A conviction under the IPC cannot be upheld without concrete evidence linking the appellant to the crime, and a judgment must not rely on mere suspicion.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have already heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that appellant No.2 Mutari Devi Wife of Ledo Yadav died during the pendency of this appeal, hence, her appeal has been abated vide order dated 11.08.2025. This appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid sole alive appellant.

3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chatra in S.T. No.199 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I. for seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant's (P.W.9) daughter Sabo Devi was married with Prabhu Yadav about 12 to 13 years back. It is alleged that on 06.10.1999, the informant's daughter was administered poison at her sasural by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law due to which his daughter died. The informant went to matrimonial home of his deceased daughter where he was informed that the informant's daughter was ill and in spite of proper treatment, she could not be saved and has been died. It is alleged by the informant that the accused persons were not satisfied with the deceased and always used to ill-treat and torture her because once she gave birth to a child who died and later on, no child could be begotten by the deceased. The informant's daughter was not provided proper food and clothes and the accused persons were also demanding a milch cow. It is further alleged that a Complaint Case No.169 of 1998 under Section 498A of the I.P.C. was also filed by daughter of informant against the accused persons, wherein they compromised with assurance to keep her properly but after some time, the accused persons again subjected the deceased to cruelty, hence, she again lodged Tandawa Police Station Case No.23 of 1999 for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. against the accused persons, that case was also compromised. Thereafter, the accused persons with a view to remove the deceased from their family and perform second marriage of her husband, administered her poison due to which she had died.

On the basis of above information, Tandawa P.S. Case No.36 of 1999 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 302/34 of the I.P.C. against four accused persons namely Prabhu Yadav (husband), Ledo Yadav (father-in-law), Mutari Devi (mother-in-law) and Runo Kumari (sister-in-law) of the deceased.

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against four accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the Court of sessions where charges were framed for the offences under Sections 302 and 328 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed.

6. It has to be mentioned at the very outset that the trial of Prabhu Yadav was separated due to his absence during trial. Later on, after conclusion of trial against him, he was acquitted from the charges. One co-accused Runo Kumari was found juvenile at the time of occurrence and having been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 328 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., her case was split up and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for awarding proper sentence to her.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant (father-in-law of deceased) has submitted that he has not on