J. Chelameswar, C.J.

1. Heard Ms. D. Buragohain, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. Aggrieved by judgment dated 12.4.2007 of the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 24/2006 of the first accused therein preferred the present appeal. By the said judgment the learned Sessions Judge recorded a verdict of guilt against the appellant herein under Section 304Bread with Section 34, IPC and directed the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life.

3. The appellant alongwith two other accused, the mother and brother of the appellant, were tried under a charge under Section 304B read with Section 34, IPC. The deceased was the wife of the appellant.

4. The present case is a classic example of the sorry state of affairs in which investigation and trial of offences including serious offences, if proved would entail either capital punishment or punishment for life, are conducted.

5. The prosecution case is that the deceased and the appellant herein were married a few months prior to the death. It is unfortunate that the prosecution did not even bother to lead evidence as to the exact date of the marriage. The deceased Rasheda Khatun allegedly died on the 10th September, 2000. We say 'allegedly' because there is no evidence on record as to the exact time of death. Neither the post-mortem report gives any indication as to the time of death nor the doctor, who conducted the postmortem and who was examined as PW 9, in his evidence made any mention about he approximate time of the death.

On the other hand there are two reports received by the police, which are marked as Ext-3 and Ext-5, submitted by two brothers of the deceased. From the contents of those documents it appears that around 8 p.m. on 10th September, 2000 the makers of the above-mentioned two reports got to know that their sister was in a serious condition. While in Ext-3 it is stated,-

Last night, at about 8 p.m., the accused persons killed my sister. Having heard a commotion in their house when we advanced in that direction we found her lying dead in their courtyard.

On the other hand in Ext-5 it is stated as follows:

At about 7 p.m. on 10.9.2000, a message was sent to us that my sister Rasheda Khatun had taken poison. On receipt of the information I alongwith my youngest sister Fuljan Khatun came to my brother-in-law Rahman Ali's house. Having come there when I found the condition of my sister serious, I took her immediately to Barpeta Civil Hospital in an Auto Rickshaw and got her examined by a doctor there. While undergoing treatment in the hospital my sister died at about 10 O'clock.

Therefore, it can be noticed that while one brother says that he found the deceased die at about 8 p.m. and when she was shifted to the Barpeta Civil Hospital she was declared dead, the other brother in Ext-5 states that while undergoing treatment in the hospital his sister died at about 10 clock.

6. Unfortunately the doctor who is said to have examined the deceased at the Barpeta Civil Hospital is not examined by the prosecution as a witness to establish as to the time at which she was taken to the hospital and whether she was alive or dead at that point of time.

7. In the background of the above-mentioned factual situation two of the brothers of the deceased independently approached the police and reported in writing the incident to the police. It may be mentioned here that while Ext-3 is addressed to the Officer- in-charge, Barpeta Police Out Post, Ext-5 is addressed to the O/C, Barpeta Thana. While the maker of Ext-3 was examined by the prosecution as PW 1 the maker of Ext-5 was not examined by the prosecution.

8. Ext-3 is recorded to have been received on 11.9.2000 at 3.30 p.m. by the Inspector of Police/Officer-in-charge, Barpeta Police Station. It is recorded therein that the scene of occurrence is 10 Km north from the Police Station. It is further recorded that the FIR was dispatched from the Police Station on