1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for the State.

2. The sole appellant has been convicted under Secs. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 306 and two years under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. It appears that the appellant along with Bindeshwar Mandal and Lakhan Mandal were put on trial for an offence under Secs. 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and besides Secs. 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code no charge was framed under other heads. The learned trial Court, however, has acquitted all the accused persons including the appellants under Secs. 302/34 as there was no evidence to prove the charge but convicted the appellant alone under Secs. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbayan (Exhibit-1), is that the sister of the informant, Chita Devi, who was married with the appellant, was burnt to death in the night of 27th and 28th of June, 1986 by the appellant and his brothers by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. In the fardbayan the informant has alleged that on getting the said information he went to the residence of the appellant but he found his residence locked and nobody met him there. He enquired into the matter from Bhagwat Thakur, Indra Narain Jha, Hari Mohan Jha and others in the village and they informed him that the appellant and his two brothers had burnt his sister to death by sprinkling kerosene oil. He also learnt there from them that the accused persons had also taken away the dead body on the pretext of getting her treated and they did not return to their native village. It has also been stated in the fardbayan that the accused persons used to demand cattle and tape recorders etc. in dowry for which they used to torture his sister. On the basis of the fardbayan (Exhibit-1) a formal first information report was drawn up and a case under Secs. 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. After due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Secs. 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and after taking cognizance of the offence the case was committed to the Court of session where the appellant and his two brothers were tried and they were acquitted for the charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant was convicted under Secs. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code even without the specific charge under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The defence of the accused persons is total denial of the occurrence and a plea of innocence has been taken.

6. The prosecution, in all, has examined eight witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, P.W. 1, Ganesh Mandal, uncle of the informant, is a hearsay witness. P.W. 7, Pitamber Mandal, is the informant of the case and P.W. 8, Rajendra Sharma, is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, who are co-villagers of the appellant, have been declared hostile.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment from all the corners. Learned counsel submitted that there was only charge under Secs. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and two other accused persons and when the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons for the charges under Secs. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for want of evidence the learned trial Court wholly erred in convicting the appellant under Secs. 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code without altering the charge under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence at all warranting the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial Court, merely on the basis of statement made in the bail petition/filed on behalf of the appellant that his wife had com