S.C. Das, J.

1. By filing this appeal, under Section 374 of Cr. P.C. the convict appellant, Sandip Roy challenged the order of his conviction and sentence, dated 29.08.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kailashahar, North Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 102 (NT/K) of 2006, where under he was found guilty of the charges framed against him under Sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer RI for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for 6(six) months for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and again to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for 1 (one) year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and that the sentences shall run concurrently. We have heard learned Counsel, Ms. N. Guha for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Bhattacharjee for the State-respondent.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

2.1 Marriage between the convict-appellant, Sandip Roy and the deceased victim, Samapti Roy was solemnized, on negotiation, as per Hindu rites on 26.02.2005, in the paternal house of Samapti at village Dewanpassa, under Police Station Dharmanagar, and after marriage Samapti entered her matrimonial home holding the hands of her husband, the accused Sandip Roy at village East Gobindapur, Ward No. 2 of Kailashahar Nagar Panchayat, North Tripura district and started their conjugal life. It is alleged that in the marriage parents of Samapti had given a cash amount of Rs. 40,000/-, golden ornaments and other utensils and articles in the form of dowry. Samapti visited her paternal home on a few occasions after the marriage. On 02.06.2006, a Friday, on the day of "Jamai Sashthi" both Samapti and Sandip visited the parental house of Samapti to attend the occasion when other sisters of Samapti with their respective husbands and relatives were also present.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused asked Samapti to demand Rs. 10,000/ - from her parents but Samapti did not agree since her parents were already burdened with debt which they incurred at the time of her marriage. Her husband threatened her and therefore, she disclosed it to her parents but the parents could not arrange the money immediately and asked her to wait for some time. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused used to torture on Samapti but she being a woman of introvert nature would remain silent and on rare occasion she would disclose her plight to her parents, brother and sisters. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused would behave with Samapti most roughly and that he was a habitual drunker and he compelled his wife Samapti to take liquor against her will and on some occasions, the accused forcibly administered liquor to Samapti which she disclosed to her friend and sisters. On 28.06.2006 she visited the house of her sister, Shefali Roy (PW. 15) at Kailashahar and told her that she was tortured by her husband for money. Parents and relatives of Samapti found her upset when she visited her parents' house on the day of "Jamai Sashthi" and thereafter. On 29.06.2006 at about 2.00 PM Samapti was found lying dead on the floor of her bed room with burn injuries. On an alarm raised by the accused other neighbourers rushed there and found Samapti lying dead with burn injuries and the body was covered with a cloth. PW. 9, a close neighbor of the accused, at first rushed to the house of the accused hearing his alarm and thereafter, he went to the house of PW. 8, Biman Kanti Biswas wherefrom he (PW. 9) made a telephone call to Kailashahar Police Station and informed about the incident that Samapti was lying dead with burn injuries in the house of the accused and accordingly, Police came to the house of the accused. Parental home of Samapti was also informe