JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 18.03.2016 and order dated 19.03.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Sessions Trail no. 09(06)09 arising out of Sessions Serial no. 183 of 2009 convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month and also for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.11.2008, one Hayat SK lodged a complaint with officer-in-charge, Rejinagar Police Station with the allegation that his daughter namely Jannati Bibi, aged about 19 Years, was married to the appellant three months back and both of them stayed in his house in the intervening night of 08.11.2008 and 09.11.2008. At around 6 AM in the morning of 09.11.2008 his younger son discovered his elder sister Jannati Bibi was hanging in a kneel down position with a red cloth tied to her neck which was also tied to the bamboo of the thatched room and his brother-in-law i.e. the appellant had fled away from the room. Upon entering the room they found that the victim had already expired. It is further alleged that his daughter was subjected to both physical and mental torture and there was a further demand of money to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Rejinagar Police Station case no. 168 of 2008 dated 09.11.2008 under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant.

3. Upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code with adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

4. After complying formalities as per provisions of law the case was committed to the Court of Session which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad for trial and disposal.

5. Charge under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant which was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in the course of trial examined 24 witnesses and proved some documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence. However, the case of the defence is of falsity in the prosecution case and plea of innocence.

7. Upon consideration of the evidence and other materials on record submitted on behalf of the prosecution, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. Mr Sharma, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant establishing the charge brought by the prosecution beyond doubt. The entire case of the prosecution is based on weak circumstantial evidence which does not tend towards the guilt of the appellant. Moreover, the evidence shows that on the fateful date the appellant was staying in the in-laws house with the wife and therefore, the question of discord in relationship is farfetched. Further there is no such clinching evidence that on the night of incident the appellant was with the deceased. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory to one another. There is no independent corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses who are relatives of the deceased, who are interested parties and as such their evidence should be discarded. In view of his above submissions he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the case.

9. Ms Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that PW 3, Hayat Sk (father of the deceased), PW 9, Sohanur Rahaman (brother of