JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

On 26.04.2010, around 10.00 AM, Nilofer Praween @ Begam suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial home and at 15:00 PM her statement was recorded in the Burn Ward at RIMS, Ranchi by Tulsi Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bariatu P.S. He was posted at Camp PS, RIMS and after recording the statement of Nilofer Praween he has forwarded the report to the officer-in-charge of Doranda P.S for further action. On the basis of the statement of Nilofer Praween, a First Information Report was lodged against Md. Islam, Abul Hasan, Bablu Ansari, Imran Ansari, Roshan, Md. Mahmood and mother-in-law of Nilofer Praween under sections 498A, 307/34 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Doranda P.S Case No. 155 of 2010 was lodged at 11:10 PM on 26.04.2010. Nilofer Praween has succumbed to the injuries on 01.05.2010 and, accordingly, the offence under section 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) was added in the report vide order dated 03.06.2010. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against them and they have faced the trial on the charge of murder, causing dowry death of Nilofer Praween and for causing such harassment to her in connection to demand of dowry which constitutes an offence under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the trial the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses out of whom PW-5 is her cousin brother; PW-6 is her brother and; PW-7 is her father. The co-villager, namely, Inam Sarwar @ Raja was declared hostile and the other co-villagers, namely, Md. Taslim, Sarfuddin and Israiel Quiraishi have not supported the prosecution. PW-10, Dr. Chandrashekhar Prasad who has conducted the autopsy has noted that the burn injuries on Nilofer Praween were ante-mortem in nature and death was caused due to the burn injury and its complications.

2. In Sessions Trial Case No. 284 of 2011, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the statement of Nilofer Praween recorded on 26.04.2010 was admissible under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and non-examination of Tulsi Prasad, S.I, and the doctor and nurse who have first attended her would not challenge the credibility of her statement. The evidence against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members except Md. Islam @ Md. Islam Ansari and Bablu Ansari @ Bablu were not sufficient to hold them guilty under sections 304-B IPC, 498A/149 and 302/34 IPC, or section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, Abul Hasan, Imran, Md. Mahmood and Haseena Khatoon were acquitted. Md. Islam Ansari who is the husband of Nilofer Praween and Bablu Ansari who is her brother-in-law have been found guilty for causing her dowry death. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the offence under section 498A IPC has also been proved against them. The plea of alibi set up by them was not found credible and Md. Islam Ansari and Md. Bablu Ansari, the appellants, have been convicted and sentenced to R.I for 14 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 304-B/34 IPC with a default stipulation that in default of payment of fine they shall undergo S.I for 6 months. For the offence under section 498A/34 IPC the appellants have been sentenced to R.I for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each.

3. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, an inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused and the circumstances from which an inference of guilt of an accused are drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Varan Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 12 SCC 545 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

“25. It is a settled legal position that in case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none else. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence and on the basi