The duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt, the need for a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and the entitlement of the accused to the benefit of doubt in the absence of conclusive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 14.3.2013 and 15.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Kalyani, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 51(6) of 2011 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.14 (8) of 2011 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year more.

2. The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that in the evening of 7th February, 2011 Basana and her minor daughter Dipika died due to a conflagration which burned down the room where she used to reside with the appellant, her husband. Hearing such incident, her father Santosh Mistry (P.W.1) and other family members rushed to the spot and found that local people were trying to douse the fire. P.W.1 was informed by the said local people that the appellant had run away from the spot. Suspecting that his son-in-law, that is, the appellant herein, had murdered Basana and her daughter, P.W.1 lodged written complaint resulting in registration of Haringhata P.S. Case No.52 of 2011 dated 7.2.2011 under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On 11.2.2011, the appellant was arrested from the house of his elder brother in the village with burn injuries. While in custody, he was treated in hospital for a number of days due to infection that had developed from his burn injuries.

4. In the course of trial, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code. To prove its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was to the effect that his wife and daughter had suffered burn injuries due to accidental fire. Upon hearing the incident he rushed to the spot and suffered burn injuries while trying to save them. He was treated at the Haringhata Rural Health Centre on the selfsame day and was subsequently arrested in this false case instituted against him at the behest of his father-in-law (P.W.1). In support of his plea, the appellant examined six witnesses all of whom being Medical Personnel who had treated him for his burn injuries.

5. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.3.2013 and 15.3.2013 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year more. By the selfsame judgment the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Nobody appears for the appellant.

7. Ms. Puja Goswami is requested to appear as amicus curiae and assist this court. She argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove how the victims suffered burn injuries. No investigation was made with regard to the manner in which the house caught fire. There is no direct evidence that the appellant was present at the house prior to the incident of fire or had special knowledge with regard to the circumstances in which the victims suffered burn injuries. Prosecution has not been able to explain the burn injuries suffered by the appellant which clearly improbabilises the allegation that he did not try to save his wife and children who suffered burn injuries or that he had fled away from the spot. Hence, prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond doubt and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

8. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that there is no doubt that the wife and daughter of the appellant had suffered burn injuries on the fateful evening at the home of the appellant. The appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code prevaricated on the issue whether he was pres