The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 and 29.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 3(11)/2010 arising out of Sessions Case No.70 of 2010 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Rimi Bibi was married to the appellant Pintu Mondal three years prior to the incident. Soon after the marriage it is alleged Rimi was subjected to torture by the appellant and other in-laws. She was driven out of the matrimonial home. She took refuge at her mother's residence. Unable to maintain herself, she instituted maintenance proceeding against the appellant. Appellant did not make payment and was arrested in connection with such proceeding. Subsequently, a rapprochement was arrived at and Rimi upon selling her ornaments procured the release of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant off and on visited Rimi at her parental home and she became pregnant.

3. In the afternoon of 07.03.2010 the appellant took Rimi from her parental home to visit his maternal grandmother's house. Rimi did not return that night. In the next morning her dead body was found by a young boy, Sarikul Islam (PW 8) at Later Math in the village of Sabjipara.

4. Memjan Bibi, (PW 4), cousin of the deceased heard the news and identified the victim. Mother of the victim, Molejan Bewa (PW1) was informed. She came to the place of occurrence. Suspecting that the victim had been murdered by the appellant with the help of others, she lodged written complaint at Islampur Police Station resulting in registration of Islampur Police Station Case No.101/10 dated 08.03.2010 against the appellant and other in-laws.

5. In conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and charge was framed against the appellant only under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the learned Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 and 29.08.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

6. Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case developed in court is at variance to that alleged in the FIR. Evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 with regard to the appellant taking the victim from her maternal home on 07.03.2010 is highly unreliable. PW 2 was examined in court for the first time. No FSL report was produced to court to show that the seized articles particularly the knife, wearing apparels bore blood stains. Hence, the chain of circumstances relied by the prosecution have not been proved and the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.

7. Mr. Bapuli with Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the State argued that the prosecution has been able to establish all the circumstances which unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. The appellant was put behind bars at the behest of the deceased, his estranged wife. Upon his release he used to visit his wife at her maternal home and take her out for trips. She became pregnant. On the fateful day i.e. 07.03.2010 in the afternoon he took her away from her maternal home on the excuse of taking her to his maternal grandmother's house. Since then the victim was missing. Finally her dead body was found in a field near the house of the maternal grandmother of the appellant. On the leading statement of the appellant the weapon of offence and wearing apparels were recovered from the latrine of his grandmother's house. These circumstances clearly establish his guilt beyond doubt and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Let me see whether prosecution has been able to prove the aforesaid circumstances against the appellant or not.

9. Pw 1 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed Rimi was