The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial evidence and the initial burden on the prosecution to prove the basic ingredients of the offense. It also highlights the insufficiency of hearsay evidence and the importance of reliable evidence to establish guilt.

SANJAY PRIYA, J.

Nobody appears for the appellant. Shri Ranbir Singh, Advocate, is requested to appear as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The sole appellant is convicted by the learned Court below for the offences under Section 302/34, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has further been convicted for an alternative charge under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were said to run concurrently, but no separate sentence for the alternative charge under Section 304B together with that of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been passed.

4. The prosecution case as per fard beyan of the chowkidar (PW 3) is that he heard in the village that accused Suresh Singh along with his son Prabir Singh @ Nagendra Singh and daughter Prema Kumari (since dead) have committed the murder of Rita Devi by inflicting cut injuries through spade and in course of commission of said murder, 3-4 year old daughter of the deceased had also sustained injuries. The accused person took away the said baby for getting her treatment stealthily. Besides they were cremating the dead body of Rita Devi, in order to destroy the evidence of murder, hurriedly. The informant went to enquire into the matter and saw the accused Suresh Singh and his son Prabir Singh cremating the dead body with the help of some villagers. The informant has further alleged that he has learnt from the villagers that the appellant, Prabir Singh, used to ill-treat the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and, therefore, he has killed her by inflicting spade blow.

5. The police submitted charge-sheet after the investigation against the appellant and other accused persons as stated in the impugned judgment. Thereafter trial proceeded and the present accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

6. The prosecution has during trial examined six witnesses. The informant has been examined as PW 3. Another chowkidar has been examined as PW 1. The brother of the deceased has been examined as PW 4. The father of the deceased has been examined as PW 6 for the first time in the Court. He has not earlier given any statement before the police during investigation. Dr. Surendra Kumar, who performed the postmortem has been examined as PW

7. The defence has also examined altogether eight witnesses. Ram Swaroop Yadav (DW 4) has been examined to prove the civil dispute pending between the family of the informant Achak Tanti and one Deolal Yadav and the accused persons were extending their help to the said Deolal Yadav in litigation. DW 2 Amod Singh has been examined to prove the death of the deceased due to stomach ache. DW 3 Udit Narayan Karn is a Dresser at Primary Health Centre, Kisanpur. He has proved the alibi of accused Suresh Singh. DW 5 Purushottam Narayan Singh was Medical Officer Incharge at Primary Health Centre, Kisanpur. Both DW 3 and DW 5 have been examined as witnesses to prove the alibi of accused Suresh Singh. DW 4 Ram Sajjan Prasad Singh is the maternal uncle of the accused Prabir Singh, who is witness to the alibi of accused Prabir Singh. DW 6 Surendra Narayan Singh and DW 7 Sikandar Yadav have been examined to show that marriage of accused Prabir Singh, the appellant, was solemnized at the Singheswarsthan temple with the deceased on 07.05.1986. DW 8 has been examined to show that the intimation of the death of the decased has been given to her father in time at Saharsa.

8. The defence, besides the oral evidence, has also produ