The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot replace substantive proof.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.1997 passed by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence u/s 302/34 of the and R.I. for 04 years for the offence u/s 201 of the . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Alosi Devi recorded on 08.10.1995, in which, it has been stated that the daughter of the informant namely, Budhni Devi was married to Shankar Mandal and she remained at her matrimonial house for one and a half months after which the father of Budhni Devi brought her to his home. The daughter of the informant did not want to go back to her matrimonial house. It has been stated that Shankar Mandal had come to take Budhni Devi on the occasion of Charghara Mela and on Thursday she had left with her husband. It has been alleged that Budhni Devi was pressurized by her in-laws to deal in illicit liquor and also earn by indulging in prostitution. It has further been alleged that on 08.10.1995 at 6:00-7:00 A.M. Tulsi Mandal came from Charghara and intimated that Budhni Devi has been murdered and her dead body has been concealed in the well. At this information, the informant and her brother-in-law went to Charghara and found the dead body of Budhni Devi lying near a well.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Jamtara P.S. Case No. 185/1995 was instituted for the offences u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC . On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 and 201 of the and against accused Radhiya Devi and Mainwa Devi charge was further framed u/s 302 of the which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Hiralal Bhandari) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

6. P.W.2 (Nakul Mandal) has stated that he was in his house when Katki Mandal came and informed him that her sister- in-law has been murdered and the body has been thrown in the well. He rushed to the house of Mukund Mandal on getting such information where a crowd had already gathered. The dead body was taken out from the well. Mukund Mandal and his family members were prevented from fleeing away. The deceased Budhni Devi was married to Shankar Mandal about four months back. Shankar Mandal was earlier married once. Budhni Devi was murdered because she had refused to succumb to the pressure created by her in-laws to indulge in prostitution. The Police had come and had prepared an inquest report in which he had put his signature. The accused persons were ostracized from the society because of their indulgence in dealing with liquor and prostitution.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Budhni Devi was his sister-in-law. Budhni Devi was earlier married to Indra Mandal who had left her consequent to which she had solemnized marriage with Shankar Mandal. He has deposed that he had seen the dead body. There wa