IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond doubt, and the application of the principle of 'benefit of doubt' in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma for the State.

2. The appellants, who are the mother-in-law, husband, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively, have been convicted under Sections 302/498(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by judgment dated 03.07.2019, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and by order dated 08.07.2019, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code; S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have further been sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The appellants claim innocence and have urged that merely because the deceased (Annu Devi) died in the house, the prosecution has jumped to the conclusion that she has been killed.

4. The learned counsel for the State, however, has urged that the deceased died in the house of the appellants and none of them have come out with any explanation as to the cause of death or the reason why she received burn injuries leading to her death. Nobody has even cared to state before the Court as to any first aid having been administered to her when she received the burn injuries. Thus, in the absence of any explanation, whatsoever, regarding the circumstances and the cause of death of the deceased, all the appellants are liable for her murder.

5. The mother of the deceased, namely, Urmila Devi, (P.W. 11), had lodged the F.I.R. alleging that on 13.07.1999 at about 11:00 O’clock in the day, appellant No. 4 (Rajesh Malakar) came to her house and informed her that her daughter (Annu) is suffering from diarrhoea and vomiting and her medical condition is very serious. On learning this, she along with her son/Arvind Kumar Saini (P.W. 8) and her sister-in-law (Shanti Devi) came to the matrimonial home of the deceased. She met appellant No. 1 (mother-in-law) there. There the dead body of the deceased was kept on a cot and it appeared to her that she had been burnt to death.

6. On the afore-noted fardbeyan statement of P.W. 11, Sultanganj (Akbar Nagar) P.S. Case No. 97 of 1999 was registered for investigation under Sections 302, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She has also stated in the fardbeyan that the deceased was married to appellant No.2 about eight years ago.

7. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

8. The Trial Court, after having examined 13 witnesses, including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer, on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

9. Urmila Devi (P.W. 11) has supported the prosecution case that the deceased was done to death by burning. She has also supported the initial version that appellant No. 4 had come to her house and had informed that the condition of her daughter had deteriorated. On that information, she along with Shanti Devi (P.W. 9) and her son/Arvind Kumar Saini (P.W. 8) had gone to the matrimonial home where she lodged her fardbeyan before the Officer-in-charge who had come there. During the trial, she has further alleged that the accused persons were demanding Rs.5000/-from her, which demand she could not fulfill and, therefore, the deceased was killed. She has denied that on her asking, the mother-in-law of the deceased told her that she died while cooking food. She had also not stated before the Officer-in-charge/investigator that such information of death while cooking f