S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Samapta Palit against the judgment, order of conviction and sentence dated 15/3/1995 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 17/93 whereby two accused including the appellant have been convicted. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 201 on the Indian Penal Code but both sentences to run concurrently.

( 2 ) IN the present case, Rabindar Prasad, who was the Officer-in-Charge of Potka Police Station, is the informant, who wrote and signed fardbeyan on 31/5/1992 at about 6. 30. p. m. The case of the prosecution as recorded in self contained statement by Officer-in-charge is that on 31/5/1992 at about 2. 30. p. m. he received an intimation that the dead body of a lady was lying in a burnt state in the kitchen of Samapta Palit the husband of the lady. The husband, Samapta Palit (appellant) and in laws of the lady were not telling the cause of death. Receiving such information, he rushed to the place of occurrence, the house of appellant-Samapta Palit at Village Haldi Pokhar, Palittola where a crowd had already assembled. On entry to the kitchen the Officer-in-Charge found the dead body of Smt. Sukla Palit (deceased ). She was wearing cotton clothes partly burnt and stench of Kerosene Oil was emanating from the dead body. There were some blood drops from the mouth and nose. The informant alleged that he could not find any trace of evidence to believe that the deceased succumbed to burnt injury due to accidental fire and she tried to save herself or any person tried to save her. He also found the pitcher and a water tank kept inside and kitchen in upturned state from which lot of water spilled on the floor. There was no boils on the body of the deceased to suppose that the water was poured on the burning body. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant found a Dhibri (Lamp) and Kerosene Stove in the kitchen kept in normal state and other kitchen wares and articles also kept in normal manner. No part of burnt cloth was found on the floor nor did any of the neighbourers heard the screams of the deceased of alarm for help. Neither the husband Samapta Palit, nor in laws asked for any help from the neighbourers and the in laws could not tell the reasons for such incident.

( 3 ) THE mother-in-law, Chhabi Palit told the informant that she found the deceased lying in the kitchen in a burnt state when she came back from her Kitchen garden at about 6. 30 a. m. She located the dead body of deceased in the, Kitchen. The deceased was quit all right at about 6. 00 a. m. when she (Chhabi palit) was going towards the Kitchen garden for some work. At that time, the deceased had seen off her (deceased) husband (appellant herein ). While he was going to his work place at Hata after taking breakfast. The mother-in-law of the deceased (Chhabi palit) further told the informant that she raised alarm having seen the dead body of the deceased wherein after neighbourers assembled in her house.

( 4 ) THE husband of the deceased (appellant) told the informant that he had seen the deceased in a normal state when he (appellant) left for village Hata for work at about 6. 00 a. m. after taking breakfast. He got information about the death of his wife at about 7. 00 a. m. and rushed back home. He (appellant) further told the informant that he lost his balance having seen the dead body of the wife so upturned the water containers inside the Kitchen which was the reason that the water was spilled on the floor. ( 5 ) FURTHER case of the informant is that when he interrogated the neighbourers, they could not say anything in support of the aforesaid statement of the accused that the deceased was alive at 6. 00 a. m. at the time the appellant (Samapta Palit) left for village Hata,