The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Trial courts are obligated to evaluate defense evidence with the same rigor as prosecution evidence. If the defense raises a reasonable hypothesis of innocence through credible, uncontroverted evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be granted to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A serious procedural deviation, resulting in a graver travesty of justice is alleged; of two trials, from two final reports on the same First Information Report, having been proceeded with against seventeen persons leading to conviction of only one of them in the second trial, despite the further investigation having unearthed no evidence against the fifteen accused. The appellant, the hapless husband of a woman who succumbed to burn injuries in her matrimonial home, has been in the dock for a quarter of a century on the accusation of marital cruelty and dowry death. The prosecution is also blamed of having failed to bring in material evidence; adduced by the defense, which the investigators ought to have detected before the charge sheet was filed.

3. The two cases were clubbed together after considerable evidence was led in both separately. Later, after further evidence was adduced jointly, they were de-tagged and adjudicated individually. In the first case the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, the two accused arrayed, were acquitted. Fourteen family members of the husband were acquitted in the second case wherein the husband alone stood convicted. The impugned order remanded the matter to the trial court on the premise of the convicted accused not being present when the witnesses were examined in the other case, before clubbing. The appeal is filed by the sole accused who stood convicted.

4. The impugned order indicates that before clubbing, in the instant case PW1 to PW6 were examined and after clubbing, PW13 to PW15 and DW1 to DW5 were examined. The trial court has also recorded that the oral testimonies of only those witnesses examined in the presence of the accused in this case would be evaluated to come to a just decision; scrupulously done avoiding any prejudice to the accused. PW1 to PW6 examined herein are respectively PWs 1, 11, 3, 2, 12 & 4 in the first case; the first two, associates of the family, then a cousin, two brothers and the father of the deceased. PW13 proved the sanction order and PW14 &15 testifying in the joint trial were another brother of the deceased and the Investigating Officer (I.O) respectively. PW5 to PW10 examined in the first case were not even cross-examined by the two accused and their testimonies were completely eschewed even in the first case, the order of acquittal in which is produced as Annexure P-9.

5. The case stems from an incident of the year 2000 and we were of the opinion that a remand at this stage would only prolong the matter. Learned Counsel for the accused agreed to a consideration on merits by this Court at the expense of losing one appellate forum, i.e., the High Court, to which the learned State Counsel also did not object. Hence, we proceed to consider the matter on its merits.

6. The allegation arose from an incident where the wife of the appellant was first taken to the District Hospital, Mirzapur from her marital home on 13.04.2000 allegedly with 40% burns sustained and then re-admitted to a private nursing home, at Allahabad, where the poor lady succumbed a few days later. Was it accidental, as contended by the husband and the in-laws or whether it was self-inflicted or induced, the causation being the cruelty arising from incessant do