JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. It is here to be mentioned at the very outset that during pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant no. 2 namely, Dhanraj Sahu has died and vide order dated 17.11.2025, the appeal on behalf of appellant no. 2 Dhanraj Sahu was abated. Now, the appeal is being heard only on behalf of alive appellants namely, appellant no. 1 Sumeshwar Sahu and appellant no. 3 Rajendra Sahu ( who is now re-numbered as appellant no. 2 ). 3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.02.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Chatra in S.T. No. 49 of 1987 (arising out of Simaria P.S. Case No. 24 of 1986), whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per written report of informant Parmeshwar Kumar Sahu (P.W.-4) is that the sister of the informant namely, Lilwa Devi was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10 years ago. It is alleged that due to non-fulfilment of dowry dues, there was bitter relationship between husband and wife and informant’s sister was subjected to cruelty, harassment and physical assault at the instance of her husband and other relatives and they also used to threaten to kill her and her two children by administering poison. It is alleged that prior to one month of occurrence, the sister of informant along with her children came to parental home and after sometime, she was sent to matrimonial home by her father without fulfilling the dowry demand agreed earlier due to poverty. It is alleged that prior to one month of occurrence, the sister of informant along with her children came to parental home and after sometime, she was sent to matrimonial home by her father without fulfilling the dowry demand agreed earlier due to poverty. It is further alleged that on 27.01.1986 (Monday) in the afternoon it was communicated by one Sudershan Prasad Sahu that informant’s sister has been killed in her sasural by throwing her along with her two children into well. It is further alleged that the husband of the deceased had illicit relationship with one lady in village, which was also a reason of bitter in relationship between husband and wife. The informant has suspected that husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased have committed the aforesaid offence. 5. On the basis of above information, FIR being Simaria P.S. Case No. 24/1986 was registered under Section 302, 201 & 34 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons / appellants for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 49/1987 was registered and trial was proceeded. 6. In course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 : Sitaram Sao. P.W.-2 : Sohar Sahu. P.W.-3 : Fulchand Sao. P.W.-4 : Parmeshwar Kumar Sahu (Informant). P.W.-5 : Kishun Sao. P.W.-6 : Jamuna Prasad Sao. P.W.-7 : Saryu Prajapati. P.W.-8 : Kedar Sahu. P.W.-9 : Budhan Dusadh. P.W.-10 : Basudeo Ganjhu. P.W.-11 : Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav P.W.-12 : Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal Apart from oral testimony of aforesaid witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by prosecution:- Exhibit Description Exhibit-1 Signature of witness Sitaram Sahu on inquest reports. Exhibit-2 Written Report Exhibit-3 Signature of SHO, Simaria P.S. on Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4 to 4/2 Post mortem reports of Lilwa Devi, Vijay Shaw, and Prakash Shaw. 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication due to commission of suicide by deceased. 8. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court has held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant no. 8. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court has held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant no. 1 is the husband of the deceased and appellant no. 2 is the younger brother of the appellant no. 1. Both have been falsely implicated in this case merely on assumption and presumption that since the deceased has died unnatural death at her matrimonial home due to some bitter relationship with her husband, hence, she has been done to death by the appellants. It is further submitted that so far charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is concerned, no ingredients have been proved by the prosecution. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence. It is claimed by the informant that his sister and her two sons were first assaulted thereafter with intention to escape the offenders from legal punishment the dead body was concealed by throwing into well at nearby place. The post-mortem of deceased persons doesn’t show any external or internal injuries, rather cause of death is opined to be asphyxia due to drowning. The prosecution has projected a false case after 10 years of marriage pointing out single event that the deceased had came to her parental home about one month prior to occurrence, then her father sent her to matrimonial home without fulfilling the dowry demand due to poverty. The prosecution is not specific as to whatever articles were demanded by the appellants and due to non-fulfillment of which, in what manner the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Therefore, offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is also not attracted in this case. 10. It is further submitted that no incriminating circumstance, as proved by prosecution witnesses, was put by learned trial court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., rather there is simple and general question that they have committed murder of the deceased persons and thrown their dead body into well in order to escape themselves from legal punishment. There is also general question that they were asking dowry which was not fulfilled, hence, deceased was subjected to cruelty. There is also general question that they were asking dowry which was not fulfilled, hence, deceased was subjected to cruelty. The learned trial court, without appreciating oral testimony of witnesses, invoked the provision of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and presumed that the appellants have caused murder of the deceased due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Since, 10 years have been expired from the date of marriage, hence, charge was framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The reasons recorded by learned trial court for arriving at conclusion of guilt of the appellants are absolutely based on conjecture and surmises ignoring the settled principles of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside. The appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges. 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly taken into consideration the over all aspects of the case and unrebutted testimony of the informant (P.W.-4). The persons assembled in the Panchayati have been examined before the Court. Witnesses have fully established that the deceased was tortured by the husband and in-laws for the demand of dowry. There is direct and specific allegation against the appellants of committing murder of the deceased, therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from no error of law calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that as to whether impugned judgment and conviction of the appellants suffer from any error of law? 13. Before adverting to answer the above question posed for consideration, we have to appraise with evidence adduced by prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants. 14. The prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons. P.W.-1 Sitaram Sao came to know about the occurrence from the informant, who is fufera brother of this witness. He along with Parmeshwar Sao went to the matrimonial home of his fufera sister Lilwa Devi, who was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10-12 years ago. P.W.-1 Sitaram Sao came to know about the occurrence from the informant, who is fufera brother of this witness. He along with Parmeshwar Sao went to the matrimonial home of his fufera sister Lilwa Devi, who was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10-12 years ago. He found three dead body at the house of the Sumeshwar Sahu, one of the Lilwa Devi and her two sons, one 04 years and another 7-8 months old. He has also stated that there was dowry demand by accused persons. Hence, Lilwa was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial home. On this account, several panchayatis were held and he was also present in one panchayati held about one month prior to occurrence. In his cross-examination, he clearly admits at the time of marriage, he was not present, he cannot say what dowry was given at the time of marriage and what was dues and he had not talked to the deceased in respect of any dues of dowry. No written memorandum of panchayat was prepared and matter was never informed to police. He is also a witness of inquest report prepared by police at the place of occurrence. The informant Parmeshwar Sao has also signed over it and marked Exhibit-1, 1/1, 1/2 respectively. 15. P.W.-2 Sohar Sahu. He also came to know about death of Lilwa Devi along with her children at her matrimonial home from her brother Sudarshan Sahu on 27.01.1986. He also came to know that Sumeshwar Sahu was demanding agreed dowry, which was not paid due to which Lilwa Devi was ill-treated and tortured. He has also attended one of the Panchayati held at about one month prior to occurrence. In his cross-examination, this witness states that at the time of marriage, which took place about 12-13 years ago, he attended the tilak ceremony wherein a bicycle, a watch and Rs. 5,051/- cash was given, but there was some scuffle for dowry of 30 bhar silver ornaments, which was not given. He also admits that since after the tilak ceremony, he heard nothing about repetition of said demand by the accused persons. 16. P.W.-3 Fulchand Sao, P.W.-5 Kishun Sao, P.W.-6 Jamuna Prasad Sao, P.W.-9 Budhan Dusad and P.W.-10 Basudeo Ganjhu have been tendered by the prosecution as they have stated nothing about the occurrence. 17. P.W.-4 Parmeshwar Kumar Sahu is the informant -cum-brother of the deceased. 16. P.W.-3 Fulchand Sao, P.W.-5 Kishun Sao, P.W.-6 Jamuna Prasad Sao, P.W.-9 Budhan Dusad and P.W.-10 Basudeo Ganjhu have been tendered by the prosecution as they have stated nothing about the occurrence. 17. P.W.-4 Parmeshwar Kumar Sahu is the informant -cum-brother of the deceased. According to him, deceased was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10-11 years ago. Sumeshwar Sahu was asking for jewelry in dowry, which could not be fulfilled by his father, then she was frequently threatened to be killed. He has further deposed that prior to one month of occurrence, a panchayati was also held at his village when deceased had come, wherein it was decided that the deceased will reside at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 26.01.1986, one Sudharshan Sahu, cousin of Sumeshwar came to his house and told that sister of this witness along with her children have been killed, dead body have been thrown into well. This witness along with other relatives went to place of occurrence, where police also arrived and dead body was pulled out from well. His statement was recorded by police and he proved his signature on written report, which is marked as Exhibit-2. The dead body was sent for post-mortem by the police. He has further alleged that Sumeshwar Sahu (husband), Etwaria Devi (mother-in-law), Dhanraj Sahu (father-in-law), Rajendra Sahu (brother-in-law) of the deceased, Talo Sahu, Sudarshan Sahu and Ugan Sahu always raised objection about non-fulfillment of dowry, which was the reason for her murder. In his cross-examination, this witness discloses that at the time of panchayati, the accused persons were demanding 40 bhar silver jewelry. He has denied the suggestion of defence that the husband of deceased had illicit relationship with any other village lady due to that reason a panchayati was convened in the village and not for the dowry dues. He has also denied that his sister has not been killed by the accused persons and he has given false evidence. 18. P.W.-7 Saryu Prajapati has only seen the dead body of the deceased persons and inquest report was prepared by police and stated nothing else. 19. P.W.-8 Kedar Sahu : This witness has deposed that Lilwa Devi was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10 years ago and she was blessed with two sons, elder son was of 5 years old and younger son was about 2 years old. 19. P.W.-8 Kedar Sahu : This witness has deposed that Lilwa Devi was married with Sumeshwar Sahu about 10 years ago and she was blessed with two sons, elder son was of 5 years old and younger son was about 2 years old. He has also stated that Lilwa Devi was ill- treated by her husband along with her in-laws due to demand of dowry. He further states that about one month prior to occurrence, a panchayati was convened, then accused persons attended the panchayati and after amicable settlement, the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home. Thereafter on 26.01.1986. the deceased along with her children was killed in her sasural and dead body was thrown into well. He got information about the above occurrence from Sudarshan Sahu of Village – Bandu, then he along with Sitaram Sao, Parmeshwar Sao and Fulchand Sao and other 3-4 persons went to village Bandu and saw the dead body of three persons, where police was also present, but accused persons had fled away. He has further stated that the husband of deceased namely, Sumeshwar Sahu had love relationship with another girl in the village. The deceased was killed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. In his cross-examination, he admits that the deceased was mamera sister of this witness. He has attended a panchayati in the year 1986 as well as another panchayati held about one month prior to occurrence. He also admits that the deceased Lilwa Devi herself had disclosed prior to her death that her husband had illicit relationship with another girl. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has given absolutely false evidence regarding panchayati convened prior to occurrence or any demand of dowry. He has also denied that while Lilwa Devi along with her children was going for discharging natural call, one child suddenly slipped into well and in order to save the child, she also jumped into the well and died. 20. P.W.-11 Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav is Advocate Clerk and formal witness, who has proved the signature of the then SHO, Simaria P.S. on the formal FIR, which is marked as Exhibit-3. 21. P.W.-12 Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal is also a formal witness, who has simply identified the handwriting and signature on post mortem report of Lila Devi, Vijay Sao and Prakash Sao dated 28.01.1986, which has been marked as Exhibit-4, 4/1 and 4/2 respectively. 21. P.W.-12 Dr. N.K.P. Jaiswal is also a formal witness, who has simply identified the handwriting and signature on post mortem report of Lila Devi, Vijay Sao and Prakash Sao dated 28.01.1986, which has been marked as Exhibit-4, 4/1 and 4/2 respectively. He has stated that post-mortem reports were not prepared in his presence and further stated that he had no personal knowledge about the said post mortem reports, rather he simply proved handwriting and signature of conducting doctor over the post mortem report. Hence, he was not cross-examined on the facts as mentioned in the post-mortem report. 22. We have given anxious consideration towards the rival contentions of the learned counsels appearing for respective parties in the light of impugned judgments and order and also perused the record. 23. It appears that the trial court has recorded findings that as per the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-8, the deceased was married with Sumeshwar Sahu and she along with her two children drowned into well at her sasural. The trial court has categorically observed that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence. That entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence. 24. It further transpires that the learned trial court has proceeded to decide the case relying upon the principles laid down under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shifting the burden of proof upon the accused persons as to under what circumstances the deceased died an unnatural death in her sasural. The learned trial court has also formulated incriminating circumstances as under:- (i) The death was due to drowning into well. (ii) The death had occurred in the house of the husband. (iii) The death body was thrown into the well just to disappear the evidence. (iv) Throwing of the dead bodies of three persons at some distance cannot be the work of a single hand. (v) The husband and in-laws were absent when the informant and other persons reached at the spot. (vi) Subsequently the dead body was recovered from the well. (vii) Dead body itself did not get thrown into the well. (viii) It required more than one person to accomplish. (ix) The Someshwar Sao had some illicit relation with another woman. (x) The deceased was being tortured prior to the alleged date of occurrence. (xi) A Panchayati was also convened. 25. (vii) Dead body itself did not get thrown into the well. (viii) It required more than one person to accomplish. (ix) The Someshwar Sao had some illicit relation with another woman. (x) The deceased was being tortured prior to the alleged date of occurrence. (xi) A Panchayati was also convened. 25. All the above circumstances, which are made basis for conviction of the appellants have not been explained in statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused persons. Even if the aforesaid circumstances are taken to be true on their face value, no conclusive inference can be drawn about the murder of the deceased persons. Therefore, re-appreciation of evidence appears to be necessary to arrive at right conclusion. 26. In the instant case, the prosecution has claimed that the deceased was killed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand and consequent torture met to her at the hands of accused persons. In the FIR, what dowry was due has not been mentioned. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized about 10-12 years ago. A single instance is created by prosecution about one month prior to occurrence the deceased came to her matrimonial home, but after panchayati, she was again sent to matrimonial house but what decision was taken in the said panchayati has not been brought on record. None of the panchayat members or mukhiya has been examined by the prosecution to prove as to what issues were put before Panchayat to be resolved. The informant (P.W.-4) during trial for the first time states about 40 bhar silver dowry was due. 27. It is also admitted that not a single complaint till the expiry of 12 years of marriage regarding any ill- treatment or torture at the hands of accused persons with the deceased was lodged before any competent authority. The Post-mortem report of the deceased shows the cause of death is asphyxia (respiratory failure) due to drowning into the water. No external or internal ante mortem injury has been found on the body of any of the deceased persons. It is also disclosed in the prosecution evidence that well was half closed and some portion was only left for pulling out water. No external or internal ante mortem injury has been found on the body of any of the deceased persons. It is also disclosed in the prosecution evidence that well was half closed and some portion was only left for pulling out water. It is also mentioned by the informant in the FIR that there was illicit relationship of the husband of deceased with another girl in the village that was the real cause for strain relationship between the husband and wife. No quarrel of any kind between the deceased and her husband and in-laws has been proved by the prosecution for any reason whatsoever. None of the prosecution witnesses or any other independent witness have deposed that the deceased was dashed into well along with her children by the accused persons. However, this question was put under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. statement to the accused persons without any evidence on record. 28. In our thoughtful consideration of prosecution evidence in threadbare manner in the light of circumstances relied upon by the learned trial court. It is quite obvious that the circumstances relied upon by the learned trial court were not put and get explained by the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, can’t form basis of conviction. Moreover, two views are possible in this case. The possibility of murder is faint, but the possibility of commission of suicide due to illicit relationship of husband of the deceased with another woman certainly can drive her to commit suicide along with her children. The post-mortem report also over-rules the possibility of murder. The accused persons cannot be convicted on the principles of preponderance of probability. 29. It is settled law that in case of possibility of two views, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other towards his innocence, the view favouring the accused must be accepted giving benefit of doubt. 30. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find merits in this appeal and substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of appellants. We also find that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording the guilt of the appellants for the offence charged against them which has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence, rather based on presumption and assumption without any proof of foundational facts. 31. We also find that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording the guilt of the appellants for the offence charged against them which has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence, rather based on presumption and assumption without any proof of foundational facts. 31. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. 32. This appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellants are set at liberty forthwith. 33. Appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also discharged. 34. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 35. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.