Anima Hazarika, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants viz. Md. Hasim Ali and Musst. Mahmuda Begum against the judgment and order dated 20.7.2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Hojai, Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 257(N)/04 whereby and whereunder the Appellants have been convicted under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years.

2. The brief facts, which gave rise to prosecution against the Appellants are as follows:

One Md. Sultanuddin Ahmed lodged an FIR (Ext. 4) with the Officer-in-Charge of Murajhar Police Station alleging inter alia therein that his son-in-law Hifjur Rahman has been subjecting his daughter Musst. Sufia Khatun to physical torture demanding dowry and finally on 5.3.2002, the accused person killed the informant's daughter by tying her in the neck and legs with gamocha. It has further been stated in the said FIR that deceased had a 1 1/2 years old male child. Explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, the informant stated that the villagers had lodged an FIR and so he did not lodge any FIR earlier. It is pertinent to mention herein that the informant had named the five accused persons in the FIR. They are as follows:

1) Hifjur Rahman, S/o. Md. Hasim Ali,

2) Abdul Hafiz, S/o. Md. Mona Mujan,

3) Hasim Ali, S/o. Hazi Kala Raja,

4) Mustt. Mahmuda Begum, W/o. Hasim AH,

5) Mujibur Rahman, S/o. Abdul Matin.

Prior to lodging the FIR dated 19.3.2002, another FIR was lodged with the said police station by Md. Hussain Ahmed on the day of occurrence itself, i.e. on 5.3.2002 stating inter alia that Sufia Begum committed suicide by consuming poison and on the basis of the said FIR, the O/C of Murajhar PS registered UD Case No. 03/02 and it ended in final report submitted on 19.3.2002.

3. However, on receipt of the second FIR dated 19.3.2002, police registered it as Murajhar Rs. Case No. 34/02 under Section 304(B) IPC and investigated into the matter. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons namely, Hifjur Rahman, Hasim Ali and Mahmuda Begum under Section 304(B) IPC.

4. Since the offence under Section 304(B) IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the concerned Magistrate. The case was consequently renumbered as Sessions Case No. 257(N)/04 in the Court of Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hojai and charge was framed under Section 304(B) IPC against the accused Appellants. The charge so framed being read over and explained, the accused Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence trial proceeded against them.

5. During trial, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including the informant while defence examined two witnesses. The statements of the accused Appellants were recorded under Section313 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have denied the allegation levelled against them.

6. Learned trial Court considering the evidence of P.W. 1 to 4 and disbelieving the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 convicted and sentenced the accused Appellants as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

7. Now let us scan and scrutinize the evidence on record on the basis of which the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction.

8. P.W. 1, Alia Khatoon is the mother of the deceased. She deposed inter alia that her daughter got married to Hifjur about 5 years back. But after 3-4 months of the marriage, her mother-in-law started torture upon her demanding cycle, radio and suit. Therefore, P.W. 1 kept her daughter at her house since she was not allowed to live at her in-law's house peacefully. After 1/1 1/2 months, one Hussain Ahmed came and took her to her in law's house with a promise to look after her. But after 3-4 months, the deceased again came back and told P.W. 1 that Hifjur, her son-in-law demanded a scooter. She expressed her inability to concede the demand. P.W. 1 kept her daughter for about 1 1/2 months. T