Gautam Bauri & Anr. vs The State Of Jharkhand

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present appeal was heard analogous to Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1876 of 2017, preferred by the husband of the deceased, namely Ratan Bauri, who had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

The aforesaid Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1876 of 2017 has already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2026 as not pressed, in view of the fact that the appellant therein, Ratan Bauri, had already undergone and completed the sentence of ten years imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court.

On the same date, after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at considerable length, the present appeal was reserved for judgment.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2017 and 15.09.2017 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V-cum-F.T.C, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.205 of 2014 arising out of Nirsa Police Station Case No.141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2107 of 2012, by which the appellants have been convicted under section 304(B) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years (seven years).

This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case.

The prosecution case, in brief, is based on fardbeyan of Alta Devi [PW 5] recorded near BGH Mortuary (postmortem house) by ASI Anjani Kumar Tiwary of Sector-IV Police Station Bokaro on 23.05.2012 at about 3:30 P.M. As per said fardbeyan, daughter of Alta Devi namely Rinku Devi (Deceased) was married with Ratan Bauri and she was residing in her matrimonial house with in-laws‟ family. She was being tortured by committing assault by the accused persons due to dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle and pressure were putting to bring such dowry but informant was unable to fulfill the said demand due to financial problem.

It has further been alleged that on 22.05.2012 at about 7:00 A.M. mother-in-law Bijali Devi and husband Ratan Bauri with consent of "bhainsur” poured kerosene oil and set fire by matchstick due to which Rinku Devi burnt seriously then due to fear of society and legal action accused persons brought her for treatment at BGH, Bokaro at 10:30 A.M. and after admitting her in-laws family fled away.

It is further stated in the fardbeyan that from villagers she could get information about burning and admitting of her daughter in hospital then she along with her son Fatik Bauri went to BGH and saw her daughter Rinku Devi and then her daughter said that husband, mother-in-law, bhainsur Gautam Bauri (appellant herein), Nanad Manju Devi and Gotani Chinta Devi (appellant herein) all poured kerosene oil and set fire by matchstick. It has also made specific that mother-in-law has poured kerosene oil and husband Ratan Bauri set fire by matchstick. It is further stated that during treatment she succumb to death.

On the basis of said fardbeyan Nirsa P.S. Case No. 141/12 was registered on 28.05.2012. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against all accused persons u/s. 304(B) of the I.P.C. and later on cognizance was taken and then case has been committed to the court of Sessions in which accused Bijali Devi has been shown as absconder and vide order dated 02.07.2015 and her case was split up.

The charge against the appellants was framed under section 304B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in order to bring home charges has adduced altogether eight witnesses and thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.

The statement of the accused persons has been recorded under section 313 of the Cr. P.C in which the accused persons have denied to commit such offence as alleged by the prosecution.

The defence of the accused persons is that they are innocent and Rinku Devi [deceased] died due to accidental fire while she was lighting oven.

The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons and found the charges levelled against the appellants under Section 304B IPC proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, the appellants have been held guilty and convicted and accordingly sentenced as stated above, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds:

Per Contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the ground that the impugned judgment has been passed based upon the testimony of witnesses who have supported the prosecution version.

Submission has been made that it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that there was demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and motorcycle and in view of such illegal demand of dowry and assault, „Panchayati‟ was done.

Further submission has been made that the deceased was completely burnt rather her upper neck, head and hair was not burnt and even the another accused Ratan Bouri in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C has stated that during treatment his wife was speaking and the deceased has stated about the role of the present appellants in alleged commission of crime.

Further submission has been made that even if there are minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses that cannot wash away the case of the prosecution.

Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned order.

This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

However, before proceeding further it needs to refer herein the testimonies of the witnesses.

PW-1 Punam Devi has deposed that since after marriage Rinku Devi was being tortured by her husband and in- laws family members. As per this witness accused persons were demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle and regarding the said demand and torture panchayati was also arranged and after panchayati Rinku Devi was sent to matrimonial home. She has further deposed that on 31.07.2011, information was received regarding torture then brother of Rinku Devi namely Fatik Bauri had gone to pacify the said matter. In Para-4 this witness has stated that on 23.05.2012 when she heard about the occurrence and admission of Rinku Devi in hospital then she went there but till that time Rinku Devi was died and, in her presence, panchnama of dead body was made upon which she has put signature. On her identification, her signature on the Panchnama has been marked as Ext.-1.

During cross-examination she has deposed that police had recorded her statement at Bokaro when she had gone to see Rinku Devi.

PW-2 Phatik Bauri is brother of the deceased bride. He has deposed that Rinku Devi was married and after three to four months of the marriage demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle was made and she was being assaulted. He also deposed that he tried to pacify the said matter but on 22.05.2012 all of sudden telephone call was received about admitting his sister in BGH then he along with other went to BGH and his sister (deceased) told that due to non-fulfillment of demand of money all accused sprinkled kerosene oil and set fire by matchstick. He also deposed that on the same day she died during treatment. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2.

During cross-examination he could not say who informed by phone but when he arrived at BGH then her treatment was going on and bandage was up-to neck and neck and face were not burnt. He also deposed that on that day people suggested that treatment be continued and thereafter police will be informed tomorrow. In para 9 he deposed that mouth and hair was not burnt. He denied the suggestion of defence that she was not able to speak. He also denied the suggestion of defence that it was accidental reason of death. In para-12 he clarified that what he has stated before the court that is based on as stated by his sister (deceased).

PW-3 Kajal Devi is villager of parental house of deceased Rinku Devi. She deposed that after marriage of deceased, Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle was being demanded by husband, mother-in-law, bhainsur, gotani and nanad and for that she was subjected and killed by setting fire. In para 4 she has deposed that deceased has told at BGH that her mother-in-law poured kerosene and husband set fire by matchstick and rest people did not save.

During cross-examination in Para-7 she deposed that she reached hospital then Rinku was weeping and she told about the occurrence. She also deposed that her mouth and head was not burnt. She denied the suggestion of defence that she was fully burnt and she was not able to speak. She also denied the suggestion of defence that no dowry or torture was made and it is accidental burning death.

PW-4 Ala Devi has deposed that Rinku Devi was married in 2010 with Ratan Bauri and after 1 to 2 months dowry demand was being made and for that she was beaten and Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle was demanded but that was not fulfilled. In Para 3 she has specifically stated that on 22.05.2012 deceased told her that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and Ratan set fire by matchstick. She also added that "jeth, jethani and nanad” were also involved in the occurrence. In Para 6 she deposed that she also went to see her in hospital and she was fully burnt but in speaking situation. During cross-examination in Para - 9 she deposed that sometimes Rinku used to comes her parental home and her husband accompanied her in coming.

PW-5 Alta Devi is mother of the deceased bride as well as informant of this case. She deposed that her daughter Rinku Devi has been married in 2010 with Ratan Bauri and after two months her husband and other accused began to demand dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle but she could not fulfill the said demand then all accused killed her by setting fire. This witness has also deposed that mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and husband Ratan Bauri set fire by matchstick and other accused persons were seeing the occurrence and they did not save. In Para 4 she deposed that when she reached hospital then sline was running and deceased was conscious and talking and she said that all accused have set fire and no one saved her. Again, she said that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and husband set fire by matchstick and other accused were involved in the conspiracy of occurrence and silently they were watching and they did not save.

During cross-examination in Para-14 she deposed that her daughter comes and goes to "maike" with her husband. In Para 15 she deposed that she went to matrimonial house of her daughter for two to three times due to reason of disputes. In Para-16 she deposed that she had not lodged any case prior to this occurrence but -panchayti was held regarding those disputes. In Para-18 she accepted that nanad Manju Devi is married lady having children and her matrimonial home is in West Bengal Lalpur and Nanad always resides in her "maike". In Para 20 she further deposed that she had given her daughter coconut water and she was in light conscious. In Para - 24 she deposed that head and hair of her daughter was not burnt. She denied the suggestion of defence that there was no demand of dowry or torture. She also denied the suggestion of defence that it was accidental injury but under emotion lodged false case.

PW-6 Srimant Bauri has deposed that mother of the deceased Rinku told on phone that in-laws family killed her daughter by setting fire then he and his wife and Ram Prasad Bauri went to see her and when they reached at BGH till that time Rinku Devi had died. Thereafter they went sector-IV Police station and statement of mother of Rinku Devi was recorded upon which he also put his signature. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-2/1. He further deposed that police came and postmortem was done. In Para 5 he deposed that in-law‟s family and husband always tortured Rinku Devi for dowry. He also deposed that prior to occurrence about 8 to 9 months a panchayati was also conveyed in which he and his wife who is member of District Board, were also present and this Panchavati was convened in which husband and mother-in-law of Rinku Devi had had assured not to commit any assault and they will keep Rinku Devi happily.

During cross-examination he deposed that he cannot say on which date panchayati was convened. He also deposed that there was no written complaint for panchayti rather it was oral request to resolve the dispute and after pacifying both sides bride was sent to her matrimonial home. In Para-18 he stated that he and his wife went to hospital separately in separate vehicle where mother and brother of deceased were already present in the hospital but from the side of husband no one was there. He denied the suggestion of defence that for political gain he is giving false evidence in favour of adjacent villager.

PW-7 Choudhary Mehra retired S.I. is Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that he was entrusted with investigation of Nirsa P.S. Case No. 141/12 on 28.05.2012. He identified the endorsement upon which it was marked as Ext.-2/2. He also proved formal F.I.R. as Ext. 3. He further deposed that during investigation he recorded statement of informant Alta Devi and also recorded the statement of Fatik Bauri, Kajal Bauri, Ala Devi at police station. Thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence which was bed room of the deceased Rinku Devi wherefrom smell of kerosene oil was coming. He also recorded the statement of Suraj Bauri, Mukesh Bauri, Punam Devi and Srimant Bauri. He further deposed that he received postmortem report from Sector-IV Police station and thereafter he submitted charge-sheet showing the accused persons absconder.

During cross-examination in Para-12 he clarified that at the place of occurrence he recorded the statement of Suraj Bauri and Mukesh Bauri and he accepted that other witnesses are of parental village of deceased. In Para - 13 he deposed that in the case diary he has not mentioned about smell of kerosene oil coming from the bed room of deceased. In Para 15 he deposed that no panchayti paper was given to him but he was said about oral panchayati. In Para 16 he accepted that he did not visit Bokaro General Hospital, nor recorded statement of any doctor.

PW-8 Dr. Vikash Kumar is a Medical Officer who has conducted the postmortem of deceased. He had stated that in general examination he found as follows: (i) Rigor mortis was present in all four limbs. Eyes closed, mouth partially opened. Tongue inside. (ii) 100% burn over scalp hair, all over face, front and back of the neck, front and back of the chest both sides, all over abdomen, pelvic region, both sides of the shoulder, both sides of the arm and forearm, both sides of the thighs and both sides of the legs.

As per this witness cause of death was caused due to shock leading to Cardio-respiratory failure due to burn injury. On his identification postmortem report has been marked as Ext. 4. During cross-examination in para-8 he deposed that above mentioned burn injuries may be possible due to accidental fire and it may be homicidal also. In para-9 he deposed that entire body including lips had been burnt. He accepted that cause of fire has not been mentioned in the report.

As per the prosecution case and testimonies available on record, it is admitted fact that marriage of the deceased-Rinku Devi was solemnized with Ratan Bauri in the year 2010 and the deceased-Rinku Devi succumbed to burn injuries allegedly the mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and husband Ratan Bauri set fire by matchstick and other accused persons (appellants) were seeing the occurrence and they did not save.

The prosecution has led evidences to establish that the deceased-Rinku Devi was burnt by the accused persons, including the appellants within two years of marriage due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

While the appellant, in his defence, has taken the ground that the interested persons concocted the story out of emotion and it was an accidental case of burning.

So far, the present appellants are concerned, it is submitted that none of the witnesses have cited their specific role rather they have deposed that while the incident occurred the appellants did not make any effort to save the deceased. Further, there is no specific demand of dowry against these appellants. It has further been submitted that that there is no cogent evidence available against these appellants.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and on consideration of the rival submissions and the materials evidence available on the record, the following points arise for determination:

This Court before proceeding further needs to refer herein the provision of law as mentioned under Section 304B IPC under which they have been convicted:

The implied connotation of Section 304B IPC is that if a woman dies within seven years of marriage by any burns or bodily injury or it was revealed that before her marriage, she was exposed to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative of the husband in connection to demand dowry then the death of the woman will be considered as dowry death. Meaning thereby the death of a woman must be caused within by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances. The death must occur within 7 years of marriage. Further, the woman [deceased] must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. It further says that cruelty or harassment should be in connection with the demand of dowry and soon before death. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. Under the provisions of Section 304-B (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Thus, it is evident that there are three conditions in the aforesaid statute and if those three conditions are fulfilled then the case will come under the purview of Section 304-B. Three conditions which culled out from section 304-B are as follows:

It needs to refer herein that in order to sustain the conviction under Section 304B of the IPC, it is mandatory to establish that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry and death caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise within under normal circumstance within seven years of victim‟s marriage.

In the case of Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201 a three-Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court has laid down the guideline wherein it has been specifically observed that in order to sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under :

It needs to refer herein that the cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. 44. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain, etched in her memory for a long time.

The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304-B IPC cannot be construed to mean “immediately before”. It is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution.

The aforesaid position was emphasized by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 wherein it has been held which reads as under:

When the prosecution shows that “soon before her death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry”, a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under:

It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the word “shall” has been stipulated therein which provides mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry and as such onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts on the accused.

The Hon‟ble Apex Court while relying on the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Evidence Act”) and Section 304-B IPC, where the words “soon before her death” find mention, the following observations have been made in the case of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129:

Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Jogendra, (2022) 5 SCC 401 has pithily summarized the law on Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court has again delved into the prosecution case also the testimonies of the witnesses, in order to appreciate the aforesaid issues.

Alta Devi (P.W.5), the mother of the deceased and the informant of the case, whose fardbeyan has been recorded by the ASI Anjani Kumar Tiwary of Sector IV Police Station, Bokaro near Bokaro General Hospital mortuary [Postmortem House]. As per the statement made by her, Rinku Devi [deceased] was married with Ratan Bauri and was residing in the matrimonial house with in-laws‟ family.

It has been alleged that the deceased was being tortured by committing assault by all accused persons due to dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle and for this pressure was being put to bring such dowry but it was not fulfilled due to financial problem and then on 22.05.2012 at about 7:00 A.M. her mother-in-law Bijali Devi and husband Ratan Bauri with consent of "bhainsur” poured kerosene oil and set fire by matchstick due to which she burnt seriously, but due to fear of society and legal action accused persons brought her for treatment at BGH, Bokaro at 10:30 A.M. and after admitting her in-laws family fled away.

It is further stated in the fardbeyan that from villagers the informant came to know about burning and admitting in hospital then she along with her son Fatik Bauri went to BGH and saw her daughter Rinku Devi, who told that her husband, mother-in-law, bhainsur namely Gautam Bauri(appellant herein) , Nanad Manju Devi and Gotani Chinta Devi (appellant herein) all poured kerosene oil and set fire by matchstick. It has also categorically stated that mother-in-law has poured kerosene oil and husband Ratan Bauri set fire by matchstick. It is further stated that during treatment she succumb to death.

On the basis of the testimony of evidences following admitted fact emerged:

Now coming to the testimony of the witnesses. On perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, it is evident that no specific overt act has been alleged against the present appellants. Further from perusal of the testimonies of witnesses, it is evident no specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against these appellants.

Thus, so far these appellants are concerned there is vague and blanket accusation against them. Even if the testimony of the informant is accepted at face value, the specific allegations are confined to the mother-in-law having poured kerosene oil and the husband, Ratan Bauri, having ignited the fire with a matchstick.

The role attributed to the appellants herein is merely that they were present at the scene, witnessed the occurrence, and failed to intervene or make any effort to rescue the deceased. Thus, the principal allegation against them is limited to passive conduct as bystanders without any active participation in the commission of the offence.

Furthermore, it is manifest from the record that the learned trial Court did not invoke or apply the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code either at the stage of framing charges or while delivering the impugned judgment against the present appellants. In absence of any reference to or reliance upon Section 34 IPC, the principle of constructive liability through common intention has not been fastened upon them. Consequently, the culpability of these appellants in respect of the alleged heinous offence cannot be legally established, as no statutory foundation has been laid to attribute joint liability for the acts may committed by the other accused.

Moreover, it is evident from the record that no specific allegation of cruelty has been attributed to these appellants by the prosecution rather the allegation is general in nature. The evidence on record do not disclose any overt act or conduct on their part which could amount to cruelty towards the deceased. It has not been the specific case of the prosecution that prior to her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty by these appellants. Thus, in absence of any distinct or particularized charge of cruelty, the appellants cannot be fastened with liability under that head.

It needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Monju Roy v. State of W.B., (2015) 13 SCC 693 while referring the judgment of Kans Raj vs. state of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207 has observed that a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein which reads as under:

In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 15 SCC 415 it has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as follows:

Moreover, ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not mere demand of dowry but “cruelty or harassment” for or in connection with demand of dowry. In Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 9 SCC 64 : it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as follows:

In the case of Monju Roy v. State of W.B (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed that the court has to adopt a pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against the brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on the same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members.

In the totality of circumstances, even if one were to assume that the appellants were, at some stage, involved in raising a demand for dowry, the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent or reliable evidence to establish that such demand was accompanied by harassment of the victim which directly resulted in her death. The specific case of the prosecution, as borne out from the record, is confined to the allegation that the appellants stood by during the occurrence and did not make any effort to rescue the deceased. Thus, the imputation against them is essentially one of passive presence rather than active participation in the alleged ghastly crime, and in absence of substantive proof of cruelty or harassment, their culpability cannot be legally sustained.

Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband who may be benefited by the dowry and may be in a position to harass and not all other relatives, though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in that regard. It is also true that till such an unfortunate event takes place, the family members may not disclose the demand of dowry being a private matter and under the hope that the relationship of the couple may improve. However, having regard to the nature of their relationships, there being possibility of the appellants' having been named by way of exaggeration, we are of the view that the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt in that regard in the facts of the present case.

Further ground has been taken by the learned counsel that there is vital discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses.

The law in this regard is well settled by Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 and Bhargavan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 12 SCC 414, wherein it has been laid down that material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. Paragraph-15 of judgment of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (supra), is quoted herein below-

Again, in case of Mohd. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, (2023) 19 SCC 672, Hon‟ble Apex court reiterated the same, as to discrepancy of witnesses and laid down that material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so. Paragraph-53 of the judgment is quoted herein below-

Hence, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law concerning discrepancies in the testimony of material witnesses, this Court now proceeds to examine the evidence of the witnesses.

P.W. 1 has stated in Para-4 that when she heard about the occurrence and admission of deceased in hospital then she went there but till that time Rinku Devi had died and, in her presence, "panchnama" of dead body was made upon which she has put her signature.

PW-2 Phatik Bauri who is brother of the deceased had deposed that on 22.05.2012 all of sudden telephone call was received about admitting her sister (deceased) in BGH then he along with other went to BGH and his sister (deceased) told that due to non-fulfillment of demand of money all accused sprinkled kerosene oil and set fire by matchstick. He also deposed that on the same day she died during treatment.

PW-3 Kajal Devi is villager of parental house of deceased Rinku Devi, who at para 4 she has deposed that deceased had told that her mother-in-law poured kerosene and husband set fire by matchstick and rest people did not save.

During cross-examination in Para-7 she deposed that she reached hospital then Rinku was weeping and she told about the occurrence. She also deposed that her mouth and head was not burnt. She denied the suggestion of defence that she was fully burnt and she was not able to speak.

PW-4 Ala Devi has deposed that Rinku Devi was married in 2010 with Ratan Bauri and after 1 to 2 months dowry demand was being made and for that Rinku Devi was beaten and demand of Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle was made to her but that was not fulfilled. In Para 3 she has specifically stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and Ratan set fire by matchstick. She also added that "jeth, jethani and nanad were also involved in the occurrence. In Para 6 she deposed that she also went to see her in hospital and she was in light speaking situation.

PW-5 Alta Devi is mother of the deceased bride as well as informant of this case. This witness has also clarified that mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and husband Ratan Bauri set fire by matchstick and other accused persons were seeing the occurrence and they did not save. In Para 4 she deposed that when she reached hospital then sline was running and Rinku Devi was conscious and talking and she said that all accused have set fire and no one saved her. She has further deposed that Rinku Devi (deceased) told that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and husband set fire by matchstick and other accused were involved in the conspiracy of occurrence and silently they were watching and they did not save her.

P.W. 6 has stated that when he reached hospital, the deceased had died till that time. However, the incidence was told to him by the mother of the deceased.

P.W. 7 the investigating officer of the case at Para - 13 he had deposed that in the case diary he has not mentioned about smell of kerosene oil coming from the bed room of deceased. In Para 15 he had deposed that no panchayti paper was given to him but he was told about oral panchayati. In Para 16 he accepted that he did not visit Bokaro General Hospital, nor recorded statement of any doctor.

While the appellants, in his defence, has taken the ground that the interested persons concocted the story out of emotion and so far, the present appellants are concerned, it is submitted that none of the witnesses have cited their specific role rather they have deposed that while the incident occurred the appellants did not make any effort to save the deceased.

Thus, in the present case, the fact that Rinku Devi died as a result of burn injuries is supported by the testimony of PW-8, Dr. Vikash Kumar, and the post-mortem report marked as Exhibit 4. The doctor attributed the cause of death to shock leading to cardiorespiratory failure due to burn injuries. The unnatural nature of the death is, therefore, established, however no specific or cogent evidence led against these appellants by the prosecution in the death of deceased and it leaves doubt in the mind of the Court.

Further it needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in catena of decision has propounded the proposition that in the criminal trial, there cannot be any conviction if the charge is not being proved beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, this Court has to see whether this case falls under the law, as propounded by Hon‟ble Apex Court, in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P., [(2000) 3 SCC 454] or not, wherein it has been held that a criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. For ready reference, paragraph-22 of the judgment is quoted as under:-

Likewise, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka (2017) 13 SCC 98, has held at paragraph-26 as under: -

Further, the principle of 'benefit of doubt' belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of 'benefit of doubt' can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as under: -

Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (Supra) at paragraph- 32 and 33 has held as under:-

It needs to refer herein that The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, for reference, paragraph 6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :-

It needs to refer herein before laying down the aforesaid view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be referred which read hereunder :

Upon a careful appraisal of the testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, it emerges that the evidence of these witnesses is substantially consistent on the specific roles attributed to the mother-in-law and the husband in the commission of the act. So far as the present appellants are concerned, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses does not attribute any overt act of pouring kerosene oil or setting the deceased on fire to them. The allegation against them is primarily that they were present at the place of occurrence, did not intervene to rescue the deceased. However, except for such general allegations, no specific act or conduct has been brought on record to demonstrate their active participation in the commission of the alleged crime.

It is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. In the absence of any clear, cogent and specific evidence establishing active participation of the present appellants in setting the deceased ablaze and their conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of their alleged presence at the place of occurrence or their failure to rescue the deceased.

Thus, it is considered view of this Court that the prosecution has failed to adduce reliable and specific evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the direct involvement or shared common intention of the present appellants in the commission of the alleged offence.

Accordingly, in the absence of any cogent, reliable and specific evidence establishing the active participation of the present appellants in the commission of the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against them beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the present appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

This Court, having carefully considered the factual matrix of the case, the legal principles governing the field, the evidence available on record, and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, is of the considered view that, insofar as the present appellants are concerned, the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. The learned Trial Court, without adverting to the absence of any specific and cogent evidence establishing the involvement of the present appellants, erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt.

In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

Since both the appellants are on bail, as such the appellants are acquitted of their criminal liability and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.