A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires substantial corroboration, particularly with confessions, where voluntariness and trustworthiness must be proven to avoid wrongful convictions.

JUDGMENT :

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 22.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court Contai, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 35/October/2006. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC . The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 10, 000. In default thereof, he was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of 2 years. The period detention already undergone was directed to be set off from the imprisonment imposed.

THE PROSECUTION CASE

2. The case in the complaint is that on 30th of July, 2001 at about 8:00 A.M., PW 1, the father of the victim came to know that the appellant and his elder brother were beating the victim, who was the wife of the appellant. He rushed to the house of the victim and was severely assaulted by the appellant thereat. PW 1 was taking his daughter to the local Police Station for lodging a complaint to that effect. However, they were intercepted by Bhudev Majhi, a friend of the appellant, who forcibly took the the victim, away.

3. The victim went back home and her father left the same day assuring the victim that he would come back on the next morning. On the next morning the complainant PW 1 came to know that the victim was killed by the appellant and his brother by throttling her and beating her with a wooden broom.

4. A complaint was lodged on 31st July, 2001 with the Patashpur Police Station. A formal FIR No. 47 of 2001 dated 31st July, 2001 was registered by Patashpur Police Station against the appellant, his brother Tapas Kumar Sasmal and one Bhudev Majhi, a resident of Debichak village.

5. Inquest was conducted on the body of the victim where injuries were found. The mouth was open, teeth visible and the tongue was tied between the upper and lower teeth. The throat had scar marks of scuffle. There was some other marks on the throat inflicted by a sharp instrument.

6. The family members of the victim informed the Inquest Officer that the appellant was an evil person and of loose character and did not have good relations with his wife.

7. The body of the victim was sent for post mortem. Investigation completed and charge sheet filed. Charges were framed against three accused persons under Sections 498A /302 of the Indian Penal Code . The Trial commenced.

THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD

8. In course of trial, PW-1, Monoranjan Ghorai, the complainant and father of the victim, turned hostile and denied the prosecution case. He stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer of the case. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied that the complaint was written in his presence or under his instructions.

9. PW-2, was Mrinal Ghorai, sister of the deceased. She was also declared hostile. She only stated that the appellant inflicted physical and mental torture on the victim.

10. PW-3, was Dipak Ghorai, uncle of the deceased. He was also declared hostile. He deposed that the appellant inflicted torture on his wife. He only heard that the victim was throttled by the accused persons. He was not an eyewitness to the incident.

11. PW-4, was Gobardhan Ghorai, another uncle of the victim. He was also declared hostile. He was not examined by the Investigating Officer of the case.

12. PW-5, was Syed Rahul Amin. He was a Driver by profession, who drove a hired car of the