The court affirmed that the testimony of a child witness can be credible and sufficient for conviction, supported by corroborative forensic evidence, establishing homicide over suicide.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.06.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, in connection with case No.ST(Type-1) 28 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of IPC with default stipulation, and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, and fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence under Section 201 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case was set in motion with the receipt of a complaint lodged by one Bakul Ranjan Dhar, the husband of the deceased wherein, it was alleged that on 29.04.2016 at about 0530 hours, he heard a sound from backside of varenda of the kitchen room. Accordingly, he went there and found his wife lying dead with a piece of rope tied in her neck and the other piece of rope tied with the bamboo of the roof. It was a strong apprehension that his wife committed suicide by way of hanging. The husband prayed for conducting an investigation. The officer-in-charge of the Police Station registered an FIR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

3. Shortly stated, the prosecution story is that, Bakul Ranjan Dhar i.e. the appellant herein had entered into wedlock with Ratna Das on 15.12.2008. After two years, they were gifted with the child namely, Rupsagar Dhar. The appellant earlier had married one Sutapa Dhar, and both of them used to torture Ratna Das. Lastly, on 29.04.2016 at about 7.00 A.M. the complainant, Shri Bhupendra Das received an information about the death of his sister, Ratna Das and he went there and found the dead body of his sister lying on the varenda of a room. On receipt of the written complaint, the Officer-in- Charge, Kumarghat Police Station registered the same as KGT P.S. Case No.26/2016 under Sections 302 /34 of IPC. It should be mentioned here that before the aforesaid complaint lodged by Shri Bhupendra Das, the appellant himself had reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge, Kumarghat Police Station regarding his wife's unnatural death on 29.04.2016 A.D. at about 5.30 A.M., and said information was received by the Police Station at 10.30 hours. The said written information was registered under Kumarghat P.S. U.D. Case No.010 of 2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Investigation was carried out and during the investigation, he recorded statements of the witnesses, seized the ropes and other articles by preparing seizure list. Inquest report was prepared at the place of occurrence. The investigating officer arranged for post mortem examination of the deceased, and sent the necessary articles to the forensic laboratory for scientific examination and thereafter, submitted charge sheet against the accused. In the process of investigation, the investigating officer (I.O, for short) apprehended the husband of the deceased i.e. Bakul Ranjan Dhar as his complicity behind the crime was surfaced, and, accordingly, he was arrested. The investigating officer submitted charge sheet against said Bakul Ranjan Dhar, under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.

4. After receipt of the record, Addl. Sessions Judge Unakoti Judicial District framed charges against the accusedappellant when the appellant claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses to substantiate the charges. On completion of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where