The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair trial, proper opportunity for the accused to defend himself, and the need for conclusive circumstances to support a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Ramayan against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2016, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar in Session Trail No. 02 of 2011 (State of U.P. vs. Ramayan), arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 306 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘I.P.C.’) Police Station- Turkpatti, District Kushinagar whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for two years.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that a written report was submitted by informant-Anil (brother of the deceased) at police station Turkpatti, District Kushinagar with the averments that marriage of his sister Sundarmati was solemnized with the accused-Ramayan before six years of the occurrence. Accused used to torture his sister regularly. On 07.06.2009 at about 3:00 PM, his sister died due to burn injuries and dead body of the deceased is lying in the room. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a case crime no. 445 of 2009 was registered under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. and the investigation had taken place. During the course of investigation, I.O. visisted the spot and prepared the site plan. Inquest proceedings were conducted and inquest report was prepared. After that, the dead body was sent for post-mortem where post-mortem was conducted by the concerned doctor and post-mortem report was prepared.

3. Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellant, Ramayan under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. The matter being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, which was committed to the court of sessions where learned Trial Judge framed the charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined following witnesses:

5. In support of oral evidence, prosecution submitted following documentary evidence, which was proved by leading oral evidence:

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). After recording the statement of accused-appellant, fresh charge was framed by the learned trial court under Section 304-B and in alternative under Section 302 I.P.C. and opportunity of cross-examination was given only against the PW-1, Anil. No witness in defence was produced by the accused. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

7. Heard Mr. Chetan Chatterjee, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. Record has been perused.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that deceased died due to fire in the house but it is nowhere proved that fire was ignited by the accused-appellant. Prosecution has further failed to prove that at the time of occurrence, accused-appellant was inside the house because if it could have been the case then accused should also have suffered burn injuries nor he was arrested on the spot. Initially, the cas