JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

1. The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated July 4, 2019 and the order of sentence dated July 5, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Suri, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 02/November/2017 arising out of Sessions Case No. 83/2017.

2. By the impugned judgement of conviction, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant has been awarded imprisonment for the remainder of her natural life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year more. The sentences had been directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that, the prosecution did not examine any witness as an eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution had withheld vital witness which creates a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the case of the prosecution.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not done in conformity with law. The questions that had been put to the appellant in her examination were in a jumbled up manner and question No. 8 in particular was as long as half a page. Therefore, the appellant had been prevented from understanding the question and giving a rational answer thereto.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to the deposition of prosecution witness No. 1 and the written complaint filed by her being Exhibit1. He has contended that, there are contradictions in respect of the version relating to the cause of death of the victim which enures to the benefit of the appellant.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the State has referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He has contended that, a child of the appellant born out of her first marriage was brutally murdered. The appellant along with the co-accused who is her husband, are answerable under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as to the cause of death of the victim. Neither the appellant nor her husband has explained the death of the victim.

7. Relying upon 2007 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 230 (Aloke Nath Dutta and Others vs. State of West Bengal) learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that, the appellant recorded a confessional statement which was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit 11. He has contended that, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and awarded a just punishment for the crime committed.

8. Police had received a written complaint dated April 21, 2017 from Prosecution Witness (PW) No. 1 with regard to the murder of the victim. In the written complaint, PW 1 had stated that she went to the house of the victim and found the victim to be lying unconscious. The victim had been taken out from his residence by neighbours and admitted to the Suri Sadar Hospital. The appellant had remained silent when PW 1 asked her as to what happened to her son. When pressurised, PW 1 had confessed in front of everybody that the appellant and her husband together had beaten the victim. The appellant had held two legs of the victim and her husband kept assaulting the victim on his chest holding his mouth. As a result of such assault the victim had lost his consciousness. The doctor at the Suri Sadar Hospital had declared the victim dead after examination. The victim was the son of the appellant from her first marriage.

9. Police had registered Suri Police Station F.I.R No. 134/17 dated April 21, 2017 under Section 302/34 against the appellant and her husband. Police had conducted an investigation on the basis of such First Information Report and submitted a charge sheet under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Pe