JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A/364/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-each to the de facto complainant, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-each for the offence punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each to the de facto complainant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Appellants have assailed the aforesaid conviction and sentence in the present case.

3. Mrittika Ruhidas was married to Sudhakar Ruhidas of village Boro on 16th Baisakh, 1412 B.S. After marriage it is alleged Sudhakar Ruhidas and other in-laws including brother-in-law of the victim, Buddheswar Ruhidas subjected her to mental and physical torture. Mrittika bore such torture silently and continued to stay at her matrimonial home. On 24.09.2006 at 9 a.m., Sudhakar informed Santosh Ruhidas, father of the victim girl (P.W. 1) that his daughter was missing. Hearing this, Santosh came to the matrimonial home and searched for his daughter but he could not trace her for three days. Finally on 27.09.2006 Santosh Ruhidas (P.W. 1) lodged written complaint which was scribed by P.W. 14 (Rabindranath Majhi) at Boro Police Station resulting in registration of Boro Police Station Case No. 19/06 dated 27/09/2006 under Sections 498A/364/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Sudhakar Ruhidas, Buddheswar Ruhidas and other in-laws namely Habu Ruhidas (father-in-law of the victim), Sanaka Ruhidas (mother-in-law of the victim) and Purnima Ruhidas (sister-in-law of the victim). On the self-same day, highly de-composed body of the victim lady was found in the water around an island at the junction of Jamuna and Totko river which was about 6 to 7 kilometers away from the residence of the appellants. P.W. 17, investigating officer, went to the spot and prepared inquest over the dead body. Post mortem was also conducted over the body by P.W. 2 who stated the victim had died 4 to 7 days earlier. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and other in-laws namely Habu Ruhidas, Sanaka Ruhidas and Purnima Ruhidas under Sections 498A/364/34 and 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against them under Sections 498A/364/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. However, co-accused Habu Ruhidas and Sanaka Ruhidas were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

4. Mr. Moinak Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argues there is no direct evidence connecting the appellants to the murder. It is nobody’s case victim housewife was murdered at the matrimonial home. Her decomposed dead body was recovered 6-7 kms. away from the residence of the appellants. No one came forward to say appellants were last seen at the spot with the victim. F.I.R. appears to be ante dated. P.W. 1, in cross-examination, stated he lodged F.I.R. at 6-7 P.M. at the police station after the dead body had been seen by him at 11 a.m. on that day. Allegation of torture over demand of dowry also suffers from embellishments. Prosecution case is based on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the appeal ought to be allowed.

5. Mrs. Amita Gaur, learned Counsel appearing for the State, submits P.Ws 1, 3 and 5 stated victim was subjected to mental and physical tor