The duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances and the application of statutory presumptions under the Evidence Act were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Sanjay Karol, J.

On 15.4.2012 Smt. Rupashree Debnath, aged 16 years died as a result of multiple organ failure arising out of burn injuries (80%). In relation to the said crime, her husband Jhutan Das stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). Independently and additionally, Jhutan Das and his parents Sukha Ranjan Das and Sabita Das stand convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

2. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.8.2015 is subject matter of challenge in these appeals on the following grounds urged before us :

(a) There is unexplained and inordinate delay of 18 hours in lodging the FIR;

(b) no independent witness from the neighbourhood was either associated or examined in Court;

(c) trial stands vitiated on account of non-examination of one witness who allegedly witnessed the incident;

(d) it being a case of circumstantial evidence, testimonies of family members of the deceased, being interested witnesses, required corroboration, in any event there testimonies are full of improvements and embellishments rendering them to be unbelievable and the witnesses unreliable;

(e) prognosis of the burn injury caused by use of Kerosene oil is not supported by the father of the deceased or other evidence, scientific nature.

(f) additionally, on behalf of the accused parents, it is argued that there is no iota of evidence of their complicity in the crime.

3. Certain facts are not in dispute:

(a) Marriage between accused Jhutan Das and Smt. Rupashree Debnath was solemnized sometime in the year 2010;

(b) on 15.4.2012 the wife died as a result of burn injuries; and

(c) the incident took place within 7 years of marriage, in the matrimonial house, where the parties i.e. the husband and the wife, had been residing together till her last.

Also from the record, unrefutedly, it stands revealed that at the time of marriage, age of the deceased was 16 years and that of her husband (accused) 18 years.

4. Through the testimonies of 18 witnesses, prosecution wants the Court to believe that after eloping the deceased, accused solemnized his marriage with her. With initial reservation, parents of the deceased accepted such relationship and then all was well. From the wedlock, a female child was also born. However, just six months prior to the incident, all the accused persons started subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment by raising a dowry demand of Rs.40,000/-, which was never met. Continuously she was subjected to cruelties and eventually on 15.4.2012, they set her on fire by pouring Kerosene oil. On 16.4.2012 at 14:25 hours, Uttam Kr. Debnath, father of the deceased, lodged an FIR which was investigated by police officials Sri Tapas Deb (PW-14) and Sri Arunodaya Das (PW-17). Investigation revealed the accused to have murdered the deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. As such, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

5. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. Alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was also framed.

6. We notice that the trial Court has not returned any findings with respect to the alternate charge. We also notice that the trial Court has found only the husband to have committed an offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. It is a matter of record that neither the complainant nor the State has preferred any appeal assailing the findings or the judgment rendered by the trial Court. It is only the convicts who have preferred these appeals. Crl.A. No.21/2015 stands preferred by Sri Sukha Ranjan Das and Smt. Sabita Das and Crl.A(J) No.45/2015 stands preferred by Sri Jhutan Das.

7. It has come in the testimony of Sri Arunodaya Das (PW-17) that on 15.4.2012 at about 11.10 p.m., the Duty Officer of Melaghar Police Station received information on telephone that the deceased had committed suicide by set