Appellant, Abdul Rokib has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Karimganj under Section 498A IPC and 304B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 498A IPC and imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304B IPC with default stipulation.

2. The victim in the present case was Soma Begum, who succumbed to the following injuries:

(a) A sharp cut injury on left side of the forehead measuring 3 ½”X1”X bone deep, cutting the bone,

(b) A sharp cut injury on the right side of the occipital region, measuring 4”X ½”X bone deep, cutting the bone,

(c) A cut injury over the left maxilla, measuring 1”X ¼”X bone deep.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial was that the victim Soma Begum was married to Mukitur Rahman, the son of the present appellant. The victim was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. The parents of the victim met some of the demands. Before the death of the victim, the appellant demanded an APE vehicle and threatened with dire consequences if, such demand was not fulfilled.

4. On the intervening night of 19.06.2012 and 20.06.2012, the victim was assaulted with sharp weapons causing grievous injuries as indicated above and she succumbed to the injuries. The father of the victim (PW-4) lodged the FIR, Ext.1 wherein six persons, i.e. the husband of the victim, his parents, bothers and sister-in-law were named as perpetrators of the crime. On the basis of Ext.1, police registered a case and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the husband of the victim, Mukitur Rahman under Section 302 IPC and prayed for release of the remaining 5 accused persons named in the FIR, for having not found sufficient materials against them.

5. During trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused Mukitur Rahman, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6 Prosecution initially examined 4 witnesses including the informant. The father of the victim examined as PW-4, deposed implicating all the 6 persons named in the FIR and prayed for proceeding against all of them, who were named in the FIR. Upon such submission of the informant, learned Public Prosecutor sought an adjournment for filing appropriate application and on the next date, learned Public Prosecutor filed an application, which was numbered as Pt. No. 356/2013, praying for direction to police for further investigation. On the basis of such application, the learned Trial Court directed the police by order dated 21.05.2013 for further investigation. The police subsequently filed a second/additional charge sheet on 27.08.2013 against the present appellant Abdul Rokib, the father of accused Mukitur Rahman, and eventually charge was also framed against him too, to which he pleaded not guilty. The learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial of both the accused jointly and examined altogether 12 witnesses.

7. At the stage of judgment and hearing the accused person on the point of sentence, learned Trial Court found that accused Mukitur Rahman was suffering from mental ailment and therefore judgment in respect of Mukitur Rahman was put on hold, whereas judgment was delivered in respect of the present appellant convicting him and awarding sentence as indicated above.

8. Heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the subsequent charge sheet submitted by police was illegal as it was on the basis of re-investigation, which was never ordered by the learned Trial Court and, as such, re-investigation of the case and submission of subsequent charge sheet implicating the present appellant was illegal and therefore the trial on the basis of such illegal charge sheet was also illegal. Further contention of the learned Amicus Curiae is that, even the Trial Court did not have power to order further investigation at the stage of trial. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that there was no material