The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence, the reversed burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the duty of the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the crime.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Heard learned counsel Mr. N. Uddin appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M. Phukan, appearing for the State respondent and also Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2019 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon. All the four appellants stood convicted by the said judgment under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Arjuma was married to the appellant Imamul Haque about 12/13 years before the occurrence. After the marriage, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and the in-laws. On 27.12.2007, the appellants and few others named in the FIR tortured the deceased physically and killed her. Though the appellants tried to suppress the incident, the father of the deceased came to know about the occurrence and lodged the FIR (Ext. 5). On the basis of the said FIR, police registered Juria P.S. Case No. 205/2007 under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC and, upon completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC.

4. During trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC to which the appellants pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellants. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the appellants took the plea of innocence and stated that the deceased committed suicide by jumping from the latrine when she was found in compromising position with one Abdul Samad (pw6). The appellants also examined one witness as DW1 in support of their defence put up during examination under Section 313 Cr.PC.

6. Asmat Ali, father of the deceased, was examined as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that the deceased Arjuma was given in marriage with the appellant Imamul Haque and she was blessed with a girl child out of the wedlock with the appellant Imamul. On the date of the occurrence, his another daughter Asma Khatun (PW4), who was residing near the house of the deceased, informed him that the appellant Imamul killed Arjuma by beating her with a stick. Immediately, he came to the house of the appellants, accompanied with Rahul, Ansarul and Nuruddin (PW2) and found the deceased Arjuma lying dead on the floor inside the room. He further stated to have noticed injury on the body of the deceased. He also stated that one year before the occurrence, Imamul tried to kill her by pouring kerosene on her. After the said incident, he brought the deceased to his house, and after about 20/22 days, again he sent back the deceased to her matrimonial home at the intervention of her in-laws. During crossexamination of this witness, it was elicited that he did not state before the police regarding Asma (PW4) informing him that accused Imamul killed the deceased Arjuma by assaulting her with a lathi (stick). Suggestion was also put to this witness by the defence that the deceased Arjuma committed suicide, which he denied.

7. Pw2, Nuriddin, testified that having come to know about the occurrence from his wife, he went to the place of occurrence along with PW1, PW3 and one Anisidul and on reaching the house of the appellants, he found the deceased Arjuma lying supine on the floor inside the house of the accused. He also stated that except the father of the accused Imamul, other members of the family were not available at home. During cross examination of this witness, it was elicited that he heard of frequent quarrel taking place between the deceased and her husband Imamul.

8. Pw3, Jehirul Islam, deposed, that he went to the place o