JUDGMENT :

MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated April 24, 2019 and further sentence dated May 31, 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Sessions Case No. 01 (04) 17.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498A/302 of the IPC. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He was further convicted for simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Both of the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the appellant submits that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is also submitted that no independent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some independent witnesses examined for the prosecution turned hostile.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant. Learned Trial Court committed an error by convicting the appellant on the basis of such evidence on record.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove all the charges levelled against the appellant on the basis of cogent and convincing evidences.

6. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the State that the independent witnesses who turned hostile at the time of their deposition have supported the incident which follows necessary incriminating inference.

7. Relying upon 2025 INSC 957 (Gurdeep Singh vs. The State of Punjab), learned advocate for the State submitted that hostility of witnesses does not completely efface their testimonies from the evidence on record. It is further contention of the learned advocate relying upon the said judgment that again the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The Court can rely on the consistent part of the testimony of such witnesses.

8. The father of the defacto complainant lodged a written complaint with Saltora Police Station on July 23, 2016. It was alleged that his daughter was married to the appellant. Since after her marriage, his daughter residing at her matrimonial house was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and mother-in-law. The written complaint also stated that due to brutal torture by the appellant and his mother, the defacto complainant brought his daughter to Bankura Medical College and Hospital in a burnt condition at about 11 O’ clock.

9. On the basis of such written complaint, Saltora Police Station Case No. 37 of 2016 dated July 23, 2016 under Section 498A/34 of the IPC was started against two FIR named accused persons including the present appellant. The appellant took up investigation and on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 498A/302/34 of the IPC.

10. On the basis of the materials in the case diary, charges under Section 498A/302/34 of the IPC were framed against the appellant as well as another accused on May 5, 2017.

11. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. In addition, prosecution also relied upon documentary as well as material evidences.

12. The mother of the victim was examined as P.W. 1. She has stated that the victim is her daughter who was dead. She was burnt by her husband and mother-in-law at her matrimonial house. P.W. 1 further stated that the incident took place in the month of last Shrabon (from 28th June, 2017). Her daughter was married to the appellant whom she identified in Court. Her daughter was alive for 5 months from her marriage. She also stated that her daughter, after such marriage, went to her matrimonial