JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2003 & 13.05.2005, respectively, passed by the learned XI Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 270/2001; whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence u/s 304B IPC and for two years u/s 498A IPC and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story in brief as per the informant, who happens to be brother of the deceased, is that the sister of the informant married the appellant on 8th May, 1997. His brother-in-law used to assault her sister physically and often told her to bring money from her father. His sister was fed-up with the appellant-Rajesh Paswan. The father-in-law of deceased always tried to solve the dispute but his son did not obey the command of his father. On 20.08.2000 at about 6 p.m. father-in-law of deceased met with the informant and told him that Sarita committed suicide by burning. The informant went to the house of appellant and found his sister dead due to burn. He had suspicion that appellant has burnt his sister.

4. Mr. A.S.Dayal, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, & Ms. Shivani Kapoor appearing for the appellant assail the impugned judgment on following grounds:

(i) Learned trial court did not consider properly the materials and evidence on the record and has committed error in holding the appellant guilty for offence under section 304B and 498A IPC.

(ii) Learned trial court also improperly framed charges under section 304B and 498A of IPC when the investigating officer after thorough investigation has submitted the charge sheet under section 306 IPC and for that cognizance was also taken.

(iii) From examination of witnesses from prosecution it is apparent that P.W.s 1 to 5 are all related and highly interested witnesses of the case.

(iv) The prosecution witnesses have shown their suspicion that petitioner has burnt; but have not given any specific evidence to show the complicity of appellant. Even in F.I.R. informant has stated about suspicion.

(v) The appellant did not deserve to be convicted only on grounds of suspicion.

(vi) The doctor has not mentioned the percentage and degree of burn nor has said about any smell about the source which was used for burning.

(vii) Total eight witnesses were examined by defense and from their deposition it is clear that the door was broken thus there is no doubt that the deceased committed suicide.

(vii) The deceased was having an illicit relation with one local boy and was also caught red handed by them in a room. This fact also supports the postulation that the deceased committed suicide.

(viii) There is no cogent evidence brought by prosecution to establish allegation of demand of dowry/money and torture and that too immediately before the occurrence.

(ix) Non-examination of I.O. has caused great prejudice to appellant. Relying upon the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the appellant and also both the Amicus contended that the impugned judgment requires interference.

xxxxx

6. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court and the deposition of prosecution witnesses fully supports the prosecution case, as such no interference is required. However, he fairly admits that as per the available record there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR it appears that the FIR in the instant case was lodged on 20.08.2000 u/s 304B IPC against the Appellant. The Police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet on 17.11.2000 u/s 306 IPC; however, the learned court below framed charges u/s 304B and 498A IPC on 09.07.2001 and the Appellant stood trial for the said offences. The Appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 07.08.2002 offered a detailed explanation of all t