JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.10.2003 and 14.10.2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No. 316 of 1994, arising out of Borio (Jirwabari) P.S. Case No. 39 of 1991, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 1.3.1991 at 4.00 p.m. the informant Mamta Mandal (deceased) in injured condition gave her Fard-beyan before the Sub Inspector of Police, Sahibganj Town Police Station, at Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj, that she was married to Bicharu Mandal 12 years ago and from their wedlock they are having a son Pradip Kumar Mandal, aged about 8 years. The informant had alleged that since few days prior to the date of occurrence, her husband (the appellant) used to take liquor and beat her and today also i.e. the day of Holi he (the appellant) has beaten her, due to which at about 1.30 p.m. when her husband (Bicharu Mandal-the appellant) and son (PW-3 Pradip Kumar Mandal) were out of home, she (the informant) closed the door of room and after pouring kerosene oil on her body, lit the fire with an intent to commit suicide. Her husband and neighbours anyhow entered into the room and extinguished the fire but by that time she was badly burnt. Thereafter her husband and the neighbours took her to hospital where her treatment was going on and during course of treatment, the informant succumbed to the injuries on 01.03.1991 itself. On the basis of the aforesaid Fard-beyan of the informant, a formal First Information Report was drawn and a case being Borio (Jirwabari) P.S. Case No. 39 of 1991 was instituted for the offence under Sections 498A/309 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and the informant having died, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial where charges were framed on 02.07.1998 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1 (Binda Lal Yadav) and PW-2 (Sri Lal Yadav) have been declared hostile, as both of them have stated in their examination-in-chief that they did not know as to how she (the informant) died. PW-3 Pradip Kumar Mandal and PW-4 Pinki Devi are the son and daughter respectively of accusedappellant and the deceased Mamta Mandal. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that good relationship was prevailing in between their father (appellant) and mother (deceased). PW-3 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not know as to how his mother died and there was no quarrel between his father (appellant) and mother (deceased). In the cross-examination, after being declared hostile when the prosecution was allowed to cross-examine, this witness explicitly and candidly stated that he never told to the police that his father was assaulting and causing cruelty to his mother, due to which she set herself on fire and died. Similarly PW-4 Pinki Devi (daughter of the deceased and appellant) deposed in her examination-in-chief that her mother died by setting her on fire and she has categorically stated in paragraph no. 2 of her deposition that relationship of her father was cordial with her mother. This witness ha