Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. M. Soleman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. Yakub Ali @ Nanoi and Hasiba Begum are convicted under Section 304(2)/34 of the IPC and also under Section 201/34 IPC. For the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each. For the offence under Sections 201/34 IPC, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each. There was a juvenile accused, namely, Kabir Uddin, who is son of Yakub Ali @ Nanoi and his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board.

3. It is submitted by Mr. H.R.A Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that the Juvenile Justice Board had acquitted Kabir Uddin.

4. The case presents a tale of twists and turns. Hasiba Begum, who is the wife of the deceased, Abdul Jabbar, lodged an ejahar against her two brother-in-laws, namely, Abdur Razzak and Abdul Sattar. Charge-Sheet was submitted by police against Yakub Ali @ Nanoi and his son Kabir Uddin. Hasiba Begum also adduced evidence in the form of PW1. She was followed by PW2, her daughter Imrana, who is the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. Imrana was a minor girl of about 10 years of age at the time of incident that occurred on 22.08.2000. In her deposition, Imrana implicated her mother and accordingly, the learned Trial Court, in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, arrayed her as an accused. Against such arraignment, Hasiba approached this Court by filing a Criminal Revision Petition which was registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 351/2003, but without any success. The revision was dismissed by an order dated 27.07.2006 holding that evidence of PW2 disclosed sufficient materials against Hasiba Begum. Consequently, the evidence of PW1 recorded earlier was expunged.

5. PW2 was, thereafter, cross-examined on behalf of Hasiba Begum. Five more witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. Defence had adduced evidence of four defence witnesses. In his Section 313 Cr.P.C statement, Yakub @ Nanoi stated that brother of the deceased had implicated him because of their greed for the properties of the deceased, which they had sold off. Hasiba also stated that she was falsely implicated because of the greed for her property. She also stated that they had taken away the children from her.

6. Hasiba Begum, as informant, had lodged the ejahar on 25.08.2000 stating that Abdul Razzak, her husband's brother, had come to their residence at midnight when they were sleeping and informed that his father was seriously sick and that her husband should go along with him and, accordingly, her husband had left home along with Abdul Razzak. For the next two days, her husband did not return back and on 25.08.2000, at around 8 A.M., she received information that a dead body was lying in a paddy field and she, having gone there, found the dead body with a rope tied round the neck and with injuries on the body, and she confirmed the dead body to be that of her husband. In the ejahar, she implicated Abdul Razzak and his brother Abdul Sattar with the homicidal death of her husband. On the basis of her ejahar, Patherkandi P.S. Case No. 134/2000, under Sections 302/34 IPC, was registered.

7. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court was wholly in error in convicting the appellants on the basis of the evidence on record. He has contended that PW2 had changed her version four times: statement given to the police, statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, evidence before Court before her mother was arrayed as an accused and lastly, after her mother was arrayed as an accused and, therefore, there is no