IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the accused's guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2011 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2011 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in S.T. Case No.351 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.3000/- each under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 201/34 and in default of payment of fine, they have further been directed to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, which reads as under:

3. As per the fardbeyan of the informant-Ramgulas Chaudhary that the deceased (Indrawati Devi) is the daughter of his ‘sarhu’, Mundrika Choudhary, who had died ten years ago from the date of lodging of the fardbeyan. The economical condition of Mundrika Chaudhary was not good and that was the reason, Ramgulas Chaudhary (informant) had managed the marriage of Indrawati Devi, D/o Mundrika Chaudhary with Gangeshwar Chaudhary three years ago.

4. It is further alleged that after one year from the date of marriage Indrawati Devi went to her sasural but after three to four months, Indrawati Devi made call on telephone to the informant that her husband, Gangeshwar Chaudhary, mother-in-law and nanad Sujanti Devi, had assaulted her and they are demanding a cycle. At that time, Indrawati Devi, the deceased was pregnant.

5. On information, Indradeo Chaudhary, brother of Indrawati Devi, went to village Marwania and pacified the matter. Indrawati Devi gave birth to one child.

6. After some time, i.e., after 3 to 4 months, Indrawati Devi came to the house of the informant and disclosed that facts that her husband, Gangeshwar Chaudhary, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (nanad) Sujanti Devi always used to assault her and tried to kill her.

7. It is further alleged that the informant summoned the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Indrawati Devi and thereafter, the informant requested both the persons that since the mother of Indrawati is very poor widow and she could not fulfill the demand of cycle. Thereafter, the informant sent Indrawati to her sasural.

8. It is further alleged that on 04.09.2008 at about 3:00 p.m., Indrawati further made call on the mobile of the informant bearing no.9936416319 asking him to reach at her sasural for the reason that the accused persons have assaulted her and they are ready to kill her and anyhow, she has managed to come at Ramna.

9. On information, the informant came to village Marwania, thereafter, he came to know that Indrawati Devi was going to her parental house to save her life but accused persons and Nanad of Indrawati Devi had taken Indrawati from Nagar Untari to their house and in the night of 04/05.09.2008 they committed her murder by pressing her neck and they put her on the ground of the room and poured kerosene oil and they set fire to her, as a result of which, she had died. Although, entire hair of deceased was burnt but the portion of head touching the ground could not have burnt and burnt match stick (tili), eight in number, were also found at the place of occurrence, tongue was also burnt.

10. On the basis of statement, FIR was registered and investigation started.

11. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC.

12. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, thereafter, the case was received for trial and disposal.

13. In course of trial, the prosecution has