The prosecution must provide convincing evidence to establish a charge under Section 306, IPC, and the court may consider reducing the sentence based on the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1994 arising out of Sessions Case No. 7 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the appellant, Muslimuddin, was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC. Both the two sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case may be stated as follows:

Masammat Orina Khatun, daughter of the informant Abdul Karim @ Fitting Mohammad, was married to the appellant, Md. Muslimuddin, S/o. Fafizuddin @ Kalakatu, of village - Gendagachh four months prior to lodging the First Information Report (in short 'FIR') on 17th May 1992. After their marriage, the appellant took up quarrel with Orina continuously. He used to beat her 3/4 times regularly. On 16th May 1992, the informant after returning home from Siliguri went to the house of his daughter to see her. Then Orina told him that she was subjected to torture by the appellant and she was not feeling well due to torture. However, he returned home after giving consolation to her. At about 8 p.m. on 16th May 1992, the informant came to learn that his daughter was lying at her matrimonial home in an unconscious condition. He then and then rushed to her house with some villagers and found that there were signs of beating on her body. Many villagers assembled there. He made arrangement to take her to Doctor. But she expired after some time.

3. Narrating the aforesaid episode, the informant lodged an FIR at Chopra Police Station, which was registered as Chopra PS Case No. 63 of 1992 dated 17th May 1992 under Sections 498A/306, IPC. After taking up the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined number of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded their statement. The Investigating Officer sent viscera of the deceased to the Forensic Science Laboratory and he collected the FSL report from the laboratory. He collected the inquest report and the post mortem examination report. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 498A/306, IPC. Ultimately charge was framed under Sections 498A/306, IPC by the learned trial Judge against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Some documents upon which the prosecution placed reliance have been marked as Exhibit-1 to 4/1.

5. On consideration of the evidence on record and after hearing the learned Advocate for the parties, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/306, IPC and inflicted the sentence as above.

6. Mr. Sujay Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae, submits that the incident took place on 16th May 1992, but the FIR was lodged on the following date i.e. on 17th May 1992, after 12 hours of the incident. Learned Advocate points out that there is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. In such situation, embellishment and embroidery might take place in lodging the FIR.

7. Learned Advocate also submits that the evidence of the vital witnesses, who have deposed in favour of the prosecution, are not convincing to prove the offence for abetment of committing suicide by the victim on the part of the appellant. Learned Advocate argues that if the Court considers the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, their evidence faintly prove t