The prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the necessity of corroborative evidence and reliability in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.

1. The subject appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28th January, 2016 and order of sentence dated 29th January, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 01(02)/2014 arising out of the Sessions Case No. 252(April)/2013.

2. The appellants were convicted for offenses punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC for 3 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellants were also convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with of the IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

THE PROSECUTION CASE AND ANALSYIS OF THIS COURT:-

3. The prosecution case was that the appellants burnt the victim by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. In the instant case the victim died of burns 14 years after marriage and was living separately from her in-laws for more than 13 years. The presumption under Section 304B is attracted if the victim dies within 7 years of marriage. The prosecution was therefore required to prove each and every detail of the facts against the appellants.

4. PW 1 was Rausan Mirda, the father of the victim, who filed the written complaint dated May 4, 2012, with the Kolaghat PS, Purba Medinipur. PW 1 has stated in the complaint that the victim was charred to death by the appellants on May 3, 2012. The appellants are the in-laws of the victim. PW 1 has deposed that the appellants were demanding money from the victim. The victim was asked to bring Rs 25,000 (twenty five thousand) from PW 1. PW 1 could not pay the same. Thus, the appellants set the victim on fire. PW 1 has further deposed that at the time of marriage, he paid Rs 50,000(fifty thousand) in cash and other ornaments to the victim.

5. PW 1 further deposed that on the fateful day, he was at Amta. He reached the victim's matrimonial house upon being informed by her brother-in-law. The said brother-in-law was, however, not examined before the Court. The examination of the said brother-in-law assumes significance since the PW 1 was not near to the matrimonial house of the victim on that fateful night. He was at great distant to the PO. Thus, the evidence of PW 1 is not of much value without corroboration.

6. The Inquest was conducted on May 3, 2012. The inquest report did not name the appellants. The inquest report recorded that the inquest witnesses have stated that the victim had been burnt in her matrimonial house. In this regard, the post-mortem doctor, PW 10 has deposed that he was unable to state whether the death was homicidal since he was not provided with the wearing apparel of the victim. The condition of the wearing apparel, according to PW 10, would have enabled him to ascertain the nature of the death. The wearing apparel, namely charred saree of the victim was however seized by the PW 11, the investigating officer of the case.

7. The prosecution case is belied and ripped apart by the evidence of PW-2. He was 8 years of old at the time when he deposed in the trial. The incident occurred on 3rd May, 2012 at about 11.00 p.m. PW-2 was however not cited as a charge sheet witness. The preliminary examination of PW 2 conducted by the trial Judge to ascertain the capacity of the PW 2 to depose, did not specify the questions put to PW 2. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW 2 in this regard is set out below:

(The witness is minor of 8 years. He is required