A be believed that her brother accused No. 1 - husband of the deceased had gone to his shop at about 8 P .M. After committing this crime, the two accused vanished from the scene, but before doing that, one of them (Bhuvaneshwarimother-in-law of the deceased) lodged a false report at the B police station that ner daugther-in-law had committed suicide. It is in the testimony of D.P.N. Pandey PW 7 (C.O/lnvestigating Officer) that the accused Satya Narayan surrendered in Court on 7 .11.2000 and the other accused Rani alias Bhuvaneshwari on 13.11.2000. Earlier thereto, the attempts to find and arrest c them turned to be futile. It is in his testimony that both of them were absconding and for this reason, on 6.11.2000 a report had been submitted for issuing process against them under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. None of the two accused is witness of the inquest report or Fards. Absconding by both of them after the incident cannot be termed to be normal conduct of innocent 0 persons. The report by the accused Bhuvaneshwari Devi, as we said, was given at the Police Station at 1.10 P.M. On 3.11.2000. In our opinion, it was the outcome of deliberation and consultation with legal experts who had already gathered at the scene of occurrence along with Keshav Tiwari , E Advocate-uncle of the accused Satya Narayan Tiwari, OW 2 Devendra Misra, Advocate, and few other lawyers. We note from the testimony of OW 2 Devendra Misra that the news of the death of daughter-in-law of Ghanshyam Tiwari was received in the District court at 11.30 A.M., itself i.e., much before the F lodging of the report by Bhuvaneshwari. This witness stated that when he arrived at the scene of occurrence, a group of lawyers was already there. The false report made by the accused Bhuvaneshwari Devi was obviously the outcome of the legal advice to save the culprits from the consequences oLtl'le· G criminal act committed by them.
