JUDGMENT :

PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3^rd Court, Bankura in connection with the Sessions Case 5(3)/90 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.2(7)91 at the instance of the appellants.

2. By passing the impugned judgment, these appellants were found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A and under Section 306 of the I.P.C. The appellant No.3 Joydeb Sarkar was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six years along with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence committed under Section 306 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence committed under Section 498A of I.P.C. The appellant No.1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence committed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and she was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a payment of fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellants.

4. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 2 was expired and the present appeal was stood abated against him.

5. In a short compass, the prosecution story, as unfolded from the records, may be delineated thus:

“The victim, being the sister of the de facto complainant, was married to appellant no. 3 on the 18^th day of Joishtho, 1392 B.S. Initially, the marital relationship between the deceased and the members of her matrimonial family was stated to be cordial and normal. However, according to the prosecution, such normalcy did not last long. After about seven to eight months of the marriage, the husband of the victim and his family members allegedly began subjecting her to both mental and physical cruelty. It is the further case of the prosecution that due to such alleged torture and ill-treatment, a village ‘salish’ (local mediation) was convened with the intervention of the local Panchayat in an attempt to resolve the disputes between the parties. However, the said mediation reportedly did not yield any fruitful result, and the alleged acts of cruelty continued. The prosecution version further discloses that on the 31st day of Aashar, 1395 B.S., the defacto complainant, who is the brother of the victim, came to learn about the death of his sister. He allegedly received such information from one Sunil Pal. Significantly, it is alleged that no intimation regarding the death of the victim was sent by the members of her matrimonial household to her parental family. Upon receiving the information, the defacto complainant immediately rushed to the village where the victim’s matrimonial home was situated. On arrival, he found his sister lying dead inside the house. Thereafter, the de facto complainant approached the concerned police station and lodged a written complaint narrating the alleged incidents. On the basis of the said complaint, Joypur Police Station Case No. 2 dated 16.08.1988 was registered against the present appellants, thereby setting the criminal law into motion. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge- sheet against the appellants under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and in the alternative