The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; absence of key witnesses and evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Soumya S. Pandey and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2005 by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur by whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Appellant no.1 has already served the sentence and has been released on bail and appellant no. 3 is dead.

3. Amicus Curiae submits that there is no evidence to convict the appellants. She submits that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. She submits that though the death of the deceased is homicidal and is in the matrimonial home yet there is no corroborative evidence of demand of any money by these appellants. Neither the informant who is brother of the deceased nor the father of the deceased has been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution has not brought any material to suggest the presence of these appellants at the place of occurrence i.e house at the relevant point of time or before.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that witnesses have stated that in-laws were demanding money for construction of house and the death is admittedly homicidal and body was found in the house of these appellants which is sufficient to convict the appellants. It is his contention that there is application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in this case also, which is sufficient to convict the appellants.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have gone through the records. The fardbeyan is Exhibit- 3 and the same is at the instance of Pappan Das (brother of the deceased). In the fardbeyan informant has stated that marriage of his elder sister namely Munni Devi was solemnized eight years ago with Rajendra Das according to Hindu customs. He stated that his father had given dowry according to his capacity. After the marriage, situation was normal for some years but later on the in-laws changed their behavior. The mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and other in-laws of the family started demanding Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased Munni Devi for construction of a house. About 5 month back, the father of the informant had given Rs.10,000/-to the in-laws but their demand continued. They started assaulting the sister of the informant for non-payment of money. When the informant used to go to meet his sister, his sister use to tell that in-laws can kill her at any moment. The informant pacified the matter and told them that they are poor persons this cannot arrange money for them. The sister of the informant had also complained that the character of mother-in-law is not good. In the morning informant was informed that his sister has been murdered by slitting the throat. On receiving this information they came to Bari Aliganj and found the neck of his sister was cut and she was dead. It was also informed that a day prior to the occurrence there was some quarrel and assault by the in-laws on her sister.

6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Pakur (T) P.S. Case No.22 of 2005 dated 22.01.2005 under Section 498(A), 302, 304(B)/34 of the IPC was registered. The police after investigation filed Final Form No. 17 of 2005 dated 31.03.2005 under Section 498A/302/34 of the IPC and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions.

7. As the appellants pleaded not guilty, charges under Section 498A & 302/34 of IPC were framed and thus were put on trial.

8. Seven witnesses have been examined in this case.

P.W.-1 (Mohan Rai) happens to be a hearsay witness. He is the witness of the inquest. He had proved his signature on the inquest report which was marked as Ext.1

P.W.-2 (Bhola Hazra) He is the witness of the inquest. He had proved his signature on the inquest report marked a