JUDGMENT A.K. Trivedi, J. Sole appellant Meena Devi who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 304(B), IPC, 498(A), IPC, 323, IPC, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide judgment dated 6-8-2011 and directed to undergo R.I. for seven years, R.I. for three years as well as fined Rs. 2,000/-, R.I. for one year, R.I. for two years as well as fined Rs. 3,000/- and in default thereof to undergo period of three months incarceration additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide order dated 9.8.2011 by ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, VIth, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2009 has challenged the same under instant appeal. 2. PW 5, Bhuto Paswan, chowkidar gave his fardbeyan on 8-4-2006 alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 8:00 a.m., while he was at his house came to know that wife of Sanjay Das has died on account of assault made by Sanjay Das in the preceding night. He has gone to the house of Sanjay Das and found him absconding. Dead body of Mamta Devi was lying at the verandah of a room facing East, froth was coming out. On query, villagers have disclosed that since a week quarrel was going on in between father, mother and Sanjay Das at one side with the deceased at other and on account thereof, mother of Sanjay Das had gone to Naya Nagar. Thereafter, Sanjay Das abused his wife as well as had also assaulted her. They have also disclosed that on account of lecherous conduct of Sanjay Das during course of conversation with women coming at his flour mill, quarrel amongst spouse was a regular feature and in the aforesaid background, he has apprehension that after departure of father and mother, in connivance thereof by way of administering poison had committed murder. 3. On the basis of aforesaid information, Basnahi P.S. Case No. 16 of 2006 was registered and investigation was taken up. 3. On the basis of aforesaid information, Basnahi P.S. Case No. 16 of 2006 was registered and investigation was taken up. At an earlier occasion keeping the investigation pending against appellant Meena Devi, charge-sheet was submitted against Nandlal Das as well as Sanjay Das against whom cognizance was taken and accordingly, were put on trial under Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2007 wherein both of them were convicted and sentenced on the same day by the same Court against which Criminal Appeal (51) No. 1048 of 2011 is pending and on account thereof, both the appeals have been heard together though are being decided by two separate judgments as both the sessions trial though dispose of on same day but by two distinct judgments. 4. Because of the fact that there happens to be inherent lapses at the part of the trial Court during conduction of trial, therefore the merit of the case is not being discussed. 5. During course of hearing as well as after having perusal of the lower Court record, it is evident that learned trial Court had recorded deposition of all the DWs in carbon process. Not only this, even the cross-examination of DW-4, DW5 is under carbon process. The conduct of the trial Court appears to be strange one in consistent with the procedure so laid down under Criminal Procedure Code for recording evidence of a witness. By such action, the learned lower Court, has bypassed the mandatory requirement, i.e. administering oath before recording of evidence with regard to present case apart from the fact that there happens to be utter violation of Section 276 of the Cr PC what worries is the action of the trial Court which clearly suggests that either the trial Judge had himself innovated the illegal method in recording evidence or the trial Judge had no knowledge with regard to procedural law. On account thereof, the finding so arrived at by the learned lower Court happens to be illegal, because of the fact that on account of such lapses the evidence of DWs could not be taken into consideration. That means to say, by the illegal act of trial Judge right of the appellant is found prejudiced. Consequent thereupon, the judgment impugned of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeal is allowed. That means to say, by the illegal act of trial Judge right of the appellant is found prejudiced. Consequent thereupon, the judgment impugned of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower Court to proceed afresh from the stage of defence with a warning that trial should be conducted and concluded adhering mandate of procedural law, positively. Appellant is on bail as such her bail bond is cancelled with a direction to surrender before the learned lower Court with a prayer for bail within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of order which the learned lower Court will favourably consider otherwise her appearance will be procured in accordance with law. Let a copy of judgment be made available to Bihar Judicial Academy for providing special training to the P.O. concerned at least relating to procedural law. Appeal allowed.