The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

On an allegation that Simati Devi was set on fire by her husband in her matrimonial home, Chandankiyari PS Case No. 82 of 2010 was lodged on 08.05.2010 against Gangadhar Bawri. In course of investigation the witnesses stated before the Investigating Officer about ill treatment of Simati Devi by her husband. On 08.05.2010, Gangadhar Bawri was not found in his house and the witnesses said that he had absconded. Simati Devi suffered burn injuries to the extent of 90% and the doctor who conducted the postmor1em examination has rendered an opinion that Simati Devi was strangulated to death. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was submitted and Gangadhar Bawri, the appellant, has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife. During the trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses out of whom PW5-Ankur Bouri is the brother, PW6- Teju Bouri is the father and PW7-Shanti Devi is the mother of Simati Devi. Except PW10-Kalu Bouri, the other witnesses who have deposed in the Court were the residents of village Jhabra, the paternal home of Simati Devi.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bokaro has held that Simati Devi Was found dead in her maternal home under suspicious circumstances; her dead body was found in burnt condition, and; her husband and other family members were not in the house when her dead body was recovered. The learned trial Judge has referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that from the circumstances proved by the prosecution the only conclusion which can be drawn is guilt of the accused.

3. The learned trial judge has appreciated the materials laid during the trial in the following manner:

"17. So in this case from the evidence of all Pws including the IO and doctor it has been provides that victim died in her sasural. When the informant reached at sasural of the deceased the inmates of the house were not there. The victim dead body was found in the house of the accused on a chouki and the dead body had externally burnt amounting to 90% and the injuries were found post mortem in nature as opined by the doctor in post mortem report Ext.4 and the doctor has found cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. So it is evident that the victim was already dead before she was set on fire. Firstly the victim lady was killed by strangulation and then her dead body was set on fire with intention to give the colour of cause of death due to burning. So it is an incident which was plotted in a planned way. From the evidence it proves that victim was residing with the accused while she was alive and it was lastly lived with the accused In the circumstance when all these things have been proved then it was the onus of the accused to explain under what circumstance the deceased was found dead but the defence version is only of false implication and innocence. In the statement u/s 313 Cr. PC the accused have said that he would give defence witness but none was examined on his behalf. It is true that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt by evidence which may be ocular or circumstantial. In the present case the prosecution has discharged his duty from evidence by proving that the victim lady was with her husband before her end and she found dead there under suspicious circumstance. She was strangulated to death and thereafter her dead body was burnt and when the informant reached to her sasural, the husband of the victim and other family members were all absent. So these circumstances so proved lead to one and only conclusion toward the guilt of the accused and chain of circumstances is so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and by none else. In this case motive has also been proved by the prosecution and motive of accused behind the alleged crime is that the deceased wife was not