The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove essential elements of the alleged offences through cogent and reliable evidence, and the lack of credible evidence leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

Gopal Prasad, J.-Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and further convicted for offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as alleged by Neelam Devi, P.W. 10 that at about one and quarter years early she has married her daughter Chanda Kumari, deceased with Jitendra Singh accused at the time of marriage Rs. 40,000/- was fixed as 'Tilak' but Rs. 38,000/- was given and Rs.2,000/- was remained to be paid for which her son-in-law used to vex and threatened that if rest amount is not paid then he will marry with another lady. After marriage, her daughter went to Sasural and after nine days she again came to Naihar and keeping her daughter in her house. The informant went to Katihar at her husband service place. In the meantime, accused Jitendra Singh demanded Rs. 25,000/- from her unmarried daughters and son, Punam Singh, P.W. 7, Babli Singh P.W.9 and Santosh Kumar Singh, P.W. 8 for business otherwise he will not keep their sister and took her wife, Chanda Kumari, deceased to his house at Nautan. Again her daughter came to her Maika and three days prior to the occurrence he brought her daughter and kept her in a hut at Balughat and when her daughter Punam went to meet the victim on 26.10.1994, then she disclosed about subjecting cruelty and in between 26/27.10.1994 at about 4 AM. Jitendra Singh done to death and close her and set on fire of the hut and kill.

4. On the Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After commitment, charge was framed for offence under Sections 304B and 201 I.P.C.

5. However, during trial it has come in evidence that place of occurrence is 100 yards of the house of the informant and twelve witnesses were examined in this case. p.w. 10 is the informant, p.w. 11 is the Doctor, P.W. 12 is the 1.0., P.W.7, is Punam Kumari, daughter of the informant, P.W. 8 Santosh Kumar Singh, son of the informant, P.W. 9 Babli Singh, daughter of the informant. P.Ws. 5 and 6 have been tendered and P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have only come to depose that on hulla they went to the place of occurrence and saw the house Jitendra Singh was set on fire and his wife Chanda Devi has been died out of burn injury at about 4.30 A.M. However, P.Ws. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the material witnesses who are informant and her three children who have come to support about marriage was solemnised within six years and the victim has to subject to her cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

6. P.W. 11 is the Doctor. However, in his evidence has preserved the viscera for chemical report and opined that cause of death kept reserved till chemical analysis report of viscera available. He has opined that smell of kerosene oil coming inside the stomach and not' over body and smell of kerosene oil came out after opening of stomach.

7. On considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial court held that marriage was solemnised within seven years and deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband-appellant in connection with demand of dowry on the evidence of P.W. 9 in paras 4 and 10 and evidence of P.W. 10 in paras 3, 4 and 11 and convicted the appellant under Section 3048.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant. however, challenged the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that prosecution has not been proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and subjecting to cruelty for demand of dowry has not been proved and conviction and sentence are based on contradictory evidence and one cannot accept that on mere demand of Rs. 2,000/- the victim can be done to deat