The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.01.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Abhimanyu Pandit (P.W. 3), recorded by the Officer-in-Charge, Borio Police Station in the district of Sahibganj on 12.09.1998, at round 5.00 P.M. alleging therein that his wife Urmila Devi has left the house on 11.09.1998 at 7.00 A.M. and since then, she is missing. The informant has further alleged that he got information that his wife has illicit relationship with co-villager Anil Pandit, for which both were scolded but there was no improvement in her behaviour. The informant has further alleged that this fact is known to his sons namely Dilip Kumar Pandit aged about 12 years and Pradip Kumar Pandit, aged about 10 years and also to co-villagers namely Keso Pandit, Rajindra Pandit and others.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, police has registered Borio P.S. Case No. 118 of 1998 dated 12.09.1998 under Sections 497 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Anil Pandit.

4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused vide charge sheet no. 100 of 1998, dated 31.10.1998 initially under Sections 366 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently sections 366 and 497 have been changed to Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.11.1998 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.03.1999.

6. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 23.05.2000, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial.

7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether eleven witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence up to Exhibit-4. Mrs. Sunita Prasad, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W. 1, who has proved the injury report of the victim, which has been marked as Exhibit-1. Urmila Devi, wife of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 2, Abhimanyu Pandit, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 3, Dilip Kumar Pandit, son of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 4, Keso Pandit and Rajindra Pandit, co-villagers, who have also put their left thumb impression on the fardbeyan, have been examined as P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 respectively, Ulesh Pandit and Manikchand Pandit have been examined as P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 respectively and have been declared hostile by the prosecution, Jeewan Lal Pandit, co-villager, has been examined as P.W. 9, Ram Lalit Prasad Singh, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 10 and Rajesh Pandit, cousin of the victim, has been examined as P.W. 11.

8. The prosecution has also adduced four documentary evidence in support of its case. The injury report of the victim has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, signature of Abhimanyu Pandit (P.W. 3) on his fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3 and formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2003, where he has denied about the occurrence and has claimed himself to be innocent.

10. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court