JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that before the learned trial court, there were five accused persons, who have faced the trial and convicted. One Ranjit Shaw, husband of the deceased has filed separate appeal i.e. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 106 of 2023, who had died during pendency of his appeal and his appeal was abated vide order dated 17.12.2024. 3. In the present appeal, out of four appellants, appellant no. 3 namely, Sanjit Shaw has died and his appeal was abated vide order date10.02.2025,, therefore, this appeal is heard in respect of above three appellants. 4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.10.2002 / 10.10.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 443 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and Section 498 (A) of the I.P.C. and sentenced for life for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and also sentenced for three years for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the I.P.C. alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal on the basis of written report of one Bharat Shah (brother of the deceased) is that sister of the informant namely, Laxmi Devi was married with one Ranjit Shaw. Out of their wedlock, three children have been begotten. It is alleged that from the very inception of the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the informant’s sister except father-in-law used to demand money from the informant and his family members to progress their business, which was running in loss. It is further alleged that the informant and his brother used to support financial help to his brother-in-law in connection of their business, but could not fulfill the desired demand. It is further alleged that the informant and his brother used to support financial help to his brother-in-law in connection of their business, but could not fulfill the desired demand. It is further alleged that whenever the sister of the informant used to come to her parental home, she complained about ill-treatment and torture meted to her due to non-fulfillment of additional money as demanded by the accused persons and expressing her apprehension to be killed if the said demands are not fulfilled. It is further alleged that during encroachment drive, the shop of Ranjit Shaw was demolished. Thereafter, cruelty against the deceased was enhanced, but anyhow she managed to reside at her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that on 30.04.1999, the marriage of informant’s younger brother Satrudhan Sahu was settled, hence, he went to matrimonial home of his sister on 25.04.199 for giving invitation card, where he was ill-treated and abused by his brother-in-law, his three brothers and mother saying that you are not giving Rs. 1 lac for carrying on business, but spending huge amount in the marriage and the invitation card was thrown by the mother-in-law of his face of informant’s brother. It is further alleged that on the very next day i.e. 26.04.1999 at about 5:00 P.M., informant received a message that informant’s sister has been died due to burn injuries. He rushed towards Hospital and found his sister was died. Upon query from Ranjit Shaw, no satisfactory answer was provided. Therefore, informant has apprehension that the accused persons have killed his sister due to non-fulfillment of persistent demand of money. 6. On the basis of written report of the informant (P.W.-7), formal FIR was drawn as Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 87 of 1999 (G.R. No. 770 of 1999) for the offence under Sections 498(A)/302/34 of the I.P.C. dated 27.04.1999. 7. After institution of FIR, investigation was carried on and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in this case for the aforesaid offences against all the five accused persons. After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions; where above Sessions Case was registered and on 18.01.2001, charges were framed against all five accused persons for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498(A) of I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions; where above Sessions Case was registered and on 18.01.2001, charges were framed against all five accused persons for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498(A) of I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:- Exhibit-1 : Carbon Copy of Post mortem Report. Exhibit-2 : Signature of Bharat Sahu on Fardbeyan. Exhibit-3 : Forwarding & Signature of S.I. Ramakant Prasad, on fardbeyan. 9. The defence has also examined two witnesses to show their innocence and also adduced following documentary evidences: Exhibit-A : Telephone Bill of Jan-02 of Pradip Kumar Bibhuti. Exhibit-A, : Treatment Chart of Laxmi Devi A/1, A/2, in T.M.H., Jamshedpur. A/3 & B It appears that the learned trial court has wrongly exhibited Exhibit-A twice, first Ext ‘A’ is telephone bill of January, 2002 of Pradip Kumar Bibhuti which is irrelevant document and another Ext ‘A’ is patient’s treatment sheet. 10. The learned trial court, after evaluating oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, found the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 498(A) of the I.P.C. and sentenced them as stated above. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.P.P. for the State at length and perused the trial court record along with impugned judgment and order. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has absolutely ignored the evidence of P.W.-2, who is the sole eye- witness of this case and happens to be son of the deceased, who was aged about 12 years on the date of alleged occurrence, which finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-1 also. The evidence of P.W.-2 specifically reveals that it was accidental burn injury to the deceased caused while cooking food on stove. She was immediately brought to Hospital for treatment, but could not be saved. 13. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has set up a new case as against the weight of prosecution evidence itself only on the basis of conjecture and surmises considering some extraneous facts. There is no direct evidence showing any overt act of the appellants in voluntarily causing burn injury to the deceased or extending any physical assault. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has set up a new case as against the weight of prosecution evidence itself only on the basis of conjecture and surmises considering some extraneous facts. There is no direct evidence showing any overt act of the appellants in voluntarily causing burn injury to the deceased or extending any physical assault. The Doctor, who has been examined in this case, has not opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal, rather the injury of her head was found to be post- mortem due to surgical operation in the course of treatment. The learned trial court has simply observed regarding conclusion of guilt of the appellants that the burn injuries could not be assumed to be accidental burn and as such, the evidence of P.W.-2 cannot be relied. 14. It is further submitted that no plausible reasons for disbelieving the testimony of P.W.-2 have been assigned by the learned trial court. There is no iota of evidence available on record that the appellants forcibly set the deceased ablaze. There is no iota of evidence as to the specific day and time when any money was demanded and paid by the informant to the appellants, rather factual matrix itself shows that there was cordial relationship between the appellants and the deceased. She always used to reside at her matrimonial home inspite of some domestic dispute and gave birth to three children and never stayed at her parental home. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.-2, who is none else, but the son of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is absolutely beyond the weight of evidence and liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. 15. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants submitting that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record, which clearly suggest that it was homicidal death. There was tense relationship between deceased and her in-laws family members including husband, therefore, there was motive to eliminate her for non-fulfillment of additional demand of money to improve their business. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 16. There was tense relationship between deceased and her in-laws family members including husband, therefore, there was motive to eliminate her for non-fulfillment of additional demand of money to improve their business. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 16. We have meticulously examined the record. There is no doubt that the deceased died due to burn injuries. 17. For better appreciation of the points of argument raised on behalf of the parties, we have to take brief resume of the testimony of witnesses examined in this case. 18. The most important witness in this case is P.W.-2, who is the son of the deceased, Laxmi Devi and sole eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W.-2 Raju S hah has state has stated in cross examination at para-2 as under:- 19. He has also stated that his uncle and aunt never tortured her mother. Thus, from his evidence, it is crystal clear that his mother accidently caught fire while she was cooking food. 20. P.W.-1 : Banaras Sharma, is an independent witness and stated that the deceased caught fire while she was cooking food and in his cross-examination, he has deposed that in order to save the life of deceased, her in-laws had taken her to Hospital, where in course of treatment, she died. 21. P.W.-3 – Dr. Yogendra Nath, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following:- (a) Dermo epidermal burn of whole body, the contusion half and central area of the scalp was burn, the hairs of occipital area of the scalp was three to four inch long as also over right temporal scalp. (b) Internal:- Contusion of frontal scalp 6” x 3 cm. No carbon particles were found in the trachea. Stomach contained 300 ml. of watery fluid and mucus. There was mild contusion of fere uretous and right half of the uretous. (c) Incised surgical wound 2 cm (1/2 cm x soft tissue) over left leg lower medial. The Doctor has opined that all the injuries including the burn were ante-mortem. Contusion over scalp were result of hard and blunt substance. Death was due to shock of the burn and time since death within 36 to 48 hours from the time of post mortem examination. The Doctor has opined that all the injuries including the burn were ante-mortem. Contusion over scalp were result of hard and blunt substance. Death was due to shock of the burn and time since death within 36 to 48 hours from the time of post mortem examination. He has proved the carbon copy of Post-Mortem Report marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, at para-2, the Doctor has deposed that the deceased was prior to death under treatment. It was surgical incised wound caused as a part of treatment. 22. P.W.-4 Satrudhan Sahu has reiterated the prosecution case as stated in the FIR. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in the TMH Hospital, there is police camp and he has not given any written complaint to the police. He has not given any complaint to the police till post-mortem. He stated in the same para that he has not met with his nephew Raju Shaw (P.W.-2). 23. P.W.-5 Laxman Sahu is another brother of the deceased and has stated the same story as that of P.W.-4. 24. P.W.-6 Ramanand Shah. He is another brother of the deceased and he has deposed in his cross- examination, at para-6, that accused persons have never demanded money from him. He has also stated that he is not in a position to give the specific date of assault on his sister. 25. P.W.-6 (A) Pramod Shah is a hearsay witness. He came to know about the incident from his brother namely, Ramanand Shah. 26. P.W.-7 Bharat Shah is the brother of the deceased and informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution story and has reiterated the same version as that of FIR.. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his sister has been died after the 14 years of her marriage and further stated that her sister has three sons, amongst of whom her elder son was studying in school, but he has no knowledge in which school, he is studying. He further stated that till post-mortem. were also studying in school. In para-10 of his deposition, he has stated that accused Ranjit Shah and his brothers maintained her deceased sister Laxmi Devi and his three nephews. He has further stated that accused Ranjit Shah has admitted his deceased sister in the Hospital for treatment. He further stated that till post-mortem. were also studying in school. In para-10 of his deposition, he has stated that accused Ranjit Shah and his brothers maintained her deceased sister Laxmi Devi and his three nephews. He has further stated that accused Ranjit Shah has admitted his deceased sister in the Hospital for treatment. He has further stated that he has enquired from his elder nephew about the incident, but he was not in a position to say something. Further, he denied the suggestion that he has lodged a false case after knowing the truth from his nephew. 27. P.W.8 Arvind Kumar is the I.O. of the case. In his cross examination at para 9 he has stated that the Dy. Superintendent of Police has supervised the case and he has found the case under section 306 of the IPC but disagreeing with his view the Superintendent of Police has ordered for submissions of chargesheet. 28. The defence has also examined the two witnesses to prove the innocence of accused persons. D.W.-1 Santoshi Devi has deposed that she has not seen any torturing over Laxmi Devi by her husband. D.W.-2 Dr. Sudhir Malhotra was also posted in T.M.H. Burn Unit and when the deceased was brought for treatment , he was also present along with Dr. Shila Josef. His evidence further goes to show that the patient has sustained severe burn injuries, but was not unconscious and she disclosed that she sustained burn injuries accidently while cooking and endorsement was also made by Dr. Shila Josef on the record of the treatment that there is least chance of her survival, which was marked as Exhibit-A/1 and he has also proved his observation and signature on the record of treatment as Ext-A/2 and A/3. He has also proved the endorsement about the examination of the deceased by Dr. S.C. Panda, which was marked as Ext-B. 29. From recapitulating the entire evidences, it appears that the deceased Laxmi Devi was married with accused Ranjit Shaw in the year 1986 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three sons. It further appears that after 13 years of her marriage, she died due to burn injury at her matrimonial house. It further appears that her husband / accused Ranjit Shaw has also died during pendency of appeal, which was filed by him vide Cr. It further appears that after 13 years of her marriage, she died due to burn injury at her matrimonial house. It further appears that her husband / accused Ranjit Shaw has also died during pendency of appeal, which was filed by him vide Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 106 of 2003 and his appeal was abated vide order dated 17.12.2024. Another accused namely, Sanjit Shaw (appellant no. 3 of this appeal) has also died during pendency of this appeal and his appeal was abated vide order dated 10.02.2025. It further appears that surviving appellants are brothers-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. 30. From deposition of witnesses, it is crystal clear that P.W.-2 is the son of the deceased, who is sole eye- witness in this case and he has clearly stated that his mother accidently caught fire while she was cooking food. His evidence was never rebutted by the prosecution and he has also not declared hostile by prosecution. Further, prosecution has not proved the case either by way of any direct evidence or by way of circumstantial evidence showing any overt act of appellants in commission of murder of deceased by setting her on ablaze. Learned trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect along with the deposition of P.W.-2, whose evidence was not rebutted. 31. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person cannot be convicted for commission of an offence unless and until, it is proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and if any reasonable doubt appears in the prosecution evidence towards innocence of accused, the benefit of which must be given to the accused. It is also settled that suspicion, howsoever grave it m ay be, cannot take place of legal proof. 32. From the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellants based only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions on conjecture and surmises. Hence, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against these appellants and acquit them from the charges leveled against them. 33. Hence, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against these appellants and acquit them from the charges leveled against them. 33. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.10.2002 / 10.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 443 of 1999 is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 34. The appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also discharged. 35. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 36. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 37. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.