JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th and 14th May, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VII (May) 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No.64 (2) 2011 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that the victim Parthana Khatoon (Bibi) was married to Imran Mallick in the month of Falgoon, 1416 B.S. At the time of her marriage her father Lutfar Mallick (PW 1) gave Rs.15,000/-, three vories of golden ornaments and other articles as gifts, as per demand of the bridegroom parties. 3. Soon after the marriage her husband and other in-laws, namely, Narul Mallick (father-in-law), Sona Bibi (mother-in-law), Suman Mallick and Sabir Mallick (brothers-in-law), created pressure upon her to bring money. Parthana informed her father of such demand, but he could not meet such demand due to poverty. As a result, Parthana was tortured at her matrimonial home and not given food. She was even physically assaulted. Due to such torture she returned to her parental home. A Salish was held over the incident. Thereafter, the victim was sent to her matrimonial home. 4. On 08.09.2010 at about 7 am Nini Bibi (PW 2) informed the father of the victim housewife (PW 1) that his daughter had been murdered by her husband and in-laws. He rushed to the matrimonial home and found that her daughter had been burnt alive. On the written complaint of Lutfar Mallick (PW 1) an instant case was registered for investigation. In conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the husband and in-laws i.e. the appellants herein. Charge was framed under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. On the written complaint of Lutfar Mallick (PW 1) an instant case was registered for investigation. In conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the husband and in-laws i.e. the appellants herein. Charge was framed under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. At the fag end of the trial, charge-sheets were re-framed and the appellants were also charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of trial, by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Ganguly, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submits that re-framing of the charges at the fag end of the trial had prejudiced his clients and had led to a mistrial. No re-examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was undertaken after the re-framing of the charges for a graver offence. That apart, evidence on record particularly that of the post mortem doctor (PW 15) does not unequivocally show that the victim has suffered homicidal death. Circumstances in the present case also do not irretrievably lead to such conclusion. Evidence has come on record that victim was suffering from depression as her husband, i.e. appellant No.1, was sexually impotent. Allegation of torture for demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-, as claimed by the father of the victim, is an afterthought and not stated in the first information report. Evidence has come on record that the in-laws of the victim i.e. appellant Nos.2 to 4 resided separately from the couple and, therefore, their implication in the instant case is based on surmises and conjecture. The appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Das appearing for the State submits that the victim suffered homicidal death due to extensive burn at her matrimonial home within five months of her marriage. There are evidences galore that the victim was subjected to torture and assault on demands of money. As a result of torture she withdrew from her matrimonial home and took refuge at her parental home. A Salish was held over the incident in the village about two/three months prior to the incident. Two months thereafter she was found with extensive burn injuries at her matrimonial home. As a result of torture she withdrew from her matrimonial home and took refuge at her parental home. A Salish was held over the incident in the village about two/three months prior to the incident. Two months thereafter she was found with extensive burn injuries at her matrimonial home. No credible explanation for such burn injuries were offered by the appellants clearly leading to an inference of guilt. 8. From the evidence on record particularly that of the parents and other relations of the victim housewife i.e. father (PW 1) mother (PW10), maternal uncle (PW 3) cousins (PW 4 and 5) it is evident that the victim housewife was married to Imran Mallick in the month of Falgoon, 1416 B.S. i.e. February/March, 2010 and had suffered death due to extensive burn injuries at the matrimonial home on 08.09.2010. Death of the housewife due to burn injuries within five months of marriage is, therefore, proved beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence of the aforesaid witnesses also show that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.15,000/- and other articles were given on the demand of the appellants. PW 1 father of the victim deposed soon after the marriage, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was demanded from him. As he was unable to pay, victim was tortured by the appellants. She was assaulted and denied food. As a result, she withdrew from her matrimonial home and took refuge at his residence. A Salish was held over the matter. On the day of the incident one Nuni Bibi (PW 2) informed P.W. 1 that accused persons have killed his daughter. He went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found her body lying in the house. The accused persons were not in the house. He lodged a written complaint which was scribed by PW 11. He proved his signature. He was the signatory to the inquest report. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that his daughter had told him that her husband was incapable of sexual intercourse and had wished to dissolve the marriage on such score. Evidence of PW 1 has been corroborated by his wife (PW 10) and other relations, as aforesaid. It has been strenuously argued that demand of Rs.50,000/- has not been reflected in the first information report. I am not convinced with such submission. Evidence of PW 1 has been corroborated by his wife (PW 10) and other relations, as aforesaid. It has been strenuously argued that demand of Rs.50,000/- has not been reflected in the first information report. I am not convinced with such submission. Demand of further money was specifically stated in the first information report lodged by PW 1, although the quantum of such demand may not have been specified therein. It is settled law that first information report need not be an encyclopedia of all facts and the crux of the allegation with regard to torture upon the victim housewife over demand of money has been clearly spelt out in the first information report. Hence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove that there was torture upon the victim housewife with regard to further demands of money which could not be met by her father PW 1. As a result, the victim was tortured and had withdrawn from the matrimonial home and taken refuge at her parental home. A Salish was held over the incident about two/three months before her death. These facts are also corroborated by independent witnesses, namely PW 7 and 12. 9. Relying on the evidence of P.W. 7 learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, however, argued that PW 1 had narrated to the said witness that his daughter had told him that her husband was incapable of sexual intercourse. I do not give much credence to this version coming from the mouth of a reported witness particularly when PW 1 categorically denied the suggestion that his daughter had disclosed to him such incapacity of the appellant No.1 in the course of her lifetime. 10. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, I am of the opinion that the short matrimonial life of the victim was unfortunately punctured with demands of money which her father could not pay. As a result she was tortured and took refuge at her paternal home. A salish was held which did not improve things. Finally, she suffered unnatural death due to burn injuries. 11. The next question which needs to be answered is whether the victim lady had suffered homicidal death or not. Although I have no doubt in my mind that the victim had suffered unnatural death due to burn injuries. A salish was held which did not improve things. Finally, she suffered unnatural death due to burn injuries. 11. The next question which needs to be answered is whether the victim lady had suffered homicidal death or not. Although I have no doubt in my mind that the victim had suffered unnatural death due to burn injuries. PW 15, post mortem doctor, however, is unclear with regard to the cause of death. 12. P.W. 15 noted extensive burn injuries on the body of the victim as follows:- "Injury No. 1 - Burn on whole of head extended down anteriorly over whole of forehead & face including both ears, front of neck & front of whole chest including both breasts up to coastal margins on both sides. Injury No. 2 :- Burn on both shoulders extended down over both arms & forearms up to both wrist joints anteriorly & posteriorly. Injury No. 3:- Burn on back of head extended down continuously up to both glutial regions involving back of whole chest. Larynx and Trachoea contained carbon soot. Membrane of brain, brain itself, pleurae - both lungs were found congested. Stomach contained partially digested rice amounting to 8 ounce. No abnormal smell was present." 13. Finally, he opined that death was due to shock resulting from extensive ante mortem burn injuries. He was unsure about the nature of death and stated that the same depends on circumstantial evidence. Hence, there is no unequivocal finding on the part of the doctor that the death of the victim was homicidal. There is no direct evidence that the appellants had set the victim housewife on fire. Contention of P.W. 1 that his daughter has been set on fire by the appellants is a mere surmise based on the version narrated to him by P.W. 2, Nuni Bibi who herself is not an eye-witness. 14. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court erred in law coming to a finding that the victim suffered homicidal death due to burn injuries. Accordingly, recording of guilt against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not tenable either in law or in fact. Accordingly, recording of guilt against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not tenable either in law or in fact. However, there are ample evidence on record that victim had been subjected to torture over demands of dowry and soon thereafter suffered unnatural death due to burn injuries at the matrimonial home. Salish was held over the issue merely 2/3 months prior to the unnatural death of the victim. Life link between the continuous torture perpetrated upon the housewife during her short matrimonial life which ended in conflagration is clearly established and essential requirement of torture upon the housewife over demand of dowry soon before her death is proved in the facts of the case. 15. Finally, let me see who were the perpetrators of such torture upon the victim soon before her death. Although there are general allegations against all the appellants with regard to torture for demand of dowry but it appears from the evidence of a neighbour, P.W. 7, that the couple used to reside separately from the other in-laws i.e. appellants no. 2 to 5. No evidence is forthcoming that other in-laws i.e. appellants no. 2 to 5 regularly visited the residence of the couple. Hence, I am of the opinion that evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to torture upon the housewife by all the appellants ought to be assessed in the light of the aforesaid evidence of the independent witness (P.W. 7) that the in-laws used to reside separately from the couple. 16. In the analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the appellants no. 2 to 5 who did not reside in the matrimonial house of the couple may be extended the benefit of doubt with regard to the infliction of torture for demand of dowry soon before the unnatural death of the victim although there is sufficient evidence against them that they had inflicted torture upon her on earlier occasions. 17. Unnatural death due to extensive burns occurred at the residence which was occupied by the couple alone. Hence, it cannot be said that the burn injuries suffered by the victim was within the special knowledge of the in-laws viz. appellants no. 2 to 5 who were not ordinarily residing there. 17. Unnatural death due to extensive burns occurred at the residence which was occupied by the couple alone. Hence, it cannot be said that the burn injuries suffered by the victim was within the special knowledge of the in-laws viz. appellants no. 2 to 5 who were not ordinarily residing there. No doubt such responsibility rests extensively on the shoulder of the husband who was residing with his wife in the house where she suffered extensive burn injuries and died. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, conviction and sentence of the appellants are modified in the following manner:- (i) Appellant no. 1 husband is convicted of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. As the appellant had been called upon to answer charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code in the course of the trial and the said offence is a lesser one to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he had been convicted, I am of the opinion that recording of guilt on such count does not cause prejudice to the appellant or occasion a failure of justice. In view of the aforesaid alteration in the conviction of appellant No.1 sentence imposed on the said appellant is modified and he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for committing offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine amounting to Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentence to run concurrently. (ii) Appellants no. 2 to 5 are acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are convicted under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. I find that they have already suffered imprisonment for about five months. Accordingly, sentence imposed upon them for the aforesaid offence is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month more. 19. I find that they have already suffered imprisonment for about five months. Accordingly, sentence imposed upon them for the aforesaid offence is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month more. 19. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellants during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 shall pay the fine within one month from date, failing which the trial court shall recover the fine in accordance with law. 21. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court immediately for necessary action and execution of the sentence.