Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Legal Aid counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 128/2014 whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304B IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant, who is the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR on 09.04.2009 before the officer in-charge, Barpeta road police station stating inter alia that it has been more than seven years since the marriage of his younger sister Lakhi Saha (Sutradhar) with the appellant Uttam Kumar Sutradhar, the appellant used to torture his sister in various ways by demanding dowry articles since their marriage. On 08.04.2009, at about 9.30 pm, the appellant along with his family members poured kerosene oil on his younger sister and set fire to her inside the room of the appellant and locked the door from outside. Having heard the scream of his sister, someone entered the room by breaking the wall and rescued his sister and took her to Barpeta Road Civil Hospital. Then, she was referred to Gauhati Medical College Hospital and she was brought to GMCH in critical condition and she died on the next morning i.e. on 09.04.2009.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Barpeta Road PS Case No. 57/09 under Section 304B/34 IPC and the investigation has been initiated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses. The inquest was done on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was forwarded to the civil hospital Barpeta for post mortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 304 B IPC before the SDJM(S), Barpeta. As the offence under Section 304(B) IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial, charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 302/304B IPC which was read over and explained to the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case against the accused appellant, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and exhibited seven documents. The defence also examined one witness i.e. son of the appellant and the deceased. After completion of trial, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating material found in the evidence of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same. According to the appellant, he has been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the appellant was convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is one eye witness to the incident i.e. DW-1, who is the son of the deceased and the appellant. If the court considers the evidence of DW-1, there is no case against the appellant that he had committed murder of his wife. Though the informant has alleged that since after the marriage between the appellant and the deceased there was allegation of demand of dowry and assault towards his deceased sister but it is not specifically stated by the informant and other witnesses that when the demand was made by the appellant, payment of such dowry articles and the deceased has been tortured both physically and mentally.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction of the appellant and submits that though the charge was framed under Section 302/304B IPC however, the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta has convicted the accused/a