The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistency in dying declarations and the need for corroboration from other evidence in cases of alleged abetment of suicide.

This appeal is filed by four appellants, namely, Sri Santosh Deb, Sri Ajit Deb, Smt. Radha Rani Deb and Smt. Sati Rani Deb challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura, in ST 53(WT/K) of 2011 convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC and sentencing the appellant Santosh Deb to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- , i.d. to suffer further SI for one month. The other appellants were sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to suffer further SI for one month.

2. Heard Mr. Ratan Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. RC Debnath, learned Addl. PP for the State.

3. Prosecution case in brief is as follows:

One Gobinda Chowdhury, PW 2, lodged a typed complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Khowai Police Station on 10.02.2011 alleging that the marriage of his daughter Sohagan Chowdhury was solemnized with accused Santosh Deb about one year six months back. Out of their wedlock, the victim deceased gave birth to a son and thereafter, her mother in law, Smt. Radha Rani Deb and her husband Santosh Deb started torture on her demanding Rs. 20,000/- and one Fridge. On 07.02.2011 at about 1.30 a.m. in the dead night the accused Ajit Deb went to the house of PW 9, Sri Ajit Deb, son in law of the informant and reported that the daughter of the informant Sohagan Chowdhury had sustained burn injuries due to burst of kerosene stove. Accordingly, PW 9 rushed to the house of the informant, PW 2 and reported the matter to his family members and the informant received the information over telephone at his place of work at Churaibari. Thereafter, the son of the informant, Ranjit Chowdhury, PW 1 and his son in law Ajit Deb, PW 9 visited the house of the accused persons at Mahadeb Tilla and came to know that Sohagan was shifted to Khowai Hospital and he realized that there was a conspiracy behind the incident and he also noticed that in the courtyard of the house there was some burnt bunch of hair and from their smell of kerosene was coming and then they asked Manoranjan Deb, father in law of the victim and came to know that on 06.02.2011 in the night at about 11.00 p.m. the incident took place. Subsequently, his son PW 1 and his son in law PW 9 along with their two companions, namely, Sri Sajit Das and Sri Kamini Debnath, (PW 8) went to Khowai Hospital and came to know that victim Sohagan was shifted to GB Hospital. Then they, along with their said companions went to GB Hospital and found that Sohagan was fighting with death. There the son of the informant Ranjit (PW 2) had a discussion with Sohagan at GB Hospital and came to know that her husband and matrimonial relatives collectively poured kerosene oil and set her on fire and thus attempted to kill her.

4. It was also mentioned in the FIR that about a week prior to the incident, Sohagan telephoned her brother Ranjit and requested him to arrange money immediately otherwise her husband would not let her to live in that house and would kill her. The delay in lodging the FIR has also been explained stating inter alia, that due to engagement in treatment of the victim he could not file the FIR in time.

5. On the basis of the said complaint/FIR a specific police case was started and on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 498A/306 IPC against the accused persons. As the alleged offence was triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed by the learned SDJM, Khowai.

6. The learned trial court after hearing the accused persons framed charges against them under Section 304B IPC and proceeded with the trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and also relied upon some documents which were marked as Exhibit 1 to 9. The accused appellants in their defence adduced no evidence as their case before the trial court was of total denial.

7. Learned trial court, on completion of recording of eviden