JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Priya Shrestha and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 23.02.2004, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.136 of 2002, whereby the appellant along with his father, Baleshwar Rai has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 307/34, 498A/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for two months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court has further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in case of default in payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for two months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence committed and punishable under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Baleshwar Rai, father of the appellant has preferred criminal appeal (SJ) no.494 of 2004, but died during pendency of the appeal and criminal appeal has been dismissed as abated by this Court vide Order No.5 dated 29.11.2018. 3. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of informant, Sushila Devi, P.W.-4 recorded by S.I., Ram Shobhit Mochi, officer-in-charge, Hansdiha, police station on 11.02.2002 at about 14:00 hours near the house of appellant, Gajanand Rai, village Goithabaran, wherein the informant has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant 7-8 years ago and initially she lived at her sasural in a peaceful condition. Subsequently, husband (Gajanand Rai) and father-in-law (Baleshwar Rai) started demanding dowry and for that she was tortured. The informant has further alleged that from wedlock, she has been blessed with a son but even after birth of son, the attitude of the husband and father-in-law have not changed. The informant has further alleged that her husband has illicit relation with one co-village girl, which was opposed by her and thus she was assaulted by the husband. The informant has further alleged that from wedlock, she has been blessed with a son but even after birth of son, the attitude of the husband and father-in-law have not changed. The informant has further alleged that her husband has illicit relation with one co-village girl, which was opposed by her and thus she was assaulted by the husband. The informant has further alleged that on last Tuesday, the informant went to her paternal house with her son but on the way, her husband brought her back and on that day her husband and father-in-law said that she will be killed. The informant has further stated that on last Thursday i.e. on 07.02.2002 at around 06:00 P.M., her husband and father-in-law Baleshwar Rai took her inside the room and poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze. The informant raised brawl, then her mother-in-law and some other persons came and tried to rescue her by removing the cloths, but by that time the informant has sustained serious injury on her both leg, both hand, chest, back and other parts of the body. The informant remained in pain but her husband and father-in-law have not taken her for treatment. The parents of the informant got information about the same and they came to sasural of the informant to see the informant, but her parents were abused by the accused persons. The informant has further stated that police officer came from the police station and then her statement was recorded. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, police has instituted Saraiyahat (Hansdiha) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2002, dated 11.02.2002, under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons namely, Gajanand Rai and Baleshwar Rai. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.68 of 2002, dated 23.04.2002, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 498(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.04.2002 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 12.07.2002. 7. The charge has been framed against both the accused persons under Sections 307/34, 498(A)/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on 30.08.2002, to which the accused persons have pleaded that they are innocent and thus, they were put under trial. 8. 7. The charge has been framed against both the accused persons under Sections 307/34, 498(A)/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on 30.08.2002, to which the accused persons have pleaded that they are innocent and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether nine witnesses and also exhibited documents up to exhibits-3. Kirni Devi, mother-in-law of the informant, has been examined as P.W.-1 but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Mulo Rai, has been examined as P.W.-2, but he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Mushodi Rai, father of the informant, has been examined as P.W.-3, is a hearsay witness but he has supported the prosecution case, Sushila Devi, informant-cum-victim of the case, has been examined as P.W.-4, Kaleshwar Murmu, has been examined as P.W.-5, but he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Girdhari Rai, has been examined as P.W.-6, but he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Sonalal Tudu, has been examined as P.W.-7, but he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Dr. Om Prakash, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.-8 and Suresh Kumar Singh, formal witness, has been examined as P.W.-9. Injury report of the informant, has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, handwriting and signature of A.S.I., on fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, formal First Information Report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 24.01.2004, to which the appellant has denied the allegation leveled against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case but no defence witness has been examined nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused/appellant. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the convicted persons have preferred separate criminal appeals. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the convicted persons have preferred separate criminal appeals. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the husband of informant, Gajanand Rai, vide Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.671 of 2004 and father-in-law of the informant, Baleshwar Rai, had preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.494 of 2004, which has been dismissed as abated after death of the appellant as no application as contemplated under Section 394 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed for continuation of appeal by legal heir or relative of the deceased within thirty days of the death of the appellant. 11. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Priya Shrestha. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that, except the informant, there is no eye witness to the occurrence, though the mother-in-law of the informant is an eye witness to the occurrence, who has saved of the victim, but she (P.W.-1, Kirni Devi) has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that investigating officer has not been examined in this case, as such serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted, that son of the informant has also not been examined in this case and on the basis of the statement of the informant, Shushila Devi (P.W.-4) and her father, Mushodi Rai (P.W.-3), who is hearsay witness, learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Sections 307/34, 498(A)/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that, Medical Officer, Dr. Om Prakash, who has examined the victim, has been examined as P.W.-8, has not found any smell of kerosene oil, as such prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appelalnt. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that as per the first information report, there are two reasons for committing the crime as alleged by the informant. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that as per the first information report, there are two reasons for committing the crime as alleged by the informant. The first reason is demand of dowry for which she was tortured and second reason is illicit relation of the husband, Gajanand Rai with a co-village girl and on being protested by the informant, she was assaulted. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that had the second reason been the cause of action for the present case, then father of the appellant, Baleshwar Rai would not have supported act of his son. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that date of occurrence is 07.02.2002 but fardbeyan of the victim has been recorded on 11.02.2002, as such there is unexplained delay in lodging First Information Report, which is fatal for the prosecution case. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that the investigating officer of the case, has not been examined and entire document has been proved by a formal witness, an Advocate Clerk (P.W.-9). Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that though the fardbeyan was recorded on 11.02.2002 but the same was placed before the learned Magistrate on 13.02.2002, as such there is unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and sending the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate, as such the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and may be acquitted of the charge and conviction. 12. Heard, Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that it is a peculiar case where wife has alleged against her husband and father-in-law but not alleged anything against her mother-in-law. The authenticity of the statement of the informant is apparent from the fact that she has categorically stated that father-in-law, Baleshwar Rai has poured kerosene oil on the body of the victim and husband, Gajanand Rai, appellant has ignited the matchstick and threw the same upon the informant, causing injury. Learned State counsel has drawn attention towards the fardbeyan, wherein victim has stated that when she raised brawl, her mother-in-law came and tried to save her by removing her cloth but by that time she has sustained grievous injury. Learned State counsel has drawn attention towards the fardbeyan, wherein victim has stated that when she raised brawl, her mother-in-law came and tried to save her by removing her cloth but by that time she has sustained grievous injury. She was writhing in pain but neither her husband nor her father-in-law have taken any steps for providing medical assistance, which is against the humanitarian aspect of a human being. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that victim was not in a position to inform the police nor the chowkidar of the village has informed the police. It is only when the information reached to the police, they came to the house of the victim and recorded the statement of the victim, where victim has stated everything on 11.02.2002 at about 14:00 hours. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of five kilometers and the First Information Report was recorded at about 19:00 hours. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the occurrence has taken place under the police station Hansdiha, which is not a notified police station under the police establishment and its First Information Report is instituted at Saraiyahat, which is at a distance of 35 kilometers from Hansdiha police station towards Deoghar and nearest Judicial Magistrate''s court is available in the district of Dumka at a distance of 80 kilometers. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted, that there is no inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report nor there is any delay in sending the First Information Report to the local Judicial Magistrate. If First Information Report is instituted at 07:00 P.M. on 11.02.2002, then in a remote area of Jharkhand the same can only be sent on 12.02.2002, which will reach to the learned Magistrate by the evening, as such there is no delay and learned Magistrate has perused the same on 13.02.2002. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that evidence of victim, Sushila Devi (P.W.-4) shows that father-in-law has poured kerosene oil and husband has ignited the matchstick and that is the reason she has sustained injury, which is found by the Dr. Om Prakash, Medical Officer, P.W.-8, who has proved the injury report, which has been marked as exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that evidence of victim, Sushila Devi (P.W.-4) shows that father-in-law has poured kerosene oil and husband has ignited the matchstick and that is the reason she has sustained injury, which is found by the Dr. Om Prakash, Medical Officer, P.W.-8, who has proved the injury report, which has been marked as exhibit-1. The doctor has been examined as P.W.-8, has rightly deposed in the court that he did not found any smell of kerosene oil, as occurrence is of dated 07.02.2002 and the doctor has examined the victim on 11.02.2002. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there is no laches in the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that appellant has also not explained, why his wife is falsely implicating him, while he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted, that prosecution has proved its case and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has thus prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by the Hon''ble Court at this stage. 13. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Priya Shrestha and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has found that P.W.-1, is the mother-in-law of the victim, whose husband and son are the accused in this case, as such she has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Mulo Rai, P.W.-2, Kaleshwar Murmu, P.W.-5, Girdhari Rai, P.W.-6 and Sonalal Tudu, P.W.-7 are also declared hostile by the prosecution. Entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of informant-cum-victim, Sushila Devi, P.W.-4, who has supported her fardbeyan while examining in the court as P.W.-4, Mushodi Rai, father of the informant, has been examined as P.W.-3, though a hearsay witness, has also supported the prosecution case and has proved the circumstance, that such occurrence has taken place. Dr. Om Prakash, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim on 11.02.2002, has been examined as P.W.-8 and has proved the injury report as exhibit-1. 14. Dr. Om Prakash, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim on 11.02.2002, has been examined as P.W.-8 and has proved the injury report as exhibit-1. 14. Considering this aspect of the matter, that wife has only alleged against her husband, Gajanand Rai and father-in-law, Baleshwar Rai, who has died during pendency of the appeal and his criminal appeal stands dismissed as abated and having no reason why the informant-cum-victim has given false evidence only against her father-in-law and husband without alleging anything against her mother-in-law, rather the conduct of the victim shows that she has disclosed the true fact by stating that her mother-in-law has tried to save her life, this Court has not found any valid reason for false implication of the husband by the victim wife. In Indian society a woman consider her husband next to the God and without any reason a lady having child will not allege such serious false accusation against her husband. The victim is such a pious innocent lady that she did not inform the police rather it is only after getting information, the police came to the village and in the house of the appellant, fardbeyan of the victim was recorded and thereafter the prosecution was initiated. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 15. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed. 16. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds is hereby cancelled and learned trial court is directed to take steps for appearance of the appellant to serve out the sentence. 17. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. 18. This Court is directing the State Government to pay victim compensation to the informant, Sushila Devi, who has sustained 45% of the burn injury. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dumka are directed to look into the matter and release the victim compensation to the informant-cum-victim and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka will also take suitable steps for employment of the lady, in accordance with rule and report of the same may be sent before the Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. Let a copy be sent before the Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority for compliance of the same. 19. Let a copy be sent before the Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority for compliance of the same. 19. Before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Priya Shrestha in disposal of the criminal appeal. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority is directed to release the legal admissible remuneration to learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.