IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr. Anil Kumar for the appellants in Cr. App. (SJ) No. 80 of 2016 and Cr. App. (SJ) No. 167 of 2016. The Cr. App. (DB) No. 420 of 2016, which is for enhancement of sentence to the appellants, has been addressed by Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha, learned advocate. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel for the State has appeared in all the three appeals.

2. Sunita Devi, wife of the appellant/Indal Kewat is alleged to have been killed sometimes on 25.05.2011. Her father Rupchand Kewat (P.W.7) lodged the F.I.R. alleging that on 26.05.2011, he learnt that his daughter has been killed by strangulating her and her dead body has been disposed off. On such information, he immediately proceeded to the matrimonial home of his daughter but did not find any one of the appellants in the house. On suspicion because of such information having been received by him, he enquired from the neighborhood and learnt that about a day before i.e. on 25.05.2011, there had been a fight between his daughter (deceased) and his son-in-law/appellant/Indal Kewat whereafter the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased killed her and disposed off the dead body. He has also alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was always pestered and troubled for additional dowry about which she used to complain but, her hurt feelings were assuaged by P.W.7 who made her understand that with the passage of time, such behaviour of the husband and the in-laws would improve. He has therefore asserted that the deceased was first killed by strangulating her and then her dead body was burnt.

3. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan statements of P.W.7, Islampur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011 was registered for investigation under Section 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.

5. The learned Trial court, after having examined 12 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence, convicted the appellants under Section 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 11.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 551 of 2011 by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hilsa at Nalanda and vide order dated 16.01.2016, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and R.I. for 7 years for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the I.P.C. respectively along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for 3 years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned advocate for the appellants who are the parents-in-law and husband of the deceased, has firstly stated that all the appellants after having served the sentence awarded to them have now come out of jail. However, he insists that he shall press the appeal on merits.

7. It would be relevant here to note that the Informant of this case/P.W.7 has also preferred an appeal vide Cr. App. (DB) No. 420 of 2016 under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence.

8. Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by this Code by any other law for the time being in force. The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. further mandates that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

9. A bare reading of the proviso would indicate that an appeal at the instance of the victim under Section 372 Cr.P.C. can only be filed under the three circumstances viz. in case of the Court acquitting the accused persons, or convicting for a lesser offence or for imposing in