JUDGMENT :

M.R. Pathak, J.

Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I A Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. Makhan Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 137(N)/2013, by which he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further term of Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year, the convicted accused, namely, Md. Idrish Ali @ Ilias Ahmed has preferred this appeal.

3. According to the appellant, there was no eye witness to the incident and the learned Trial Court failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict him under Section 302 IPC.

4. It is also contended by the appellant that the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence led by the prosecution does not disclose any offence under Section 302 IPC, that was misread by the Trial Court and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC needs to be set aside and quashed.

5. The accused appellant further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that in absence of any conclusive evidence against him with regard to the death of the victim, that was consequent to suicide committed by her and therefore, the learned Trial Judge committed illegality in convicting him under Section 302 IPC. As such, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge without any reliable evidence needs to be set aside and quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State submits that there are sufficient evidence on record proved by the prosecution with regard to the guilt of the accused and that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not call for any interference.

7. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased was the wife of the accused appellant and they were married for about 2½ months. The informant, father of the deceased PW.1 Mazibur Rahman on 30.12.2012 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Dhing Police Station stating that his daughter Ms. Parbin Sultana was given marriage to the accused about 2½ months back and a social marriage took place between them. In the said marriage, he had given some materials with his daughter as dowry and after some days of the said marriage, the accused started torturing his daughter, wife of the accused to the extreme extent and demanded cash amount of Rs.50,000/-. In the said FIR, the informant also stated that a week prior to the date of the incident, the accused assaulted his daughter and left her in the paternal home and after consoling her he took his daughter to her matrimonial home four days prior to the incident and explained to the accused as well as the family members of the accused that he being a poor person is unable to meet the demand of the accused. He further alleged that while hearing the same from the informant, the accused threatened to kill his daughter if the demand is not fulfilled within four days and around 08:00 am on the previous of the incident day his daughter informed him over phone that the accused persons tortured her and also threatened that they would kill her if he (the informant father of the deceased) fails to give them the demanded amount of Rs.50,000/-within the night itself and on hearing that he told her that he would go to her matrimonial home in the next morning. But on 30.12.2012 morning itself, he received information that the accused persons had killed his daughter Parbin Sultana.

9. In his FIR