- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Chhotey, Bharat, Chedi, Nankoo, Ram Pujari and Shoo Kumar have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-8-1984 of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, passed in S. T No. 117/84 convicting the appellants under Section201, I. P. C. to 3years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/eaeh. In default of payment of fine the appel lants were to suffer 3 months' R. I. Besides the appellants there were six of her accused at the trial who were aequitted. Initially the case was under Section 302/34 and Section 201, I. P. C. Bui the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants only for the offence under Section 201, I. P. C.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that in formant Salik Ram of his daughter Suchita Devi married to appellant Sheo Kumar. In April 1983 after performance of Gauna ceremony Suchita Devi went to her in laws house. On 26-6-1983 appellant sent information to the informant regard ing the death of Suchita Devi on 26-6-1983. When THE informant and his family members wanted to go to participate in the cremation of Suchita Devi, appellant Nankoo told the informant and cremation has already been done. THE informantion here after lodged F. I. R. stating that either Suchita Devi had been burnt alive or was cremated after being killed. At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty and the stand taken up by the defence was that Suchita Devi died due to cholera and after her death she was crcmated and was not at all a case of murder. The appellants further pleaded that they are victims of false implication. In support of its case prosecution ex amined P. W. 1 Salik Ram, who is inform ant in the case P. W. 2 Kalawati, who deposed that at night Nankoo came and informed about the death to the 'mausi' of the deccased, who started crying P. W. 2 Kalawati also reached there and Nankoo told him that the deccased had died and thereafter he went away. She further stated that when they went to the crema tion ground only ashes were found P. W. 3 Jag Prasad has simply stated that he heard that the deccased was intact done to death and had not died natural death. He also heard people saying that the deccased had been burnt. This witness turned hostile and was cross-examined by The learned Stale Counsel. P. W. 4 Lalla Prasad has also turned hostile and has stated nothing to benefit the prosecution case P. W. 5 Ismail Khan is the Investigaling Officer of the case. The appellanits did not produce any evidence in their defence.
(3.) AFTER scrutinising The entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held that even though there was some evidence on the record but no such proof could be found which may suggest that any of the accused facing trial had committed the offence of murder. He further held that only this much was revealed by the evidence that the deccased was done to death and the family members in The house of the in-laws of The deccased had knowledge but besides holding that the death of Suchita Devi was unnatural there was no evidence to connect any of the accused withoffence of murder. 'on this finding, The learned Sessions Judge acquilied six out of twelve accused lacing trial but conviclcd the six appellanis for The offence under Section 201, I. P. C. on the ground that they were involved in cremation of the deccased. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and The learned counsel for the Stale and have perused The evidence;