JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate out of the same first information report and the same impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.

2. The father of the victim had lodged a written complaint with the police on November 18, 2016 complaining that his daughter was subjected to torture for not fulfilling the demand of dowry of extra Rs. 1 lakh. His daughter had been tortured physically and mentally. He had paid Rs. 20,000 to his son-in-law. He had been informed over telephone at about 4 o’clock in the morning of November 8, 2016 by his relative that his daughter had died. He along with this relative had gone to the matrimonial home of her daughter and found his daughter lying dead. His daughter was 4 months pregnant. He had firmly believed that his son-in-law along with his family members killed his daughter by torturing her physically and mentally.

3. On the basis of such written complaint, police had registered a First Information Report being FIR No. 91/16 dated November 8, 2016 under Sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On completion of the investigations, police had submitted a charge sheet being No. 12/17 dated February 4, 2016 under Section 498A/304B/302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The court had framed charges against 5 accused on August 31, 2017 under Section 498A/304B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The case of the prosecution had been that, the appellants since the marriage of the victim with Prabir Patar (husband) subjected the victim to cruelty both physically and mentally on demand of money. The appellants had caused a dowry death of the victim by subjecting her to continuous mental and physical torture since her marriage. The appellants had in furtherance of the common intention murdered the victim in the early morning of November 8, 2016 at the matrimonial home of the victim.

6. At the trial, prosecution had examined 20 witnesses and relied upon various documentary and material evidences. The appellants had been examined under Section 313 of the criminal procedure code, on the completion of the evidence of the prosecution. The appellants during such examination had claimed to be falsely implicated and innocent. They had declined to adduce any defence witness.

7. By the impugned judgment of the learned judge had found the appellants guilty under offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned judge had given the appellants benefit of the doubt in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned judge had ordered the husband to suffer imprisonment for life and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial judge had sentenced all the appellants apart from the husband to suffer rigourous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 each for committing the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default to undergo further imprisonment for one year each. The learned trial judge had sentenced all the 5 appellants to suffer rigourous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

9. The appellants in both the appeals had remained unrepresented at the hearing of the appeals on November 14, 2022, November 17, 2022, November 18, 2022, November 21, 2022 November 22, 2022 November 28, 2022 December 18, 2022 January 4, 2023, January 19, 2023 and March 23, 2023. Consequently, by an order dated March 20, 2023 amicus curiae had been appointed to represent the appellants.

Amicus curiae had appeared on April 4, 2023 and advanced submissions for the