IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajiv Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant, Shri Virendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the trial court record.

2. The instant Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.2.1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi in S.T. No. 219 of 1983, State vs. Kailash Nath by which the accused respondent has been acquitted of charge under section 302/34 I.P.C.

3. Briefly stating, the prosecution case, as unravelled in the FIR is that one Geeta Devi was married to the accused-respondent about one and half years back. After the said marriage, it is alleged that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry she has been done to death in the night between 4-5/7/1982 by setting her ablaze at her matrimonial house. In respect of the said incident, a written information marked as Ex. Ka-2 in respect of the death of Geeta Devi after receving burn injuries, was also given by Gopal Prasad, P.W.3 at police station Sarnath at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning. In the said report it was stated that at about 2.30 a.m. in the night when all the family members had gone to sleep after taking their meals, they suddenly saw smoke emerging out and smell of kerosene oil emitting. Hearing sighs of the deceased, his mother rushed there and opened the door and saw her daughter-in-law Geeta Devi lying in a burning state. On alarm being raised by her mother, they also rushed to the room of the deceased and saw that her Sister-in-law had died on account of burn injuries. On the basis of the said report, the police reached at the place of incident and conducted the inquest on the person of the deceased and after preparing relevant documents had sealed the dead body and despatched the same for autopsy.

4. Perusal of the record shows that an autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased on 5.7.1982 at 4.00 p.m. wherein the doctor had noted number of injuries on her neck and burn injuries on her person which is evident from the postmortem report which has been proved and marked as Ex. Ka.14. It is further stated that in the morning of 5th July 1982, Munni Lal PW1, was also informed by one Swaminath Yadav resident of the same village that his daughter has been done to death by the accused-respondent Kailash Nath and his father Raghunath by setting her ablaze. On the basis of the said information, Munni Lal father of the deceased reached at the police station Sarnath and lodged a written report stating therein that in the night between 4-5/7/1982 at about 12.00 in the night his daughter has been done to death by setting her ablaze by his in-laws on account of a dispute over demand of dowry. On the basis of said written report an F.I.R. was lodged at P.S. Jaitpura on 6.7.1982 at 7:30 p.m., vide case crime no. 117 of 1982 under section 302, 201 I.P.C., at P.S Jaitpura, District Varanasi. Subsequently, all the relevant documents, namely, inquest report, postmortem examination report, F.I.R. lodged at the instance of P.W.1, Munni Lal and other connected papers were transmitted by Sarnath police to police station Jaitpura, Varanasi within the territorial jurisdiction of which the incident had taken place. Consequent thereto, the investigation of the said case was entrusted to P.W.7, Prem Chandra Pandey who visited the place of incident and prepared the site plan which has been proved and marked as Ex. Ka. 8. Thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Munni Lal, Suraj Prasad, Kewala Devi and Swaminath Yadav. However, thereafter the investigation of the said case was taken over by Jagat Bahadur Singh PW-8, who after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the accused-respondent.

5. On the basis of the said charge sheet, learned magistrate had taken cognizance and since the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, committed it to the court of sessions where it was reg