Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1168 (ALL)

Ajeet Kumar v. State of U. P.

2022-07-27

SIDDHARTHA VARMA, UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Umesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014 has been filed against the judgment and order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Firozabad by which the appellant Ajeet Kumar has been found guilty and punished under section 302 I.P.C. with life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; under section 304-B I.P.C. with 10 years rigorous imprisonment; under section 201 I.P.C. with three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/-; under section 498-A of I.P.C. with one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/-and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with six months' imprisonment along with Rs.2000/- as fine. It was further directed that all the punishments of imprisonment were to run concurrently. By the very same judgment the accused Yad Pal and Veda Devi were acquitted. 2. Against the acquittal of accused Yad Pal and Veda Devi, Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019 had been filed by the appellant Jiledar Singh Verma with a prayer that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019 be convicted for offences under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, 302/34 of I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Heard Sri Ram Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA Sri Vikas Goswami and Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the first informant, in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014. Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Advocate has made his submissions on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019 whereas Sri Ram Singh Kushwaha appeared for opposite parties nos.2 and 3. 4. In brief, the facts of the case are as follows :- Jiledar Singh Verma, PW-1 lodged a First Information Report on 31.7.2010 to the effect that his sister, under mysterious circumstances, had been made to disappear and thereafter killed. It has been stated that he had got his sister married to one Ajeet Kumar, son of Yad Pal, resident of Kadipur (Padham), Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad on 9.2.2010 as per Hindu rituals. He has stated in the First Information Report that he had, at the time of marriage, given Rs.1,00,000/-in cash and had also given various other commodities worth Rs.1,00,000/-. These commodities were a Motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, colour television, almirah, palang, sofa set, dressing table and a refrigerator etc. He has stated in the First Information Report that he had, at the time of marriage, given Rs.1,00,000/-in cash and had also given various other commodities worth Rs.1,00,000/-. These commodities were a Motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, colour television, almirah, palang, sofa set, dressing table and a refrigerator etc. In the First Information Report, it has further been stated that eversince the marriage, the in-laws and the husband of his sister-Asha were demanding Rs.50,000/-for the purchase of a buffalo and a gas-stove. For this purpose, they had on various occasions beaten his sister and on one occasion his sister was also turned-out of the in-laws' house. On 19.6.2010, in the presence of various respected individuals and relatives, the first informant had taken his sister and had also left her there in the in-laws' house. However, despite the intervention of the respected villagers and the relatives, there was no improvement in the manner in which his sister was being treated. In the month of July, 2010 when the daughter of his uncle was to get married, his brother-in-law Ajeet Kumar i.e. the husband of his sister along with his sister had come to the house of the first informant. After the marriage, the couple had gone back to their village. It has also been stated that during the marriage, when Ajeet Kumar and his sister had come to the village of the first informant, Ajeet Kumar had disclosed his evil intentions to various relatives and they had also told the first informant that Ajeet Kumar had told them about his evil intentions of actually murdering his sister after they went back home after the marriage. When the relatives had told the first informant about the evil intentions of Ajeet Kumar, he got worried and when on 20.7.2010 he tried to call Ajeet Kumar, his phone was switched off and when he tried to call his father Yad Pal, he also did not give a satisfactory reply and thereafter he also switched off his phone. The first informant tried to find out as to what had happened and had got information that his sister was taken out by Ajeet from her marital home and had been killed and, therefore, there was a suspicion that Ajeet Kumar had killed his sister. The first informant tried to find out as to what had happened and had got information that his sister was taken out by Ajeet from her marital home and had been killed and, therefore, there was a suspicion that Ajeet Kumar had killed his sister. It was stated that prior to the lodging of the First Information Report, along with all the members of the family, Ajeet Kumar had killed his sister and had also made the dead body disappear. Upon realising that the sister of the informant had been killed on 20.7.2010, the father of the first informant had written to the Thana Prabhari, Police Station Jasrana on 24.7.2010. In the First Information Report, the first informant had stated that for killing his sister and for making the dead body disappear, Ajeet Kumar son of Yad Pal, Yad Pal son of Man Singh, Veda wife of Yad Pal, Bharat Singh son of Man Singh, Geetam Singh son of Rajaram, Mitthu Lal son of Tejpal, Jai Prakash son of Vishun Lal, Ram Babu son of Vishun Lal and Sher Singh Advocate son of Ram Chandra were all equally responsible and, therefore, he had prayed that his First Information Report be lodged and the guilty be punished. 5. After the lodging of the First Information Report, the police conducted its investigation and thereafter submitted a charge sheet against only three persons. The Court, therefore, charged Ajeet Kumar, Yad Ram and Veda Devi under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 302/34 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 4.5.2012. The charges were read over to the accused and they were made to understand the charges. However, the accused denied the charges and prayed for a trial. 6. From the side of the prosecution, Jiledar Singh Verma, the first informant was produced as PW-1, Kishan Lal, the father of the first informant was produced as PW-2, Ramesh Chandra, the uncle (Tau) of the deceased was produced as PW-3, Anand Kumar (stated to be the brother-in-law of the first informant) was produced as PW-4. Ramesh Bhardwaj, V.P. Singh, Purnendra Singh and Har Prasad Gautam who were Investigating Officers in the case were produced as PWs-5, 7, 8 and 9. PW-6 Shiv Raj Singh is the Constable writer who prepared the chik FIR Ex.-Ka-4 and Kayami G.D. as Ex.-Ka-5. 7. Ramesh Bhardwaj, V.P. Singh, Purnendra Singh and Har Prasad Gautam who were Investigating Officers in the case were produced as PWs-5, 7, 8 and 9. PW-6 Shiv Raj Singh is the Constable writer who prepared the chik FIR Ex.-Ka-4 and Kayami G.D. as Ex.-Ka-5. 7. The accused Ajeet Kumar, Yad Ram and Veda Devi answered to the various questions under section 313 I.P.C. and denied having committed the offence as was alleged against them. One Kashmir Singh was produced as Defence Witness. By way of documentary evidence, the site plan with regard to the place where the accused lived was brought into evidence as Exhibit-Ka-2 and the site plan as to where it was presumed that the dead body was thrown was produced in evidence as Exhibit-Ka-3. 8. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, the following facts can be gleaned out : i. the alleged deceased was married to one Ajeet Kumar on 9.2.2010; ii. Ajeet Kumar and deceased Asha apparently were not having a very good matrimonial relationship and as per the first informant, Ajeet Kumar with his father, mother and other relatives were constantly demanding dowry from the deceased; iii. on many an occasion, there were conflicts between the husband Ajeet Kumar and the wife Asha and the first informant had tried to get the misunderstanding between the two resolved by the intervention of respected individuals of the village and various relatives; iv. on 19.6.2010, it was the last time before the alleged deceased Asha disappeared that an intervention was tried by the first informant to get the relationship between the deceased and her husband amicable. Thus, the event is said to have occurred within 7 years from the marriage in respect of which there is a presumption about the commission of dowry death under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act and section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the burden of proof, therefore, falls on the accused that he had not committed the crime; v. on 10.7.2010 when the daughter of Ramesh Chandra, the uncle of the first informant, was getting married, Ajeet Kumar and the alleged deceased Asha had come to the first informant's house to attend the marriage. Thereafter, Ajeet Kumar along with his parents had gone back to his own village at Kadipur (Padham), Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad. vi. Thereafter, Ajeet Kumar along with his parents had gone back to his own village at Kadipur (Padham), Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad. vi. when the "chauthi" ceremony of the girl who had got married was to be held on 16.7.2010, then Ajeet Kumar again came back to the house of the first informant. vii. according to the first informant, thereafter his sister (deceased) along with Ajeet Kumar had gone back to the village of Ajeet Kumar on 19.7.2010. viii. on 20.7.2010, when an information was received by one Gajendra, who was husband of another sister (Smt. Mithilesh) of the first informant, then the first informant along with his father tried to make efforts to contact Ajeet Kumar and his family but as per their assertion, Ajeet Kumar and his father disappeared and therefore, a suspicion was raised in their minds that the sister of the first informant had been murdered. ix. the First Information Report was thereafter lodged; investigation was done by the police; charge sheet was submitted and thereafter the trial had commenced. 9. Upon the completion of the trial, when the accused were found guilty, Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014 was filed assailing the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.1.2014. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions : a. The case is of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence to come to a conclusion that the appellant-Ajeet Kumar had in fact killed the deceased-Asha. b. When conviction is to be done as per the circumstantial evidence, then the chain of evidence should be such that leads to only conclusion that the accused and no one else had committed the crime. If there is any missing link, then the conviction cannot take place. c. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , there are five salient points which are to be seen for the conviction of the accused which are as follows : 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; 3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; 3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These ingredients have to be necessarily there for the Court to come to a conclusion that the accused was guilty. d. If the testimony of PW-1, who is the brother of the deceased, is seen, it is apparent that he only concludes that the accused had killed his sister when she was not to be found. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the Court go through the testimony of PW-1 which includes his examination-in-chief and cross-examination and stated that after the accused had gone back to his village upon having attended the marriage of his (informant's) cousin, he had again come back to the village of the informant to attend the 'chauthi' ceremony of the cousin (sister). He further states that the accused had gone back after attending the marriage on 19.7.2010. In his cross-examination, he has stated that while the accused was coming back on 16.7.2010, he had met with an accident at Padham which is around 25-30 kilometers away from the village of the first informant. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that as per the statement of PW-1, upon hearing about the accident, even the parents of Ajeet Kumar had come to the village of the first informant. Learned counsel states that thereafter as per the cross-examination of PW-1, the appellant-accused had gone to the house of the uncle of the first informant. Learned counsel states that if the testimony of PW-1, the first informant, is perused, it becomes clear that there is absolutely no direct evidence which can lead to the conclusion that his sister was killed by Ajeet Kumar. Learned counsel states that if the testimony of PW-1, the first informant, is perused, it becomes clear that there is absolutely no direct evidence which can lead to the conclusion that his sister was killed by Ajeet Kumar. In his testimony PW-1 had stated that after the ceremony of 'chauthi', the accused had taken away his sister in his presence on 19.7.2010 and thereafter because one Gajendra Singh, brother-in-law (Bahnoi) received an information that Ajeet Kumar had killed his sister, he had presumed that his sister had been killed. Learned counsel for the appellant states that to Gajendra Singh, during the marriage ceremony, Ajeet Kumar had stated that he had an intention to kill his wife Asha. Learned counsel argued that if that was the case, then why this fact was not told by Gajendra to the informant and the parents of Asha. Learned counsel for the appellant states that Gajendra Singh was never examined in the Court and he was not produced as a witness. e. To come to the conclusion that dowry was being demanded, the first informant as also the PW-2 i.e. the father of the deceased, had relied upon the statement of one Mithilesh who again was the sister of the first informant and Asha. As per the PW-1 and PW-2, Mithilesh had all through stated that in her presence, dowry was demanded from Asha. Learned counsel for the appellant states that even Mithilesh was never produced as a witness. f. There is absolutely no direct evidence with regard to the fact that anyone had seen the commission of the crime. He also submits that there is no evidence which would make a Court to conclude that the deceased was in fact killed by Ajeet Kumar. g. PW-3 Ramesh Chandra had also corroborated the story as was told by PW-1 that Ajeet Kumar had come back once again on 16.7.2010 to the village of the first informant to attend the 'chauthi' ceremony. Learned counsel states that the story which PW-3 gives is slightly different as he submits that after Ajeet Kumar had come from his village and he had met with the accident, he had never come to his house i.e. the uncle's house while PW-1 had stated that after coming from his village, Ajeet Kumar had lied down in the house of the uncle. To show the variance in the statements of PW-1 and PW-3, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon certain portions of their testimony which are reproduced as under : Statement of PW-1 ^^vthr ds ekrk firk ds crkus ij gedks vthr ds lkFk ,DlhMsaV gksus dh tkudkjh gqbZ FkhA mlls igys vthr vius ?kj ij ugha vk;s Fks esjs rkÅ ds ?kj ij ysVs FksA vthr ds ekrk firk ds crkus ds ckn gh eSus vthr dh ryk'k fd;k Fkk rks og esjs rkÅ ds ?kj ysVs feys Fks vkSj ml le; esjh cgu vk'kk Hkh esjs ?kj ij gh FkhA^^ Statement of PW-3 ^^eq>s ugh ekywe fd vthr esjs HkkbZ ds ?kj fdrus fnu :ds FksA vthr fdl rkjh[k dks esjs ?kj ij x, Fks ;g Hkh eq>dks ugh ekyweA^^ h. For the proving of the case of the prosecution, it appears that PW-3 and PW-4 had also sworn affidavits on 11.10.2010. Those affidavits, learned counsel states, were absolutely unreliable because the witnesses had not stated anything with regard to the fact as to when they were sworn, before whom they were sworn and where they were sworn. i. Learned counsel had also drawn the attention of the Court to the testimony of Anand Kumar-PW-4 in which the PW4 states that he had attended the marriage on 10.7.2010 of the cousin of the first informant Pushpa and had remained in the marriage only for 5-6 hours and in those 5-6 hours he did not remember as to when exactly in Dhatari (the village of the first informant), Ajeet Kumar had met him, yet before the PW-4 Anand Kumar, Ajeet Kumar had made an extra judicial confession that he would take his wife to his village and there he would kill her. Learned counsel for the appellant states that if such a grave confession was being made before PW-4, Anand Kumar and if he was a friend of the first informant and also a brother-in-law (husband of a cousin), then he would have definitely told the informant about the evil intention of Ajeet Kumar then and there. The very fact that Anand Kumar had kept mum and had not spoken about the intentions which Ajeet Kumar had told him, shows that Anand Kumar was a witness who had been tutored and had been brought only to give a false evidence. The very fact that Anand Kumar had kept mum and had not spoken about the intentions which Ajeet Kumar had told him, shows that Anand Kumar was a witness who had been tutored and had been brought only to give a false evidence. j. Learned counsel further states that PW-2 had stated that Ajeet Kumar had on 19.7.2010 taken his daughter to his village in his presence. The exact words of PW-2 in his testimony are being reproduced hereasunder :- ^^19- tqykbZ 2010 dks esjk nkekn vthr esjh iq=h vk'kk dks fonk djkdj ys x;k FkkA^^ However, in direct contravention of the statement of PW-2, PW-3 had stated that on 19.7.2010 Asha in the evening at around 4.00 PM had gone with him to Jasrana on a tempo. Then, he had also stated that from Shikohabad to Jasrana they were on a tempo at around 4.30 PM. He does not say that the accused Ajeet Kumar was also with him and was accompanying the alleged deceased Asha. k. Learned counsel further states that if the testimony of the Investigating Officer PW-5 Ramesh Bhardwaj is taken into account then it would be evident that he had stated in his Case Diary that the whole incident appeared to be doubtful. He has stated in his testimony that witness Mohan Singh and Veere had also stated during investigation that they were aware of the fact that Ajeet Kumar had killed his wife. He has also stated that Veere had stated that Asha along with Ajeet Kumar had gone to her Maika to attend a marriage but had never come back. PW-5 is the witness who had arrested the appellant but he could not, despite best efforts, recover the dead body of the deceased. He also presumed that the appellant had killed the deceased and had thrown it in Hazara Nahar. Learned counsel for the appellant states that if Mohan Singh and Veere were such important witnesses of fact then their non-production as witnesses in the case would make the whole prosecution story doubtful. l. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that from the statement of PW-6, 7 and 8 it is clear that the whole case was based upon hearsay evidence. Statements of Prosecution Witnesses regarding fact of the incident is also relevant. l. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that from the statement of PW-6, 7 and 8 it is clear that the whole case was based upon hearsay evidence. Statements of Prosecution Witnesses regarding fact of the incident is also relevant. PW-1 deposed at page 7 that "it is fair to say that I did not see Ajeet Kumar killing my sister and throwing the corpse while taking her. I don't know that after arrest of Ajeet Kumar, dead body of my sister, jewelry and clothes were recovered or not. I did not find any such person who told me that he had seen anyone killing my sister and throwing the dead body. I am saying according to the police that my sister has been murdered because she has not come to us till date. It is correct to say that before lodging this case, I did not make any complaint against the accused. It is also true to say that Ajit Kumar left my sister and returned back to his village. PW-2, in cross-examination, when was asked, "do you know that your daughter was murdered", the witness was unable to answer and remained silent. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sakatar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana : AIR 2004 SC 2570 and stated that the Supreme Court made it clear that where the evidence of husband's cruelty or harassment leading to dowry death is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness, it cannot be made foundation for basing of conviction under section 304-B of the Penal Code. m. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the evidence of PW-9 has also stated that Rakesh Kumar Pathak was a witness who had given his statement but Rakesh Kumar Pathak was also not produced as a witness. n. Learned counsel for the appellant states that if there was a presumption that the appellant had thrown the dead body from a bridge into Hazara Nahar then the police ought to have made at least some effort to locate the dead body by putting nets etc. n. Learned counsel for the appellant states that if there was a presumption that the appellant had thrown the dead body from a bridge into Hazara Nahar then the police ought to have made at least some effort to locate the dead body by putting nets etc. He further stated that all such canals are linked to various mini canals for the purposes of irrigation and if the dead body had been thrown from a bridge into that canal then there was every possibility that the dead body would have been recovered at one place or the other if proper nets etc. for searching out the dead body had been installed. 10. Learned AGA, however, in reply has submitted that minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses could not be made a ground for the acquittal of the accused. The first informant had tried his level best to prove the case and just because there were certain variations in the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 and thereafter in the statements of PW-2, such variations would not make the whole prosecution case doubtful. He submits that it made little difference if the PW-1 had stated that upon coming back to the informant's house, the accused had stayed in the house of the uncle (Tau) of the first informant on 19.7.2010 and on the contrary PW-3 had stated that the appellant had not stayed in his house. Learned AGA further submitted that the statement of PW2 that the accused and the deceased had gone from his house was at variance with the statement of PW-3 (Tau of the first informant) that the deceased had in fact gone to Jasrana with him at around 4.30 PM in the evening would also not make any difference. Learned AGA further stated that if Gajendra, Mithilesh, Mohan and Veere who had given various statements on various occasions had not given their evidence would also not make any difference as the evidence of the family members was sufficient for convicting the accused persons. 11. Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun also supported the judgment so far as the conviction of Ajeet Kumar was concerned and assailed the same so far as the judgment had acquitted Yad Pal and Veda Devi. 11. Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun also supported the judgment so far as the conviction of Ajeet Kumar was concerned and assailed the same so far as the judgment had acquitted Yad Pal and Veda Devi. For defending the judgment, so far as it convicted Ajeet Kumar, he submitted that there was evidence enough to come to the conclusion that Ajeet Kumar had killed his wife. He also adopted the arguments which the learned AGA had made. To assail the judgment which acquitted Yad Pal and Veda Devi, Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019 submitted that even if the Court relied upon the statements of PWs.-1, 2 and 3, it would become evident that the accused Yad Pal and Veda Devi were hands-in-glove with the accused Ajeet Kumar and they had all planned the murder of the deceased Asha and were, therefore, definitely to be punished with the help of the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2013, learned AGA for State and Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun who has appeared for the first informant as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019, the Court is of the view that the Court below erred in convicting the appellant-Ajeet Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014. However, the Court is convinced that the Court below rightly acquitted Yad Pal and Veda Devi. If the evidence in its totality as had come on record is seen, it would be evident that there is absolutely no direct evidence to come to the conclusion that Ajeet Kumar or his father Yad Pal or his mother Veda Devi had killed the deceased. The dead body was never found. The evidence is only circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence to prove that the appellant-Ajeet Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014 or his father Yad Pal or his mother Veda Devi had killed the deceased. There are number of contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 and in the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 which makes their testimonies doubtful. Also the non-production of Mithilesh, the sister of the deceased; Gajendra, the brother-in-law of the first informant; Mohan and Veere, the residents of village Kadipur in the witness box makes everything doubtful. There are number of contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 and in the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 which makes their testimonies doubtful. Also the non-production of Mithilesh, the sister of the deceased; Gajendra, the brother-in-law of the first informant; Mohan and Veere, the residents of village Kadipur in the witness box makes everything doubtful. PWs-1, 2 and 3 are such witnesses who only stated about the murder, on the basis of presumption as they were unable to find their daughter. They are in no manner witnesses of fact. They have no direct knowledge as to who had killed the deceased and whether the deceased was actually killed or not. They only presumed that Ajeet Kumar and his family members had killed the deceased on the basis of the statements made by Gajendra. Under such circumstances, their statements can only lead to a suspicion and cannot in any manner lead to the conclusion that Ajeet Kumar had actually killed the deceased. Their statements also cannot be treated as statements of fact that in fact the deceased had died. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Suspicion is definitely not a proof and, therefore, when it is not proven that the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased, then on the basis of suspicion, no conviction can take place. 13. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses of fact that they have deposed hearsay evidence which is not admissible in evidence. Under section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct as has also been observed by the Supreme Court in Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr. : AIR 2011 SC 760 and Mukul Rani Varshhei vs. D.D.A. : (1995) 6 SCC 120 . 14. Some important discrepancies in oral evidence of witnesses of fact which demolishes the prosecution case are noted below : i) Regarding Demand of Dowry: PWs-1, 3 and 4, brother, uncle and brother-in-law (husband of a cousin) respectively state about the demand of Rs.50,000/-, a buffalo and a gas-stove; PW-2 father of Asha states that there was a demand of gas and gas-stove only. ii) Regarding Panchayat: PW-1 on page 1 -"On June 19, 2010 I took many respectable persons and relatives to their home and talked about this". But his presence on 19.6.2010 at home is doubtful as he is an army personnel. ii) Regarding Panchayat: PW-1 on page 1 -"On June 19, 2010 I took many respectable persons and relatives to their home and talked about this". But his presence on 19.6.2010 at home is doubtful as he is an army personnel. At page 3 of his evidence he says that "the wedding of my uncle's daughter was on 10th July 2010". He could not say with certainty as to for how many days and at which time, he had come on leave. Again he says, "I do not remember that how many days before the wedding of my uncle's daughter, I had come home." Thus, it is established that the informant PW-1 had not participated in any such panchayat. He could not say with certainty as to for how many days and at which time, he had come on leave. Again he says, "I do not remember that how many days before the wedding of my uncle's daughter, I had come home." Thus, it is established that the informant PW-1 had not participated in any such panchayat. PW-2 Kishan Lal (father) has not mentioned at all that with regard to demand of dowry, any panchayat ever took place but he says, ^^eSus vk'kk dh llqjky esa ;g ekywe ugha fd;k fd e`R;q dSls gqbZA eq>s fdlh us crk;k Hkh ughaA eSus viuh yM+dh vk'kk dh gR;k djrs gq, mldh yk'k dks fNikrs gq, ;k nkg laLdkj djrs gq, ugh ns[kk u esjs ?kjokyks us ns[kk Loa; dgk fd eS rks vius ?kj ij FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eq>s vkt rd ,slk dksbZ O;fDr ugha feyk ftlus esjh yM+dh vk'kk dh gR;k djrs gq, mldh yk'k dks QSdrs gq, ;k nkg laLdkj djrs gq, ns[kk gksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd esjh yM+dh dh vkt rd u rks yk'k feyh u gMMh feyh vkSj u diMs+ feysA-------------'kknh ls ysdj esjh Hkrhth dh 'kknh gksus rd esjh iq=h us bl lEca/k esa dksbZ i= ugha Mkyk fd mldh llqjky okys ngst dh ckr djrs gSA vkSj ngst ds fy, izrkfM+r djrs gS vkSj u Qksu fd;k Fkk ?kj vkus ij f'kdk;r djrh FkhA^^ Contrary to the underlined deposition, further he says, " eSus yM+dh dh 'kknh ls ysdj esjh Hkrhth dh 'kknh gksus rd fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ f'kdk;r llqjky okyksa ds f[kykQ ugh dh Fkh vkSj u esjh yM+dh us dh FkhA eq>s ugh ekywe fd esjh yMdh dh gR;k fdlh rkjh[k] fdrus cts vkSj dgkW ij gqbZ FkhA ---------vthr us rkŒ20&07&2010 crkbZ FkhA eS fj'rsnkjks ds crk;s vuqlkj dg jgk gwW fd esjh yMdh dh gR;k gks xbZ gSA ------------------- ;g dguk lgh gS fd eS yM+dh dh gR;k gksus dh ckr nwljks ds dgus ij crk jgk gwWA^^ PW-3 Ramesh Chandra (Uncle) says at page 5, "I cannot tell the date, month or year of the panchayat. I did not attend the panchayat. ...... The panchayat was held on 19th June. The panchayat included Kishan Lal, Amrit Lal, Sanjay, Rajesh Pathak". I did not attend the panchayat. ...... The panchayat was held on 19th June. The panchayat included Kishan Lal, Amrit Lal, Sanjay, Rajesh Pathak". Further he said that Asha complained to him when she came in his daughter's marriage but he admits that there is no such deposition in his affidavit and examination-in-chief. Such omission falsifies his claim regarding complaint by Asha Devi to him. No alleged member of the panchayat was examined. PW-4 has not deposed about panchayat. Thus, this Court concludes that there was no demand of dowry and that no panchayat was held in regard to dowry. In the instant case, except charge sheet, there is no other reliable, convincing and acceptable evidence that Asha is not alive and has been murdered for dowry or for any other reason. Charge sheet itself is no evidence to prove the guilt. The Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank vs. Andhra Bank Finance Services Limited : (2006) 6 SCC 94 (Full Bench) held that a charge sheet submitted by an Investigating Officer under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is a public document within the meaning of section 35 of the Evidence Act but it does not imply that all that is stated in the charge sheet is proved. All that can be said is that it is proved that the police had prepared a charge sheet in which some allegations had been made against the accused. 15. In this case, even the police was not relying upon the allegations of PW-1 and PW-2. In this context, statement of PW6 -Constable Moharrir Shivraj Singh, at page 2, is relevant where he deposed that, "it is correct to say that the 'Special Report' in this case was not sent to the higher authorities as the incident of abduction of Asha was suspicious. ......... Inspector had recorded my statement. I had told the Inspector that due to the incident being suspicious, 'Special Report' was not sent". 16. It is also relevant that when the accused were produced for remand under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., the remand was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and a case was registered against the Investigating Officer which was rejected by the Revisional Court and order was sent to the superior authorities for perusal and compliance. 17. 16. It is also relevant that when the accused were produced for remand under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., the remand was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and a case was registered against the Investigating Officer which was rejected by the Revisional Court and order was sent to the superior authorities for perusal and compliance. 17. Thus, it could be anyone's conclusion that the officers who investigated, only made a false charge and that too because pretentiously they had to submit the charge sheet. 18. Further when the death of Asha itself was not certain on account of the fact that the dead body was not found, then it cannot again with certainty be said that the deceased was actually killed. 19. This Court is aware of the fact that recovery of the corpus is not necessary for conviction as has been held in several cases by the Supreme Court i.e. in Madhu vs. State of Karnataka : 2014 (84) ACC 329 (SC); Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab : 2012 (76) ACC 680 (SC); Mani Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim : AIR 2002 SC 2920 ; Lal Bahadur & Ors. vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) : (2013) 4 SCC 557 ; Ram Gulam Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar : 2001 (2) JIC 986 (SC) etc. but in this case demand of dowry, torture, planning to kill Asha, taking away the alleged deceased by the accused from her parental house and killing and throwing her in canal, all have not been proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. 20. In Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab : 2001 Cr.L.J. 4625, the Supreme Court held that in order to prosecute the accused under Section 304-B, there should be perceptible nexus between death of the deceased and torture or harassment caused to her. In the case cited, there was no evidence to show that the wife was subjected to cruelty soon before she attempted to commit suicide. The conviction of the accused under Section 304-B/306 read with section 113-B of Evidence Act, was therefore, set aside but conviction under Section 498-A was confirmed. The fine under Section 498-A was enhanced to rupees one lac for all the three accused. 21. The Supreme Court in Major Singh & Anr. The conviction of the accused under Section 304-B/306 read with section 113-B of Evidence Act, was therefore, set aside but conviction under Section 498-A was confirmed. The fine under Section 498-A was enhanced to rupees one lac for all the three accused. 21. The Supreme Court in Major Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab : AIR 2015 SC 2081 held that in order to attract conviction under Section 304-B of IPC the prosecution should adduce evidence to show that "soon before her death" the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. There must always be proximity and nexus between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the resultant death. 22. In this case, the prosecution has not also been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and to discharge its initial burden. Therefore, a presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise. 23. In Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2017) 1 SCC 734 , the Supreme Court reiterated that mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the accused under Sections 304B/498A. It is only when prosecution proves beyond doubt that the deceased (wife of the accused) was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be invoked. 24. The Supreme Court in Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar : AIR 2001 SC 2124 observed that bride-burning and dowry deaths are no doubt a menace to society and need to be sternly dealt with but at the same time it does not mean that while dealing with such cases the Courts should ignore the fundamental principles of fair trial and hold the accused guilty on mere probability or possibility of their involvement in the offence. 25. Under such circumstances, the judgment and order dated 25.1.2014 so far as it convicts the appellant-Ajeet Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014 cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, is quashed and set-aside. Also, we find that there is no ground for reversing the judgment dated 25.1.2014 insofar as it had acquitted Yad Pal and Veda Devi. 26. Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014, accordingly, stands allowed and Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019 stands dismissed. Also, we find that there is no ground for reversing the judgment dated 25.1.2014 insofar as it had acquitted Yad Pal and Veda Devi. 26. Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014, accordingly, stands allowed and Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2019 stands dismissed. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2014, who is in jail, may be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal case.