Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment order dated 17th of August, 1996 passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1994/272 of 1994 whereby and where under the trial Court convicted the appellant under Secs. 324 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him under Sec. 324, I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed against him under Sec. 342, I.P.C. The appellant was charged and tried in the Court below for the offence punishable under Secs. 307/34 and 342/34, I.P.C. but the trial Court acquitted him under Sec. 307/34, I.P.C. and instead convicted him under Sec. 324, I.P.C. as indicated above. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.4.1994 the informant Sushma Devi (PW-10) gave a fardbeyan before the ASI Umakant Roy (PW-9) of Warsaliganj PS at 7.30 a.m. alleging therein that she Was married with accused-appellant Laxman Prasad and was living with him as husband and wife since about one and half months. She further alleged that on 8.4.1994 her husband Laxman Prasad asked her why she used to peep outside which it is further case of the informant that in the night at about 10.00 p.m. she was sleeping in her room. Her husband Laxman Prasad along with his mother Batash Devi came inside her room and sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. She raised alarm and out of agony of pain she jumped inside a well. She herself came out from the well. Thereafter, both the accused confirmed her in a room and did not allow her to see any one. On 10.4.1994, the accused brought her out and wanted to murder her She raised alarm, on which the neighbours arrived and rescued her. The villagers also assaulted accused Laxman Prasad with fist and slap. She was brought on the road with the help of the villagers and in the meantime, police party arrived and her fardbeyan was recorded and the case was registered. She was sent for medical examination. During the investigation the police made seizure of some of the articles from the house of the accused and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet. After commitment, the trial proceeded in the Court below. 3. She was sent for medical examination. During the investigation the police made seizure of some of the articles from the house of the accused and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet. After commitment, the trial proceeded in the Court below. 3. The case of the defence is that no occurrence as alleged took place. Accused Laxman Prasad was in service at Barauni on the date of occurrence. After receipt of the information that his wife has sustained burn injury, he came to his house and found burn injury on her person. He has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. On behalf of the prosecution 11 witnesses have been examined, out of which PW. 1 (Ranjit Kumar), PW-3 (Jadunandan Prasad), PW-5 (Chandrika Prasad alias Chando), and PW-6 (Vijay Kumar Singh) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW-2 (Munshi Prasad) is a formal witness, who has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 1) and the fardbeyan (Ext. 1/A). PW-4 (Balraj Prasad) and PW-7 (Angaru Mahto) have been tendered for cross-examination. PW-3 who has been declared hostile has proved his signatures on the seizure-list marked Exts. 2 and 2/A but stated that no recovery was made in his presence by the police. 5. PW-8 (Dr. Kiran Kumar Lal) examined the victim lady Sushma Devi (PWTO) on 10th of April, 1994 at Warsaliganj Referral Hospital and found the following 14 injuries on her person:- (i) Blister on ventral surface of right forearm extending from wrist to elbow joint 10" x 2". (ii) Reddeneal area of burn on lower part of right upper arm 2" x 1". (iii) Blister on right knee joint 6" x 2". (iv) Blister on middle part of right lower limb 4" x 2". (v) Redden area of burn on back part of right side of chest extending from upper part of scapula to upper part of right iliae crest 10" x 10". (vi) Blister on back part of right upper arm 6" x 3". (vii) Reddeneal area of burnt on upper part of right side of chest wall 2" x 1/2". (viii) Reddeneal area of burn on inner surface of left upper arm 2" x 1". (ix) Blister in ruler surface of right thigh extending from upper part of knee joint 12" x 4". (x) Blister on upper part of left thigh (inner surface) 3" x 2". (viii) Reddeneal area of burn on inner surface of left upper arm 2" x 1". (ix) Blister in ruler surface of right thigh extending from upper part of knee joint 12" x 4". (x) Blister on upper part of left thigh (inner surface) 3" x 2". (xi) Blister on left, leg extending from knee and ankle joint (front part) 12" x 6". (xii) Blister on back part of left leg 4" x 2". (xiii) Blister on lower part of left thigh 4" x 2". (xiv) Blister on right buttock 3" x 2". In the opinion of the Doctor, all the aforesaid injuries were caused due to kerosene oil burning. His injury report is marked Ext. 3. On the same day the Doctor had examined Laxman Prasad (accused) and found the following injuries: (i) injury on left side of mouth bone just below the left eye. (ii) abrasion in nose extended on the just below of the left lower eyes. 6. PW-9 (Uma Kant Rai) is the Investigating Officer. He stated that after recovering the fardbeyan of the informant (Sushtna Devi) he investigated the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses including the informant. He has sent the victim lady for medical examination and visited the place of occurrence, which is the house of accused Laxman Prasad. Inside the Angan of the house he found a Pucca well and also found stepping engraved inside for going and coming into the well. The room where Sushma Devi was sleeping, was recently washed but the smell of kerosene oil was still coming out in the room. He seized some clothes from the room containing smell of kerosene oil. He also seized a container of kerosene oil near the room and it still contained some kerosene oil. He prepared the seizure list over which the independent witnesses Balraj Prasad and Jadunandan Prasad put their signatures in his presence (Exts. 2 and 2/A). He had also seized some clothes including petticoat, Sari etc., half burnt, said to be belonging to the victim lady. Those seized articles were produced as material exhibit in Court and marked Exts. I to V. He also sent accused Laxman Prasad for medical examination as he found some injuries on his face and other part of his body in cross-examination he stated that PWs. Those seized articles were produced as material exhibit in Court and marked Exts. I to V. He also sent accused Laxman Prasad for medical examination as he found some injuries on his face and other part of his body in cross-examination he stated that PWs. 1 to 6 have supported about the alleged occurrence and stated that on hulla when they arrived at the place of occurrence they had seen the victim lady being burnt who stated before them that both the accused after sprinkling kerosene oil had set her on fire. 7. PW-10 (Sushma Devi) is the informant. She has supported the occurrence and her statement as recorded in the fardbeyan. She stated that after-some altercation with her-husband she went to sleep inside her room at about 10.00 p.m. Her husband came inside her room and sprinkled kerosene oil from five liters container. She has also named her mother-in-law who was present along with her husband at the time of sprinkling of kerosene oil. She stated that after lighting fire she raised alarm. The fire caught the clothes and in agony of pain she jumped into the well and came out from the well after the fire was extinguished. There after, the accused confined her in a room from where she was rescued subsequently with the help of the Villagers. She stated that the villagers had assaulted her husband when they assembled on her cry. She has proved her signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) 8. PW-11 (Ram Babu Singh) is the father of the victim lady. On the date of occurrence, he was posted at Begusarai in Tata Commercial Company. On 11.4.1994 in his office, he received a telephonic message that his daughter Sushma Devi has been burnt in her Sasural by the accused persons, and she is lying in the hospital for treatment. He rushed to her daughters Sasural at Nawadah and found her severally burnt lying in the hospital and crying in pain. She told him about the occurrence and named both the accused-persons who had set her on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her. He found several burn injuries on her entire body. He was also examined by the police. He further stated that after about 15 days of the marriage accused Laxman Prasad came to him and made a demand of Rs. He found several burn injuries on her entire body. He was also examined by the police. He further stated that after about 15 days of the marriage accused Laxman Prasad came to him and made a demand of Rs. 25,000 and a colour TV and further stated that he has deceived them and has not given anything in dowry at the time of marriage. He expresed his inability to fulfil his demand. Thereafter, accused Laxman Prasad left-the place after threatening him. He further stated that he brought his daughter for treatment at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna where she was admitted and remained in the hospital till 22.4.1994. There was strike in the PMCH, therefore, he removed his daughter in a private clinic for further treatment. 9. On behalf of the defence, two DWs have been examined, DW-1 (Ram Narain Singh) stated that accused Laxman Prasad is his colleague in the bank at Barauni, Begusarai. He has proved the signature of accused Laxman Prasad on the attendance register which has been marked Ext. A. In cross-examination, he stated that Laxman Prasad has not signed the attendance register in his presence. DW-2 ("Rameshwar Prasad) stated that accused Laxman Prasad is employed in the said Bank at Barauni and on 9.4.1994 he was not present in the village. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not examined earlier by the police and for the first time he was deposed in the Court. 10. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, the trial Court has come to the finding that accused Laxman Prasad has caused burn injuries to his wife after sprinkling kerosene oil on her. The trial Court has disbelieved the suggestion of the defence that victim lady tried to commit suicide and has also disbelieved the defence plea of alibi and has come to the finding that on the date of occurrence accused Laxman Prasad was present in his house. 11. The learned, appellants lawyer, submitted that from the very beginning the accused Laxman, Prasad has taken plea of alibi and his cage is that on that day he was present in his offence and he has come to his village home on 10.4.1994. The learned lawyer submitted that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 nor the attends ance register (Ext. A). 12. The learned lawyer submitted that the trial Court has not considered the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 nor the attends ance register (Ext. A). 12. The learned APP submitted that the plea of alibi of accused Laxman Prasad has not been found to be acceptable by the trial Court and a reason has been given for the same; From the Attendance Register (Ext. A) it is clear that on 8.4.1994 the Bank was closed due to strike. He employee including Laxman Prasad has attended the Bank on this date. In view of this fact the plea pf alibi of Laxman prasad that he was present at Barauni on 8.4.1994 has no leg to stand. 13. The learned appellants lawyer further submitted that accused has sighed on the attendance register on 9.4.1994 at 9.45 a.m.. It was not possible for the accused-appellant to reach his office at Barauni from Warsaliganj (Nawadah) on 9.4.1994 at 9.45 a.m., if he was present in his house in the night of 8.4.1994 as per the prosecution case. 14. The learned APP submitted that: DW-1 stated that signature of Laxman Prasad on the date of 9.4.1994 was not signed in his presence. No officer of the Bank has come to depose that Laxman Prasad has signed on the attendance register on 9.4.1994 at 9.45 a.m., in his presence. There is every possibility that this signature of the accused has been ante-dated by the accused. 15. After considering the evidence of the informant and attendance register (Ext. A) and the evidencfe of DWs 1 and 2, I find substance in the contention made on behalf of the learned APP that the plea of alibi taken by the accused does not inspire confidence. Accused was also examined by the Doctor on 11.4.1994 and as per the prosecution case and the evidence of the informant (PW-10) he was assaulted by the villagers When they had seen her in burnt condition they became angry and assaulted the accused. The IO has said that he found some injuries on the person of accused and sent him for medical, examination. All these facts corroborate the evidence of the informant (PW-10) and lead to the conclusion that this accused was present in his house in the night of 8.4.1994 and has committed the offence as alleged. The IO has said that he found some injuries on the person of accused and sent him for medical, examination. All these facts corroborate the evidence of the informant (PW-10) and lead to the conclusion that this accused was present in his house in the night of 8.4.1994 and has committed the offence as alleged. As stated above, the Doctor had found several burn injuries on the person of the victim lady (PW-10) which corroborates the prosecution, ease on all the material point that she was set on fire by this accused. The IO categorically stated that in the room where the alleged occurrence took place, had smell of kerosene oil. He had seized, several burnt articles belonging to the Victim lady including the petticoat, Sari, etc. which had also smell of kerosene oil. Those were produced in the Court as material exhibit (Exts. I to V). These evidence corroborate the prosecution case arid the evidence of PWs 10 and 11 that victim lady Sushma Devi had received burn injuries which, were caused due to kerosene oil and she was set on fire by the accused Laxman Prasad. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view and has sentenced the accused-appellant under Sec. 324, I.P.C. only to the period already undergone in custody. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.