In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excludes every other reasonable hypothesis.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Sen, J. - The instant appeal arises out of the judgement and order of conviction dated 14.09.1995, as passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore, in Sessions Trial No. V of December 1994 whereby and whereunder the said court convicted one Sukchand @ Banria Maity under Sections 302/498A/201 I.P.C and thus sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- i.d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- i.d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.2000/- i.d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed by him under Section 201 I.P.C. The convict above named felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal.

2. On 24.12.1991, one Bhanu Charan Mondal, the father of deceased lodged a written complaint with the O/C of Patashpur P.S stating, inter alia, that his daughter Faringbala after her marriage started living at her matrimonial home with her husband, the appellant herein and out of such matrimonial wedlock a male child was born to them. He stated further that the present appellant as well as his mother Smt. Khandibala Maity and elder brother Subal Chandra Maity used to inflict torture upon Faringbala during her stay at her matrimonial home. It is the further version of the de facto complainant that on 24.12.1991, he came to learn that the aforesaid three persons assaulted his said daughter and accordingly he went to the matrimonial home of his said daughter where he noticed that there was none in the house of the accused persons and the same was under lock and key. It has also been stated that from the neighbouring people he came to learn that on the previous night the accused persons assaulted his said daughter Faringbala and in the morning the accused persons disclosed that his said daughter went missing. In his written complaint it has also been alleged that at about 1/1:30pm the dead body of Faringbala was recovered from the pond of the accused persons and at that time he noticed a ligature around her throat with one of her wearing cloth having a tight knot at the backside and with the other knot of the same saree an earthen pitcher was tied. In his said written complaint the de facto complainant suspected that the accused persons murdered Faringbala and thereafter threw her dead body into pond.

3. On the basis of such written complaint investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A/302/201/34 I.P.C against the aforementioned three accused.

4. After commitment the case was transferred to the trial court and thereafter charges under Sections 498A/302/201/34 I.P.C were framed against all the three accused persons. Since all the three accused persons pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried the trial proceeded. It reveals from the trial court record that in order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on their behalf. It reveals further that the learned trial court after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, as adduced by the prosecution witnesses convicted the present appellant under the Sections as mentioned above. However, the other two accused namely; Khandibala Maity and Subal Maity were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 498A/302/201/34 I.P.C.

5. We have heard the learned advocates for the appellant and the State at length. We have also perused the entire materials as available in the trial court record including the impugned judgement.

6. In this appeal we propose to deal with the evidence of those prosecution witnesses only which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal.

7. In our considered view the deposition of PW10 i