Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2), putting to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Danapur, in Sessions Trial No. 1020 of 2013, arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 04 of 2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: –

2. We must, at the outset, point out that when this appeal was called for final hearing on various dates, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, by an order dated 14.11.2022, the Court had appointed Mr Pratik Mishra, learned Advocate of this Court from the panel of lawyers prepared by Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, for providing legal aid, to assist this Court and place the case of the appellants before this Court. Mr Mishra has extended valuable assistance to this Court as an Amicus Curiae. The State has been represented by Ms Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. The concerned Bihta P.S. Case No. 4 of 2013 was registered on 04.01.2023, levelling offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the IPC, based on the fardbeyan of the deceased, recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, Srikant Bharti, (PW-7) at 2:40 pm on 04.01.2013 at Bihta Referral Hospital to the effect that at 12:00 noon on the said date, i.e., 04.01.2013, when she was performing her household job, her married sister-in-law (nanad, husband's sister) Boby Devi (appellant No. 1) and the informant's mother-in-law, Binda Devi (appellant No. 2) entered into some altercation with her. In the meanwhile, the appellant Boby Devi, brought kerosene oil and poured the same over her body and thereafter, she went to bring a matchbox and set her on fire. After that they locked the room from the outside. Subsequently, villagers assembled there on hearing the informant screaming out of pain and opened the door. They somehow managed to extinguish the fire. The officials of Bihta Police Station reached there and took her to Bihta Referral Hospital, where she was being treated at the time of the recording of the fardbeyan. The informant subsequently died during the course of her treatment in PMCH on 27.01.2013. Accordingly, Section 302 of the IPC was added to the formal FIR under the orders of the learned Magistrate.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC, whereafter cognizance was taken, and the case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions on 05.08.2013 and the charge was framed against both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC on 21.10.2013. The appellants pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, they were put on trial.

5. At the trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined, including the Investigating Officer (PW-5) and the Police Officer, who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (the deceased) Srikant Bharti as PW-7. PW-6, an Advocate's Clerk, proved the signature of the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination. The Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination, could not be examined at the trial as he was no more. Needless to say that no evidence of any expert was adduced to prove the contents of the postmortem report. The fardbeyan, according to the prosecution's case, was recorded in the presence of PW-4, Sumesh Mahto. He did not support the prosecution's case and has been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. A cousin of the deceased, Savita Devi, married in the same village, came to be examined as P