This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.PC against the judgment and order, dated 27.11.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 126/2011, whereby the accused appellants were convicted, under Sections 304-B IPC, and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years each.

2. Heard Mr. DK Bagchi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mrs. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam/respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No. 2.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that, the deceased Monowara Begum got married with accused No. 1 Alim Uddin on 18/09.2017 and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife. After about 2 (two) months of their marriage, the accused No. 1 and his mother, Musstt. Anwara Begum demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the deceased. The deceased came back to her parental home and informed her family members about the demand. Since they were unable to meet the demand aforesaid, she became reluctant to go back to the company of her accused husband. She stayed at her parental home for about 5 (five) months. Thereafter, she lodged an FIR with the Police, in connection with the harassment caused to her by the accused persons by way of demanding money. However, this matter was settled between herself and her accused husband on being mediated by some co-villagers. After such settlement, she went to her in-laws home. After about one month of her stay in her in-laws house, she died in unnatural circumstances.

4. On receipt of the FIR, dated 11.06.2009, on such facts, the Ram Krishna Nagar Police Station registered a case being No. 45/2009 under Section 304-B of the IPC.

5. On receipt of the case, on being committed to it, the learned Sessions Judge framed a formal charge against the accused appellants under Sections 302/34/304(B) of the IPC. The trial commenced as the accused appellants pleaded innocence.

6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the accused appellants stated that the deceased committed suicide. They denied the accusation against them.

7. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to substantiate the charges under Section 302/304-B/34 IPC. It is revealed from the evidence on record that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence.

8. Let us now scan and discuss the evidence on record to find out whether the evidence led by the prosecution has substantiated and proved the accusations levelled against the accused appellants.

9. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 Abdul Hamid and PW9 Abdul Ahad, are the brothers of the deceased, PW2, Fulon Bibi is the mother of the deceased. The rest of the witnesses knew the deceased. A bare reading of the evidence tendered on record would show that except the evidence of PW1 Abdul Hamid, PW2, Fulon Bibi and PW9 Abdul Ahad none of the witnesses have deposed to any incriminating circumstances.

10. It would be necessary to analyse the incriminating circumstances, if any, in the prosecution case.

11. PW1, Abdul Hamid, deposed that his sister (deceased) married the accused Alim Uddin on 18.3.2008 and that the first two months of their marriage was peaceful. Thereafter, the accused Alim Uddin started demanding dowry of Rs. 30,000/- from the deceased. The deceased reported the matter to PW1, and since he was unable to provide the money, it was decided that deceased would not return to the society of the accused husband, Alim Uddin. After about 5 months, when the accused husband did not take the deceased into his society, an FIR was lodged at Kalibari Police Out Post. The then Incharge of the Police Out Post along with two villagers, namely Abdul Nur and Ismail Ali settled the dispute and the deceased started residing with the accused husband. PW2 further deposed that on 11.6.2009 he heard about the death of his sister. He rushed to the residence of accused persons but on the way at Dar