The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness accounts lead to reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s culpability.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal from inside the Jail, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th October, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua, in S.T. Case No.36 of 2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.153 of 2011 corresponding to Champua P.S. Case No.67 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Champua.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month.

2. PROSECUTION CASE:-

One Sanjay Sunari (informant-P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ext.1) with the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC) of Champua Police Station (P.S.) stating therein that after the death of his own sister, who is wife of Suresh Nauri, his brother-in-law (Suresh Nauri) had married the accused for the second time and from that wedlock, three children had been born. The daughter, namely, Pinky, born through the wedlock of his sister with the brother-in- law, was residing with the accused and she was always being physically tortured. It was stated that when Pinky, after coming from the field by completing the work there and finishing the cooking, was sleeping in a cot in the house, the accused, sprinkling kerosene upon her, set her ablaze and for that, Pinky came out of the house by shouting. But the accused remained inside the house without making any attempt to save her. Pinky ultimately died due to such burn injuries. It was stated that before her death, Pinky had disclosed about the happenings to one Manugli Dhibar (P.W.2).

The IIC (P.W.10), receiving the written report, treated the same as FIR and registering the case, took up investigation.

The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.10), in course of the investigation, examined the informant (P.W.1) and also P.W.2 before whom the deceased, before her death, had declared that she was set ablaze by the accused. He also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at S.D. Hospital, Champua where Pinky (deceased) had been shifted and prepared the report (Ext.2) in presence of the witnesses. The dead body of Pinky was sent for post mortem examination by issuing necessary requisition. Some incriminating articles were seized from the spot and the I.O. (P.W.10) also prepared the spot map (Ext.11) after vising the spot. Few other co-villagers have been examined in course of investigation and seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On 16.8.2011, the investigation of the case was handed over to another Sub- Inspector of Police of that P.S., who, on completion of investigation, submitted the Final Form placing the accused person to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC .

3. Learned S.D.J.M., Champua, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offence and after observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence the accused.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total ten (10) witnesses during Trial. As already stated, P.W.1 is the informant and P.Ws.2 & 4 are the witnesses before whom the deceased (Pinky) was said to have disclosed as to how she received the burn injuries. When P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest, P.Ws.5, 6 & 7 are the witnesses to the seizures. The Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceas