IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused without clear evidence of knowledge of specific facts.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2019 and the order of sentence dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 338 of 2016/523 of 2016, arising out of Sherghati P.S. Case No. 88 of 2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. We have heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Appellant No. 1 is the husband of the deceased and the appellant No.2 is the father of appellant No.1. Both of them were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 304B read with 34 of the IPC. They have been acquitted by the trial court of the charge of offence punishable under Section 304B read with 34 of the IPC and, as has been noted hereinabove, they stand convicted of the offence punishable Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC by the impugned judgment.

4. We need to briefly take note of the prosecution’s case, as disclosed in a written report by the informant, Arun Chaudhary (PW 7), a cousin of the deceased, addressed to the Station House Officer, Sherghati Police Station, which was the basis for registration of concerned Sherghati P. S. Case No. 88 of 2015, disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section 340B/34 of the IPC. According to the said written report, the deceased was married to appellant No.1 in the year 2011-12. On 02.04.2015, the informant received an information that the deceased had died of burn injuries in her in-laws’ house. He rushed to the matrimonial home of the deceased, where he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the courtyard and all members of the house having fled away. There were severe burn injuries on the body of the deceased. He made allegations of demand of dowry and torture against the two appellants. He suspected that the deceased might have been done to death by these appellants for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and, thereafter, fled away.

5. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the IPC, whereafter cognizance was taken and after complying with the requirements of Section 207 of the CrPC, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Subsequently, charges were framed by the trial court for commission of offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the IPC and Section 302/34 of the IPC. The appellants denied the charge and accordingly they were put on trial.

6. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, Sahdev Chaudhary (PW 2, father of the deceased), Ravindra Chaudhary (PW 3, a brother of the deceased) and Arun Chaudhary, the informant (PW 7, a cousin of the deceased). One Mohan Yadav, who appeared as PW 4 as an independent witness, came to be declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution’s case. The uncle of the deceased, Devki Chaudhary, deposed as PW 1. The IO and the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination were examined as PWs 5 and 6 respectively. In addition to the oral evidence of the abovementioned witnesses, the prosecution brought on record following documentary evidence :-