JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. Both the appeals are taken up together for consideration as they emanate from the one and the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

2. The two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated November 29, 2021 and order of sentence dated November 30, 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura in connection with Sessions Trial No. 05 (02) 2017 arising out of Sessions Case No. 09 (11) 2016.

3. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for another six months for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. One of the accused facing trial namely Uttam Roy was, however, found not guilty of any of the offences and acquitted.

4. One Sadhan Roy, lodged a complaint with the officer-in-charge of Women PS of Sadar Subdivision, Bankura on February 27, 2016 stating, inter alia, that his second daughter Rupa Roy was married to the appellant Pradip Roy as per Hindu customs and rites on 2nd Pous, 1421 BS. It was further stated that the marriage was an outcome of a love affair for which no money or ornaments were given in the marriage as dowry. The written complaint further disclosed that the said daughter of the de facto complainant informed him and his wife that the members of her matrimonial house started torturing upon her after two months of marriage on demand of dowry. The de facto complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to the appellant and the other in-laws on 4th of Chaitra, 1421 and requested them not to inflict torture upon the daughter of the de facto complainant.

5. It was further stated in the written complaint that even after payment of such amount of dowry, the daughter of the de facto complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture every day. She was denied proper food and clothes. On February 19, 2016 corresponding to 6th day of Phalgun, 1422 at about 10 o’clock in the night, the appellant Pradip Roy informed over telephone that the daughter of the de facto complainant was burnt. The son of the de facto complainant namely Pradip Roy went to Gobindanagar hospital and saw that the entire body of Rupa Roy, except chest, was burnt. She disclosed to her brother in the hospital that the appellants had done it to her and set her ablaze. She requested her brother not to spare them. The daughter of the de facto complainant died on February 23, 2016.

6. On the basis of such written complaint, Bankura Sadar Women PS Case No. 08/16 dated February 27, 2016 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was started against the appellant.

7. The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the husband and other in-laws of the victim on August 17, 2016 under the aforesaid Sections. Accordingly, charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant and other in-laws of the victim on February 16, 2017.

8. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses in all. In addition, the prosecution also relied upon certain documentary as well as material evidences.

9. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on erroneous consideration of the evidence. It has been contended referring to the evidence of PWs 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and PW16 that the learned trial court was not justified in convicting the app