JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 30.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 434 of 2013 (S.T. No. 08 of 2014) convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.

2. At the outset, it is submitted that appellant no. 3 viz. Anjali Roy has expired. Death certificate is already placed on record. Hence, the appeal so far as appellant no. 3 is concerned stands abated.

Prosecution case:

3. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that one Tanuka Roy Chakraborty married appellant no. 1 viz. Debasish Roy on 30.01.2010. Appellant no. 2 viz. Dulal Chandra Roy was her father-in-law. The couple resided at the matrimonial home with the in-laws. A girl child was born to the couple. Tanuka was subjected to mental and physical torture. After birth of girl child, torture increased upon Tanuka. On 12.03.2013 at around 7:00 A.M. Debasish informed father of Tanuka viz. Bimal Chakraborty (PW1) that she had died. Hearing the news Bimal with his wife, son and others came to Jalpaiguri Sadar hospital and saw her dead body Tanuka.

4. Thereafter, he lodged written complaint against Debasish and his parents viz. Dulal Chandra Roy and Anjali Roy resulting in registration of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 357 of 2013 dated 12.03.2013 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

5. Charges were framed under Sections 302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.

6. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2019 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

Arguments at the bar:

7. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the death of the victim has not been proved to be homicidal. Post-mortem doctor was not examined. Post-mortem report notes death was due to ante mortem burn injuries. Ante mortem burn injuries per se would not give rise to an inference of homicidal death. Hence, prosecution case of murder has not been proved. On the issue of dowry death, it is argued in the FIR there is no reference to demand of dowry. De-facto complainant (PW1) even in court is completely silent with regard to torture over demand of dowry. Most of the witnesses embellished their versions in court and deposed the victim-housewife complained she had been subjected to torture over a demand of Rs. one lakh for construction of a kitchen. This insinuation is significantly absent in their earlier statements to police. Hence, torture over demand of dowry soon before the death has not been established. Accordingly, appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Aniruddha Biswas for the State submits victim-housewife suffered burn injuries at her matrimonial home within three years of marriage. 7-8 days prior to the incident she came to her parental home and complained that her husband and in-laws had demanded Rs. one lakh for constructing a kitchen. Her parents noticed cigarette burn injuries on her hand which was caused by her husband. Torture on the victim-housewife for demand of dowry soon before her death is proved beyond doubt. Apart from burn injuries, the post-mortem report notes a haematoma on the head and lacerated injury in the abdomen of the deceased. Neighbours of the appellants viz. PWs. 7 & 8 found the body of the deceased lying in burnt condition in a room on the roof of the house. Appellants were present in the house. They did not explain how the victim had suffered burn injuries. These circu