(1.) ON January 9, 1987 a lady by the name of archana alias Putul was killed by throttling in her in-laws place. On a combined reading of the evidence as well as the complaint the following facts reveal.

(2.) AT about 9. 00 P. M. on January 9, 1987 in the night the villagers were gossiping on the chala of Basudev Ghosh. They were, Kanial Kinkar Ghosh complainant, Anadi Kumar Bagdi, Tamal Krishna Bagdi and others. Mahim ranjan Sarkar and Durga Prasad Sarkar, the accused abovenamed informed them that an untoward incident occurred in their house. On a query made by them Durga told that he had killed his wife Archana by throttling and the dead body was lying on the upper floor of the house. All of them rushed to the house of Durga and found the body of Archana lying on the bed. They also saw blood coming out from her mouth slightly. They came to know that the incident occurred due to quarrel arising out of family affairs. On the next day, i.e., January 10, 1987 Kamal lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Nanoor Police Station in the district of Birbhum. The said complaint was received by the camp office at Bora at 11. 45 PM on January 14, 1987. The Nanoor Police Station registered the case on the basis of the said complaint. On perusal of the FIR it is found that the incident was reported at about 1. 45a. M. on January 11, 1987.

(3.) DURGA was arrested along with his mother, Rajlaxmi. They were charged under sections 498a and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Rajlaxmi was acquitted under section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code as no evidence came out as against Rajlaxmi. Durga, however, faced the trial.

(4.) ALTOGETHER thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Defence, however, did not produce any witness. At the time of framing of the charge the accused was examined under section 313 of the Criminal procedure Code. He, however, did not offer any explanation as to how his wife had died. He merely denied the charge brought against him.

(5.) KAMAL being the P. W. 1 deposed that while they were gossiping with tamal, Anadi, Dhiren and others while sitting in the shop room of Basudeb, mahima Ranjan accompanied by Durga came and reported the incident to them. After coming to know of the incident they called village chowkider and sent him to the house of the accused. They also noticed that the dead body was lying as a normal person in sleep. They also saw blood coming out from the mouth. Kamal asked Durga "mere felli". Durga replied "hum". On being asked Durga categorically told him that he had killed his wife by strangulation. In cross-examination Kamal deposed that he did not send any written information to the Police. According to him, Ananda Prasad intimated the police. The complaint was written by him after arrival of the Police and after the dead body had been inspected. He also deposed that it was not possible to him to recollect the exact words uttered by Durga. He categorically denied that Durga for the first time confessed about the incident after arrival of the police or that being a member of the Panchayat he exercised his influence to extract such confession from Durga.

(6.) BEING P. W. 2, Tamal almost corroborated the incident as deposed by kamal. Anadi being the P. W. 3 deposed in the same line. Village Chowkidar being P. W. 5 deposed that as instructed by Kamal he went to the house of the accused and sat by the side of the dead body till the Police came late at night. Madan being P. W. 6 although declared hostile deposed that Durga told him that he had killed his wife by strangulation. He also deposed that he met the police on the way to Police Station and narrated the incident to the Police. Binapani being P. W. 7 was the mother of the victim. She deposed that Durga married Archana 8/9 years ago. Neither Durga nor his mother Rajlaxmi took care of her daughter. The brother of the victim Mihir being P. W. 8 deposed that Durga and Archana had no cordial relationship between t