M.M Lal, J.:— This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 16-4-1985 passed by Sri Dinesh Chandra, the then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad by which he has convicted the above named four appellants under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C and has sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Shree Ram Sharma appellant is the father of Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Vijai Kumar Sharma appellants. Smt. Ram Dulari appellant is the wife of Shree Ram Sharma appellant. All of them are residents of village Sarai Bahar P.S Soraon, District, Allahabad. Smt Pan Kumari alias Bittan deceased was the daughter of P.W 3 Brijesh Narain informant, who was residing at village Dhomai, P.S Saini, District Allahabad. She was married to Dinesh Kumar Sharma appellant on 1st June, 1980.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, soon after the aforesaid marriage the appellants started harassing and torturing Smt. Pan Kumari deceased on the point of dowry. It is stated that five months prior to this murder Shree Ram Sharan appellant wrote a letter to Brijesh Narain informant that his daughter has expired. On receipt of the said letter Brijesh Narain informant, accompanied by his cousin P.W 2 Krishna Dutt, went to village Sarai Bahar to find that Smt. Pan Kumari was very much alive. They enquired about the matter from Shree Ram Sharma appellant, who told them that he had written the said letter only to harass them and also to see as to whether they would come on receipt of the said letter. Brijesh Narain informant brought his daughter, i.e Smt. Pan Kumari, along with him. Later on after 2-3 months Shree Ram Sharma appellant came to village Dhomai and after promising that he would not repeat the mistake in future took away Smt. Pan Kumari deceased.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the night of 29/30 March, 1982 at about 10-11 p.m all the four appellants by setting Smt. Pan Kumari ablaze committed her murder. She expired on the same night at about 2 a.m Sri Brijesh Narain informant gave an application dated 31-3-1982 to S.P (R) Allahabad in which he narrated the entire incident. S.P (R) Allahabad forwarded the said application on 1-4-1982 to S.O Soraon directing him to register this case, on which this case was registered on 1-4-1982 at 7.10 p.m

5. In support of its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W 3 Brijesh Narain informant is the father of Smt. Pan Kumari deceased. P.W 2 Krishna Dutt is his cousin. Both of them have deposed about the relationship of the appellants and the manner in which they used to harass and torture Smt. Pan Kumari. P.W 1 Ram Chandra Vishwakarma and P.W 4 Phool Chandra did not support the prosecution and turned out to be hostile. P.W 5 Ram Saran Singh had prepared the chick report and had registered the case etc. The investigation of this case was started by P.W 6 Sada Nand and was completed by P.W 7 Arjun Singh.

6. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Pan Kumari was conducted by P.W 8 Dr. L.P Singh, Medical Officer M.L.N Hospital Allahabad on 31-3-1982 at 3.15 p.m He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body:

7. Extensive burn present on the upper extremity and its anterior to posterior aspect and lower extremity anterior and posterior aspect, on face, on front and back of neck, on chest, on abdomen on pubic region and on back including the whole glubial (sic) region. Charring of hair was present. Skin had been peeled off and scattered blisters were present all over the body.

8. According to the doctor the death of Smt. Pan Kumari had taken due to extensive burn injuries and shock.

9. The doctor observed in the post mortem examination report that the lady expired on 30-3-82 at 2.40 a.m, vide information received from T.B Sapru Hospital, Allahabad.

10. The appellants in their statements denied the case of the prosecution. Shree Ram Sharma appellant, however, further stated that when Smt. Pan Kumari was preparing tea, her Saree caught fire from the flame of the stove, that when she cried they ran to her rescue and somehow extinguished the fire. In the meanwhile she had received extensive burn injuries. He further stated that he immediately called one Dr. Majid for treatment and on his advice took Smt. Pan Kumari firstly to Mission Hospital, Badlapur and then to T.B Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. He also stated that at Allahabad the doctor told him that Smt. Pan Kumari had expired. He further stated that Brijesh Narain had sent him a message to compromise the matter on giving him a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, to which he declined.

11. The appellants, however, did not produce any witness in defence.

12. Learned Sessions Judge has, however, believed the case set up and the evidence produced by the prosecution and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have perused the record carefully.

14. This is not a case of direct evidence. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, all that has to be seen is whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove such circumstances which may establish the guilt of the appellants.

15. It is not denied to the defence in this case that Smt. Pan Kumari was married and was the wife of Dinesh Kumar Sharma appellant, that she was living in the house of the appellants, that she died in the said house and that her death was unnatural. It may be observed that whereas the case of the prosecution is that the appellants had burned Smt. Pan Kumari to death, the suggestion of defence is that while Smt. Pan Kumari was preparing tea on stove her Saree caught fire from the flame of the said stove. Anyway, the mere existence of circumstances that Smt. Pan Kumari was married to Dinesh Kumar Sharma appellant, that she was living in the house of the appellants, that she died in the said house and that her death was unnatural would not establish the guilt of the appellants because in a case of circumstantial evidence there has to 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused.

16. It may not be out of place to state here that S. 304B, I.P.C, under which a presumption with regard to dowry death may be raised against a husband or any relative of the husband, has been inserted in the Penal Code in the year 1986. This incident on the other hand had taken place in the year 1982. Accordingly, no such presumption can be raised in this case and, therefore, the prosecution without the help of any such presumption, has to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

17. The main thrust of the case of the prosecution is that the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry given to them and, therefore, they used to harass and torture Smt. Pan Kumari. P.W 2 Krishna Dutt, as already observed, is the cousin of P.W 3 Brijesh Narain informant. He is a clerk of an Advocate. Both P.W 2 Krishna Dutt and P.W 3 Brijesh Narain had gone to hand over the complaint of this case to S.P (R) Allahabad. Both these witnesses tried to depose in their evidence that the appellants' were not satisfied with the dowry given to them and on account of the same they used to torture Smt. Pan Kumari. They admitted that they did not make any mention regarding dowry in the F.I.R In our view had the appellants been not satisfied with the dowry, had they been claiming more dowry and had they been torturing Smt. Pan Kumari for want of sufficient dowry, it would have been the first circumstance which would have been mentioned in the F.I.R, which was obviously lodged after delay and consultation on 1-4-1982.

18. Both P.W 3 Brijesh Narain and P.W 2 Krishna Dutt have stated in their evidence that five months prior to this murder Shree Ram Sharma had sent a letter informing that Smt. Pan Kumari had expired and when on receipt of the said letter they went to Shree Ram Sharma appellant and enquired as to why he had written such a letter he replied that because he had not received sufficient dowry hence in order to harass them he had written the said letter. Shree Ram Sharma appellant in his statement recorded under S. 313, Cr. P.C had specifically denied the said allegations. However, when P.W 2 Krishna Dutt was confronted with the same he admitted that he had not stated any such thing in the statement made before the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr. P.C Besides, we are of the view that had it been a fact that the appellants were harrassing and torturing Smt. Pan Kumari and had written the aforesaid letter then Brijesh Narain informant who was being guided and accompanied by a clerk of an Advocate, i.e P.W 2 Krishna Dutt, would have preserved the said letter. It may be noted that according to the prosecution the said letter was torn there and then and was not preserved.

19. Whereas both P.W 2 Krishna Dutt and P.W 3 Brijesh Narain tried to state in their evidence before the trial Court that the aforesaid letter was sent by Shree Ram Sharma appellant, Brijesh Narain P.W 3 in his statement before the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr. P.C has stated that the said letter was sent by son-in-law, i.e Dinesh Kumar Sharma appellant.

20. It may also be relevant to point out at this stage that the statement of P.W 2 Krishna Dutt was recorded by the Investigating Officer after expiry of six months there is no explanation for the said delay. Besides, whereas P.W 2 Krishna Dutt stated before the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr. P.C that Smt. Pan Kumari was beaten and burnt, he denied before the trial Court that Smt. Pan Kumari was beaten. It may be observed that in the F.I.R it was clearly stated that Smt. Pan Kumari was burnt after beating. In this context it may be observed that the post mortem examination report did not reveal any injury other than burn on the dead body of Smt. Pan Kumari.

21. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the F.I.R in this case was lodged with delay and that there was no proper explanation for the same. We find force in the said argument. It may be observed that whereas the incident is said to have taken place on the night of 29/30 March, 1982 at 10-11 p.m the F.I.R in this case was registered as late as 1-4-1982 at 7.10 p.m on the basis of an order dated 1-4-1982 passed by S.P (R) Allahabad on the application dated 31-3-1982 moved by Brijesh Narain informant P.W 3, P.W 2 Krishna Dutt has stated in his evidence that S.P (R) Allahabad had passed the order on the aforesaid application on the same day and that on the same date the said application with the order was taken by Brijesh Narain to the Police Station. Thus, when the order of the S.P (R) Allahabad was passed on 1-4-82 it follows as a corollary that the said application was given to him on 1-4-1982. Therefore, the F.I.R which was submitted with delay and there being no proper explanation for the said delay loses its corroborative value.

22. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies we are not impressed with the evidence given by P.W 2 Krishna Dutt, and P.W 3 Brijesh Narain and, therefore, we find it difficult to believe their evidence that the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and that, therefore, they used to harass and torture Smt. Pan Kumari deceased.

23. There are two special features in this case which stand to indicate that the appellants were not guilty. P.W 2 Krishna Dutt denied the suggestion that it was on 30-3-82 that they had received information that Smt. Pan Kumari had been killed. However, in this respect he was belied by the statement which he made before the Investigating Officer that on 30-3-82 Rama Kant, who belonged to the family of Shree Ram Sharma, had come to inform that Smt. Pan Kumari had died as a result of burn injuries. Any way, P.W 3 Brijesh Narain clearly admitted in his evidence that on 30-3-82 said Rama Kant had come to him to inform that Smt. Pan Kumari had received burn injuries and that she was admitted in Medical College for treatment on which he, along with Rama Kant, went to the Medical College Allahabad. The complainant admitted that said Rama Kant was the nephew of Shree Ram Sharma appellant. In our opinion when the appellants sent their near and dear one to the father of the girl to give information about the burn injuries sustained by Smt. Pan Kumari deceased, the said conduct of the appellants was a circumstance which went in their favour.

24. The other circumstance favourable to the appellants is that after the aforesaid incident the appellants in the dead of the night arranged a taxi and brought Smt Pan Kumari for medical treatment to the Hospital, where she was declared dead.

25. There are five golden principles constituting the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. The same are as follows:

1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,

2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one due 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 accused. (See 1984 Cri LJ 1738) (SC).

26. In this case the aforesaid principles are not satisfied. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants were not satisfied with the dowry and that on account of insufficient dowry they used to harass and torture Smt. Pan Kumari. The prosecution has merely succeeded to prove that Smt. Pan Kumari was married to Dinesh Kumar Sharma appellant, that she was living with him in his house, that she died in the said house, that her death was unnatural and that she died within a few years of her marriage. In our opinion, the said facts alone are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. It cannot be said that there is chain of evidence and circumstances so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground which may be consistent with the innocence of the appellants.

27. There are four appellants in this case. We have failed to appreciate as to how and on what basis all the four appellants have been held guilty for the murder of Smt. Pan Kumari. In our view there are no such circumstances which may connect all the four appellants or any of them with this crime.

28. Therefore, in the result we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants or any of them beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are, therefore, liable to be acquitted.

29. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The order under appeal convicting and sentencing Shree Ram Sharma, Vijai Kumar Sharma Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Smt. Ram Dulari, Appellants under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C is hereby set aside. The appellants are held not guilty of the offence under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C and are accordingly acquitted thereof. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds, which hereby stand discharged.

30. Appeal allowed.