In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion cannot substitute proof.

JUDGMENT :

ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the appellant/ accused Smt. Kamini Verma against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Balrampur in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2012 and Arising out of Crime No. 553 of 2011 ( State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Others ), wherein she has been convicted and sentenced for punishment for the substantive offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 15,000/- and under Section 120-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment along fine of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the benefit of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code relating to concurrent running of both the said sentences of conviction has been granted to the appellant by the Ld. Trial Court.

Case of the Prosecution

2. The case of the prosecution as elaborated by the learned Trail Court in the impugned judgment is briefly encapsulated as herein under:

2.1 The complainant-Prem Kumar Shukla (PW-1), had got married his sister-Nandini to Rajesh Kumar Mishra, (A-1) S/o Jagdamba Prasad Mishra and R/o Village Sonhati, Police Station- Pachpedwa, District-Balrampur.

2.2 Out of the said wedlock, one son and two daughters were born, who were aged 5 years, 6 years and 8 years, respectively at the time of incident.

2.3 On 08.12.2011, Rajesh Kumar Mishra took his only son Sundaram for performing “Tudan Ceremony” to Gaura Chauraha.

2.4 Apparently, at Gaura Chauraha, Rajesh Kumar Mishra used to run a ready-made shop in a tenanted premise, rented out by the landlord- Govind Prasad Pandey (PW-3).

2.5 It has been stated that Rajesh Kumar Mishra had illicit relationship with the appellant-Kamini Verma, (A-2) who is resident of village- Haraiyya Chandrasi, Police Station- Pachpedwa, since the last two years and for which the complainant- Prem Kumar Shukla had even complained to the parents of Rajesh Kumar Mishra on several occasions.

2.6 It has further been stated that on 10.12.2011 at around 5:00 AM in morning the complainant received a telephonic call from Mobile No. 7398526113 belonging to one Shri Ram Pandey, (PW-2) S/o Ram Sumer Pandey, R/o Village- Gaura Chauraha, informing him that after having burnt alive the complainant’s sister- Nandini and her son-Sundram, both Rajesh Kumar Mishra and the Appellant-Kamini Verma had fled away.

2.7 The complainant also stated that whenever his sister used to come to her parental home, she used to tell her mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) that she was being harassed by her mother-in-law (Smt. Parwati Devi) (A-3), father-in-law (Jagdamba Prasad) (A-4) and her husband (Rajesh Kumar Mishra) by demanding motorcycle and chain as dowry. She also used to tell that if she did not fulfill this demand, then her husband would be remarried and her in-law’s would end her life and that of the children.

2.8 On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Prem Kumar Shukla, a First Information report (FIR) No. 553/2011 dated 10.12.2011 (Exhibit-Ka-18) came to be lodged at around 8:30 AM in the morning, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against four accused, including the Appellant.

2.9 Thereafter, the police arrived at the crime spot and inspected the dead body. Inquest report was prepared of the deceased-Nandini (Exhibit Ka-02) and that of deceased Sundaram (Exhibit Ka-03), wherein the reason was mentioned as ‘burning to death for dowry’. The ashes of