S. Talapatra, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2002 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in S.T. 81(WT/K) of 2001. The prosecution was launched against the appellant under Section 498(A)/ 302 IPC when the Officer-in-charge of Teliamura Police Station received a complaint from one Smti. Sati Rani Sarkar. As the said complaint disclosed the cognizable offences, Teliamura PS Case No. 42 of 1998 under Section 498(A)/ 326/ 307 of IPC was registered. After investigation, the Investigating Officer on finding prima facie materials submitted the charge sheet by sending the appellant to face the trial under Section 302/ 498A IPC. Having taken cognizance, that case was transmitted by way of commitment to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge on receipt of the records from the Court of the SDJM Khowai framed the following charges against the appellant:

Firstly, you on or about 25.7.1998 at 18.30 hours at Joynagar under Teliamura Police Station being the husband of Tulsi Sarkar subjected her to cruelty to wit assaulted her mercilessly and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498(a) of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

Secondly: you on the same date, time and place committed the murder of Tulsi Sarkar by intentionally or knowing by causing her death and thereby committed and offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced, wherein the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses to substantiate the charge and also admitted 12 documents in the evidence being Ext. 1 to Ext. 12 and Ext. 'X' as per order dated 16.12.2010 by this Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai on analyzing the evidence as laid by the prosecution returned the finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 302 IPC and also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 49B(A) IPC.

2. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the basis of three purported dying declarations the judgment of conviction has been returned. According to Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant by relying on the dying declarations, the trial Court has committed serious illegality as no medical opinion is found as regards the fitness when the purported dying declarations are stated to have been made.

3. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State emphatically submitted that no infirmity can be attached for relying those dying declarations inasmuch as all the dying declarations are corroborated each other. Moreover, he stated that the medical opinion cannot be treated as a sine qua non for relying on the dying declaration. What has to be cautiously examined for placing the reliance on dying declaration is that whether the dying declarations were made voluntarily or not. For appreciating the rival contentions as projected by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary that the evidence be re-appreciated in the context of the challenge in the appeal.

4. Tulsi Sarkar, the daughter of the informant, namely Smti Rani Sarkar (PW-1) was given in marriage with the appellant about two years before the date of occurrence. After a few months of their marriage the appellant started torturing. On his wife, Tulsi. Tulsi used to narrate her tale of torments for being tortured by the appellant as and when she visited her parents. Tulsi confided her parents about the threat as posed by the appellant. The parents consoled her by giv