The court determined that inadequate compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. during trial prejudiced the accused, necessitating a remand for reconsideration under proper procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT :

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard, Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 179/2008, State Versus Anil & others, whereby the appellants namely Anil, Nand Lal, Govardhan, Gena, and Sheela were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000; in default of payment of the fine, they are to Rs.50,000; in default of payment of the fine, they are to undergo a further six months' imprisonment. Additionally, under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000; in default of payment of the fine, they are to Rs.10,000, and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment, with all sentences running concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Bhuila @ Sushila wife of appellant-accused Anil, died an unnatural death inside her matrimonial home. She was married about ten years prior to her death (aged 21 at the time of death) to the accused and a year before her death, her Gauna ceremony was performed by her parents. Allegedly during the Gauna ceremony the appellants accused Anil, Nand Lal and Govardhan had demanded Hero Honda motorcycle and had refused to perform the ceremony but the informant Ram Rajbhar, father of the deceased requested the accused persons and somehow completed the vidai ceremony. When the deceased used to visit her paternal home, she had informed her parents of the cruelty and dowry demand meted to her however her parents would console her and send her back to her matrimonial home. On 11.06. 2008, the informant was informed by telephone that his daughter was killed by the accused persons Anil- husband of the deceased, Nand Lal- brother in law of the deceased, Govardhan- brother in law of the deceased, Gena- mother in law of the deceased and Sheela- sister in law of the deceased by strangulating her. When the informant and his wife along with their son reached the place of incident, the dead body of the deceased was lying on the cot. The inquest of the deceased was done on 11.06.2008 at 10:30 A.M. and the same concluded on 12:30 P.M. According to the inquest report, no injury mark was observed except a mark on the neck of the deceased. According to the opinion of the panch, the deceased was killed by the accused persons for demand of dowry. The post mortem of the deceased was done on 11.06.2008 at about 4:00 P.M. According to the post mortem report in the internal examination a red contusion mark was observed on the side of the left eye and a post mortem horizontal ligature mark was observed on the neck of the deceased but thyroid bone and trachea were found intact. No definite opinion regarding death was given and viscera was preserved.

4. On the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer (here-in-after referred as IO) and the complaint of the informant a charge-sheet was filed under sections 498A/304B Indian Penal Code & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. On 01.10.2008, the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges against the accused under section 302/201. At the trial stage, prosecution produced six witnesses to prove its case namely PW1- Shri Ram Rajbhar (father of the deceased), PW2- Sumitra (