JUDGMENT :

Arindam Lodh, J.

1. The challenge here is the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.02.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura Judicial District, Sonamura whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case against the appellant was launched on the basis of a complaint dated 14.05.2015 lodged to the Officer-In-Charge of Sonamura Police Station revealing that the complainant namely Purnima Rani Natta Das (PW 1) had received an information from one Santimoy Sarkar (PW 26) that her daughter was killed and her body was set on fire in her husband's house. Said Santimoy Sarkar had received the said information from one unknown person. She lodged the complaint against the husband of her daughter namely Tapas Natta, father-in-law Dasharath Natta, mother-in-law, Manju Natta and sister-in-law, Laxmi Natta. In her complaint she stated that as per demand of the accused persons at the time of marriage they gave Rs. 50,000/- cash, gold ornaments worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- and all types of furniture. Initially the marriage was happy and peaceful for about 4 to 5 months. Afterwards, the husband i.e. the appellant used to pressurize her daughter, Shipra Natta Das expressing his desire to marry again because he was involved in an illicit relationship with another girl. On 14.05.2015 her daughter was somehow killed and thereafter set her body on fire. A meeting was held at the house of her husband to resolve the disputes between the appellant and her daughter a few days before the said date of occurrence. It was also mentioned in the FIR that at the time of death her daughter was carrying 3 months pregnancy.

3. Charge was framed against all the accused persons separately. The appellant was charged under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. Against Dasharath Natta Das and Smt. Manju Rani Natta, the learned trial Judge had framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 109 of IPC.

4. After registration of the said complaint, the O.C., Sonamura Police Station endorsed the case to S.I. Tapas Malakar for investigation. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for facing trial. The police papers were committed to the jurisdictional Sessions Court and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura framed the charge as aforestated, to which the accused persons including the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charges, as many as 33 witnesses including the complainant (PW 1) were examined. That apart, 32 documentary evidences including the postmortem report (Exbt. 20 series and Exbt. 21) were brought on record as evidence.

6. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the accused persons including the appellant were separately examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. when they again raised the plea of innocence by stating that the incriminating materials as emerged in the trial are concocted and false. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated and acquitted the other accused persons since the charges leveled against them were not established.

7. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that it was a clear case of suicide. The deceased i.e. the wife of the appellant on earlier occasions also had attempted to commit suicide. The story of developing illicit relationship of the appellant with another girl is the improved version of the prosecution witnesses. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it was further revealed that the wife of the appellant never disclosed to anyone about the appellant's illicit relationship with another