Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish guilt.

ORDER

Nanavati, J.

1. For the unnatural death of Debjani (Deyyani) five persons, namely, Chandranath Bani. Chandan Banik, Ashim Banik, Jayanti Banik and Sumitra Banik, who were her father-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law respectively, were tried in the Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, in S.T. No. 4(5) of 1983. The case of the 6th accused, being a juvenile, was separated. The trial Court convicted all the five accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.c. The husband and the father-in-law were sentenced to death and the rest of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence of murder. All the five convicted accused appealed to the High Court and there was also a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the husband and the father-in-law. The High Court not only confirmed the conviction of the husband and the father-in-law but also the death sentence Conviction of Sumitra was confirmed both under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.c. and under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The appeal of Ashim and Jyanti was allowed partly. they have been acquitted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. but their conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.c. has been maintained. Aggreived by her conviction, Sumitra has filed Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 1989. The husband and the father-in-law had also filed an appeal to this Court but we are told that it was dismissed but later on in the Review Petition filed by them, the sentence of death was reduced to the sentence of imprisonment for life. The other two appeals being Criminal Appeals Nos. 461 of 1989 and 462 of 1989 are by the State against the acquittal of Ashim and Jyanti. As the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The prosecution case was that Debjani was married to Chandan Banik but her husband and in-laws were not happy with her and quarrels used to take place between them. After some time they also started ill-treating her life became more miserable as the husband and the in-laws used to make accusations against her of had character and adultery. All the accused were abusing her and the husband used to beat her also. On 28.2.83, the husband had beaten her in the morning. It is the prosecution case that thereafter the husband and the other in-laws decided to kill her. They beat her in the afternoon and after she was killed they hanged her body in order to make it appear that she had committed suicide by hanging herselffrom a fan after tieing her sari around her neck.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of Dhanpati (P.W.-4), father of the deceased, the three letters, Exhibits 8, 8/1 and 8/2 written by the deceased to her mother and sister-in-law and the evidence of two domestic servants, Jagdish (P. W. 19) and Shanti (P.W. 20). The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of Dr. Bose to prove that hanging was subsequent to the death of Debjani and she had really died because of beating. The trial Court after carefully scrutinizing the evidence held that her husband and in-laws were systematically illtreating and torturing her and that on the day of the incident at about 4.00 p.m. the husband and the father-in-law had beaten her, that all the other accused were present at that time and again after about 45 minutes they were all seen near that very place. All the males then left their home and the females went to the extent of telling the police that they did not knew whose dead body it was.

4. The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court believing the evidence of Jagdish and Shanti and relying upon the three letters written by Debjani, The High Court, however, held that there was no clear and reliable evidence to show that A