CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecution appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for brevity). By the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.2015/04.06.2015 under appeal passed by the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banka, in Sessions Trial No. 1343 of 2008(G.R. No. 620/08), Tr. No. 250/15, arising out of Rajoun P.S. Case No. 68 of 2008, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:—

3. The Rajoun P.S. Case No. 68 of 2008 came to be registered, based on the fardbeyan of the informant (PW-5), on 27.04.2008 recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajoun Police Station.

4. The informant (PW-5) is the brother of the deceased and the appellant is the husband of the deceased.

5. The prosecution’s case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan, is that the informant’s sister (the deceased) was married to the appellant nearly four years before the date of occurrence. The behaviour of the appellant, according to informant, was not good from the very beginning with the deceased because of protrusion of her upper front teeth (malocclusion). The appellant used to insist upon the family members of the deceased to get corrected the misalignment of the upper front teeth of deceased, but because of financial constraints, they were not in a position to get that corrected. A female child was born out of the said marriage. At about 11:00 am., in the morning of 27.04.2002, the appellant informed the informant that the deceased had died after falling from the stairs. The informant reached the matrimonial home of the deceased, where he learnt that his sister had been killed by administering her poison. Based on the information to the aforesaid effect, the F.I.R. came to be registered.

6. The police upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against this appellant for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code based on which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka. Subsequently, charge came to be framed by the trial court against the appellant for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, he has been put to trial.

7. At the trial, six prosecution’s witnesses came to examined as under:—

(i) PW-1 Sikandar Sharma (father of the deceased)

(ii) PW-2 Pinki Devi (mother of the deceased)

(iii) PW-3 Sangeeta Devi (sister of the deceased)

(iv) PW-4 Dilip Sharma (brother of the deceased)

(v) PW-5 Rupesh Sharma (informant/brother of the deceased)

(vi) PW-6 Madan Kumar Pathak (Doctor who proved the signature of the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination)

8. The Investigating Officer was not examined. The Doctor who had conducted post mortem examination was also not examined, though, the post mortem was formally proved by PW-6 by proving the signature of the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that all the prosecution’s witnesses, except the formal witness i.e. the Doctor are highly interested witnesses, inasmuch as, they are father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased. He has submitted that as the post mortem report could not be duly proved at the trial, cause of death by administering poison could not have been the only conclusion, as has been recorded by the trial court. It is to be noted that the