JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2-4.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondents no. 2 to 4 of the charges under Section 304(B)/302/34 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali at Pathsala in Sessions Case No. 185/2015 arising out of G.R. No. 180/2015 vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2016.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the records are that, an FIR was lodged by one Dhirendra Nath Das, the appellant on 10.03.2015 before the Officer-In-Charge of Pathsala Police Outpost that the complainant's daughter, Binita Das was married to the accused respondent No. 2, Kangkan Talukdar in the month of Whin' (September-October) by observing all the social norms, customs and traditions and was living her conjugal life with the said Kangkan Talukdar. It was alleged that the accused-respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had been torturing his daughter physically and mentally by demanding dowry at various points of time after the marriage and on 9th March, 2015, the accused-respondents burnt his daughter to death by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene on her.

4. Based on the aforesaid FIR lodged on 10.03.2015, the police investigated the matter and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet before the court. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali framed the following two charges against the accused-respondents.

Firstly, they were charged of committing dowry death of Binita Das punishable under Section 304B IPC as the death occurred within one year of the marriage; and

Secondly, they were charged of committing murder with common intention of causing death of Binita Das, punishable under Section 302 IPC.

5. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were charged under Sections 304B/302/34 IPC.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses and adduced evidences in support of the prosecution case.

7. After hearing the parties, the Ld. Trial Court framed the following two points for determination.

i) Whether the accused on 09.03.2015 at Pathsala W/No. 3 under Patacharkuchi P.S. in furtherance of common intention committed dowry death of Binita Das, as alleged?

ii) Whether the accused on 09.03.2015 at Pathsala W/No. 3 under Patacharkuchi P.S. in furtherance of common intention committed murder intentionally causing the death of Binita Das, as alleged?

8. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death of Binita Talukdar, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. The Trial Court also held that it was not proved that the accused caused the death of victim and under such circumstances the accused persons deserved to be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted them from the aforesaid charges.

9. Before we proceed to examine the correctness of the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court, we will refer to the salient features of the evidences on record.

10. P.W.1 was the complainant and father of the deceased, Sri Dhirendra Nath Das, the appellant herein. He testified that he was the informant and the deceased Binita Das was his daughter. He deposed that his daughter got married to Kangkan Talukdar, respondent No. 2 on 30.09.2014 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, she lived with Kangkan Talukder as his wife. He deposed that after few months of marriage, the respondent No. 4, Smti Subhadra Talukdar, mother of Kangkan Talukder and respondent No. 3, Minakshi Talukdar, sister of Kangkan Talukdar demanded T.V., fridge, washing machine and golden chain from his daughter. He expressed his inability to fu