witnesses do not match with the defence witness of Nathuram (DW1). All these witnesses although tend to propagate the theory that the respondents were not at home when the incident occurred but there are number of mutual inconsistencies in their statements and combining together they have not been able to show that the respondents were not present when the incident took place. 40. The plea of alibi is reflected in Section 11 of the Evidence Act. It has been held in number of citations such as Narendra Singh vs. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 etc that strict proof is required to prove the alibi and the burden is upon the accused. It has further been held that the accused must provide strict proof of impossibility of the presence of accused at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. In Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911 , it has been laid down that the plea of alibi succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time, that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. Distance thus would be the material factor in the matter of acceptability of the plea of alibi. 41. In the present case, village Ness was barely 2 Kms away from the village Sameli and it was not such a great distance that it was impossible for respondents Hukum Singh and his mother to be absent when the incident took place. It has been found that all the three accused were present in their house at 8.00 AM (as per Ramesh PW1). It has been stated by Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) that body of Geetabai was discovered between 10.00 to 11.00 AM. Thus, at that point of time Geetabai had already been dead. The distance of the agriculture field of the Beerumlal from his house is also not much. It has been stated by Ramesh (PW1) and Kumer Singh (PW10) that body of Geetabai was discovered between 10.00 to 11.00 AM. Thus, at that point of time Geetabai had already been dead. The distance of the agriculture field of the Beerumlal from his house is also not much. Hence, the respondents have not been able to show that they were at such great distance from their house that it was impossible for them to be in the house when the incident has taken place. The excuse on the part of Hukum Singh to have left for village Ness for worshiping a deity is also a lame excuse. Generally all the family members visit such place of worship together. It is very unnatural that Hukum Singh left with his mother early in the morning. The priest of village Ness should have been examined by the accused in order to prove the plea of alibi which was required to be proved strictly. Further, it has been found that Laadbai, the mother of Hukum Singh and the wife of Beerumlal has absconded. She was never apprehended after the incident and declared as absconder and the charge sheet has been filed against her in absconsion. This also a relevant fact against her. 42. After duly considering the aforesaid evidence, we are of the clear opinion that death of Geetabai was a result of strangulation, that Geetabai had died in her matrimonial home and that the respondents have not been able to establish the plea of alibi. Thus, the respondents are liable for the death of Geetabai. It has already been found proved that Geetabai had been subjected to cruelty and she was brought back by Ramlal just one day earlier. It needs to be pointed out that Beerumlal and Hukum Singh made no efforts to go to the parental house of Geetabai in order to fetch her. This shows their disinclination and indifference towards the welfare of Geetabai. It appears that when Geetabai was brought back nonetheless by Ramlal, at that point of time a plan was hatched to do away with Geetabai and Geetabai was strangulated to death. There can be no finger of suspicion on any one else outside the house of the respondents who could have committed such act. It appears that when Geetabai was brought back nonetheless by Ramlal, at that point of time a plan was hatched to do away with Geetabai and Geetabai was strangulated to death. There can be no finger of suspicion on any one else outside the house of the respondents who could have committed such act. As already found the respondents have failed in establishing plea of alibi and thereby failed to discharge the onus upon them under Section 106 of Evidence Act. The trial court has failed to ponder over such circumstances as have been described above. Consequently, it is found proved against both the respondents that they, in furtherance of common intention committed the murder of Geetabai and are liable to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC in alternative under Section 302/34 of IPC. 43. The appeal filed by the State thus allowed in part. 44. The acquittal of respondents under provision of Section 304-B of IPC stands affirmed. However, their acquittal under provision of Section 498-A and Section 302 of IPC in the alternative under Section 302/34 of IPC is set aside. Both the respondents are convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and 302 in the alternative under Section 302/34 of IPC. The respondents are sentenced to one year RI and Rs. 2,000/- fine each for committing the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo 3 months RI each. The respondents are further sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 2,000/- fine for committing the offence under Section 302 in the alternative under Section 302/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine each of them shall liable to suffer default imprisonment of 6 months. The accused are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender immediately before the trial court from where they shall be sent to jail. 45. A copy of judgment be sent along with the original record of the case of the trial court for compliance. The property which has been seized in the matter shall be destroyed.