The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence alone is not sufficient to establish guilt.

Tapash Mookherjee, J:

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.2007 and 08.03.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1 at Tamluk, Purba Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. 6(7) 2005 (Sessions Case No. 96 of 2004) convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/302 I.P.C.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in short, are as follows:-

3. On 09.10.1997 one Tuku Bala Mondal of village Mundasarai submitted a written complaint to Khejuri Police Station in the district Midnapore and thereby alleged that her daughter Shephali and the Appellant Biswaranjan Midya Chowdhury were married on 10th May, 1996 and after such marriage her daughter Shephali lived with the Appellant in the Appellant’s house at village Boga. In the said complaint it is further alleged by the complainant that since after marriage the Appellant started torture on her daughter and in the night of 8th October, 1997 she received an information from a co-villager of the Appellant that her daughter was killed by the Appellant after which she along with some of her co-villagers rushed to the house of the Appellant where they found the dead body of her daughter lying on a cot in the house of the Appellant with marks of severe burn injuries and after seeing her daughter’s dead body in such condition she suspected that her daughter had been killed by the Appellant. On the basis of such written complaint Khejuri P.S. Case No. 53/1997 dated 09.10.1997 under Sections 498 A/ 302/201 I.P.C. had been started against the Appellant and after completion of investigation charge-sheet under Sections 498 A/302/201/34 I.P.C. was submitted against the Appellant and two daughters of the Appellant by his previous wife, namely, Shubhra alias Mamani Das and Sampa Bhunia.

4. Considering the materials collected during investigation charge under Section 498 A read with Section 34 I.P.C. had been framed against all the aforesaid accused persons in the charge-sheet and an additional charge under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. had been framed against the present Appellant.

5. During trial prosecution examined six witnesses in total and relied on some documents, as well. Defence tendered no evidence whatsoever. Having considered the evidence thus brought on record learned Trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A/302 I.P.C. and sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (rupees one lakh only) for the offence of murder. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The other two accused persons in the case were found not guilty of the charge framed against them and they were acquitted accordingly.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellant filed the present appeal.

7. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the Defence has argued that neither there is any direct evidence nor any circumstances has been proved, beyond doubts, to prove the charges against the Appellant and that the case has not been properly investigated at all as admitted by the Investigating Officer himself during his evidence before the court and as such learned Trial Court has committed gross error in law convicting and punishing the Appellant in the case.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the State argued that the tongue of the dead body was found ‘protruding with the teeth biting it’, as found from the Inquest Report “Exhibit- 2/2” and he further submitted that it can be so only where the death is by throttling and in case of death due to burning the tongue cannot be found protruded. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further argued that after the incident of the death of the Appellant’s wife the Appellant was found alone inside his house when the villagers gathered there. As stated by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and as such onus lied upon