The orchestrated harmony of prosecution witnesses' evidence and the insignificance of minor omissions and contradictions in their testimonies.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

Challenging the legal pregnability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 03.03.2008 and 04.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 1(3)/07 the appellant has filed this appeal. By the said impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has convicted the present accused appellant under Section 498A/302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. In the memorandum of appeal the appellant has contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and failed to consider the major discrepancies in the evidence.

3. To come to a finding and to appreciate the argument and counter argument of both sides, it would be profitable to revisit the prosecution story. Sieving out the unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form is that the marriage between the victim and the appellant took place nearly three years before the fateful day. Just after the marriage the present appellant accused began to put pressure upon the victim for bringing dowry and, as the said demand was not fulfilled she was subjected to torture. On the fateful day, the accused appellant assaulted her at 8 0' Clock at night and when the deceased protested, the accused appellant tied her hands, poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze. When the victim was trying to come out from the bedroom, the appellant pushed her back into the room. The neighbours came to know about the incident and informed the same to the complainant. He rushed to the hospital and the victim disclosed to him how she suffered the burn injuries. On the next day, the victim breathed her last. Disclosing the ill-episode the de facto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and set the law into motion.

4. Soon after registration of F.I.R, the investigating agency came into operation. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected inquest report, post-mortem report, examined the available witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and prepared a rough sketch-map with index. On completion of the investigation, the officer submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 498A/302/34 of I.P.C.

5. Pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, the learned Trial Court considered the material available and framed the charges under the aforesaid sections. The said charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It further appears from the L.C.R. that the learned Trial Court recorded the deposition of witnesses, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, after a threadbare discussion on the evidence, found the accused guilty under Sections 498A/302/34 of I.P.C.

6. At the time of argument, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material irregularity and illegality and that the testimonies are palpably inconsistent with each other.

7. In such circumstances, we are to scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses very meticulously. The P.W. 1 in his examination-in-chief stated the story of F.I.R, including the physical and mental torture suffered by the victim at her matrimonial home. He also stated that on the fateful day the appellant tied the hands of the victim with her sari and poured kerosene oil over her body and thereafter set fire upon her person. His such part of his evidence is almost the replicated version of the F.I.R. In his evidence-in-chief he further contended that one Minoti Let (P.W. 7) and Baijayanti Let (P.W. 3), who were the neighbours of the accused, informed the de facto complainant that the appellant committed murder of victim by setting fire on her body. In his cross-examination he further clarified the situation by saying that those P.Ws reside in the vicinity to the hou