The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable and corroborated evidence, despite the absence of certain records, to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2008 passed in a re-trial pursuant to an order of remand passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2005. By the impugned judgment and order the trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences will run concurrently.

2. In the earlier round of litigation, the appellant upon being convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC, had appealed before this Court. An Hon'ble Division Bench of this court upon hearing the appeal by judgment and order dated 16.06.2006 set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and remanded the entire matter before the Sessions Judge with direction to conduct the trial himself or by the seniormost Additional Sessions Judge in the station. The Court further directed the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and materials on record independently and after production of papers from Bansgore P.H.C.

3. The Bench was persuaded to remand the matter for the following reasons:

(i) Finding of acquittal by the trial court for the offence under section 498A IPC was contrary to the evidence on record particularly that of PWs 1 to 3 herein; (ii) Although the trial Court by order dated 22.07.2002 had directed production of injury register from Bansgore Primary Health Center, Bansgore the same had not been taken to its logical conclusion and the said register had not been produced; (iii) Trial Court had conducted the proceeding in a manner which left an impression that it had already formed its opinion with regard to the guilt of the appellant even before conclusion of arguments had delivered the verdict on such preconceived motion. To elaborate, the matter was fixed on 15.06.2006 for hearing arguments. When adjournment was sought for on behalf of the defense, trial Court recorded its displeasure and took the accused into custody. Though written arguments were furnished on that day, trial Court in post haste fixed the matter for judgment on the very next day i.e 16.06.2006 and delivered the verdict against the appellant.

4. In view of the aforesaid order of remand the matter was re-heard by the trial Court. In the course of re-trial, P.W. 15, B.M.O.H. attached to Community Health Centre, Bansgarh was examined. He deposed the injury register of Bansgarh Primary Health Centre was not traceable and his report was exhibited as Exhibit 10. Upon independent consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

5. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Mr. Bakshi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits injury register has not been produced. He further submits that the place of occurrence has not been proved. Seized articles were not sent for FSL examination. Conviction under Section 498A, I.P.C. was also based on general and omnibus materials. He accordingly prayed for acquittal of the present appellant.

7. Ms. Khan, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the case is fully proved by the deposition of P.W. 2, mother of the deceased.

8. She was an eyewitness to the incident. Her deposition is corroborated by the medical evidence on record including the P.M. doctor. P.W. 15 deposed injury register of the primary health centre was untraceable. Hence, trial Court relied on the evidence on record and came to a finding of guilt against the appellant which does not call for interference.

9. As this Court had passed an order of o