SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Sunil Kumar Mondal in this appeal was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 Indian Penal Code by Shri S. N. Chakraborti, the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia, in the Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1985 on the charges under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, in brief, was as follows: Sunil Kumar Mondal of the village Kalabani married Sandhyarani. They had no issue although 5/6 years elapsed after their marriage but before the death of Sandhyarani, Sunil used to ill-treat his wife. Sunil used to live with his father Kumud, mother Jashoda and brother Anil in the house. He had, however a separate room where used to live with his wife Sandhyarani. On 28th September, 1982 corresponding to 11th day of Aswin 1389 B. S. Some gandagol and shouting were heard in the house of Sunil in the morning and also at about 1. 30 p. m. At about 7 p. m. on that day, Sunil informed the Chowkidar Manjura Sardar that his wife had committed suicide by hanging. The Chowkidar came to Sunils house. Other neighbours also came after hearing the talk about Sandhyaranis suicide. They found Sandhyarani hanging by a rope on her neck from the beam of Sunil's room with one of her legs on the cot and another touching the ground. The Chowkidar spent the night there and in the morning he went to the Police Station with Anil, the brother of Sunil. ( 3 ) SAHADEV, a neighbour of the accused alongwith some other persons in the night itself went to the house of the father of Sandhyarani at Baichyakuli at a distance of about 7 miles from Kalabani and reported the death of Sandhyarani there. Santosh Mondal, the brother of Sandhyarani with some others came to the house of Sunil before the day break and in the morning Santosh went to the room of Sunil and saw the hanging body of Sandhyarani with one foot on the cot and another foot on the ground. He suspected that it was not a case of suicide. In the morning he alongwith Sahadev went to the Police Station where they saw Anil and Chowkidar with the Officer-in-Charge in his office room. He suspected that it was not a case of suicide. In the morning he alongwith Sahadev went to the Police Station where they saw Anil and Chowkidar with the Officer-in-Charge in his office room. Santosh submitted a written complaint alleging that Sunil and other inmates of their house had murdered Sandhyarani but the Officer-in-charge although accepted the complaint did not give him a copy thereof endorsing therein the receipt of the original on the plea that he had already sent one Sub-Inspector, Chittaranjan Das, to Kalabani to investigate into the matter in connection with the U. D. case already started on the unnatural death of Sandhyarani. On the basis of the complaint which, according to the Officer-in-charge was given to the Sub-Inspectorchittaranjan Das in the evening of 29. 9. 82, the P. S. case No. 17 of 30. 9. 1982 was started. The Sub-Inspector Chittaranjan Das, however, already started Investigation on 29. 9. 82 and examined several witnesses including Santosh Mondal, after holding the inquest immediately after his arrival at the place of occurrence. The dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination and the report showed that Sandhyarani had several ante mortem rib fracture injuries amongst others and that the death of Sandhyarani was homicidal and not suicidal. ( 4 ) THE Investigating-Officer after completion of the investigation submitted the charge sheet against Sunil. Kumud, Jashoda and Anil. On commitment they stood charged under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code before the learned trial Judge as per the charge framed on 2nd July, 1984. On the death of Kumud and on the further submission of the learned prosecutor, the charge was substituted amended to the charges under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code against Sunil, Jashoda and Anil. ( 5 ) THE defence was the simple denial. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge on consideration of the materials in the record and the facts and circumstances as disclosed at the time of trial, found Sunil guilty under section 302 Indian Penal Code only and convicted and sentenced him as already stated. The learned trial Judge acquitted Sunil of the charge under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted Jashoda and Anil of the charges under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) MR. The learned trial Judge acquitted Sunil of the charge under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted Jashoda and Anil of the charges under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) MR. Roy appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed mistake both facts and law in convicting and sentencing the accused Sunil under section 302 Indian Penal Code in the absence of the evidence of any eye-witness about the assault by Sunil upon Sandhyarani on the date of occurrence specially when the charge under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under section 20 1/34 Indian Penal Code failed against all the accused including the appellant Sunil. Mr. Roy has further submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed mistake in placing reliance on the evidence of the hostile witness who has been discredited by the prosecution itself and on the evidence of some other witnesses whose evidence before the Court bas been found to have been contradicted by the omission of their such statements before the investigating officer. According to Mr. Roy, the evidence both oral and circumstantial in this case does not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused Sunil excluding the reasonable hypothesis of the involvement of other inmates of the house of Sunil in the killing of Sandhyarani, if it is found by the Court that Sandhyarani's death was homicidal and not suicidal. ( 8 ) MR. Mukherjee appearing for the State in his submission has supported the conviction and sentence of the accused- Appellant. P. W. 8, Dr. Sukumar Chatterjee, D. M. O. Purulia Sadar Hospital, held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sandhyarani Mondal identified by constable P. W. 10 Subhendu Patra, on 30. 9. 1982 at about 8. 30 a. m. and found he follows: 1. One continuous ligature mark (rope in situ) round the neck below the thyroid cartilage, knot on the back of the neck. 2. On dissection of thorox-found 2nd, 3rd and 4th left ribs fractured. Right ventricles ruptured with lacerated wound. Pericardium also injured. Both lungs-healthy. Thoracic cavity, fully of dark fluid blood. On dissection of neck-hycid bone in tact. Dr. Chatterjee did not find secretion of Saliva and ligature mark above thyroid cartilage, the characteristics of suicidal hanging and states that in the case of suicidal hanging hyoid bone will be fractured. Right ventricles ruptured with lacerated wound. Pericardium also injured. Both lungs-healthy. Thoracic cavity, fully of dark fluid blood. On dissection of neck-hycid bone in tact. Dr. Chatterjee did not find secretion of Saliva and ligature mark above thyroid cartilage, the characteristics of suicidal hanging and states that in the case of suicidal hanging hyoid bone will be fractured. Death, according to Dr. Chatterjee, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 2 ante mortem and homicidal in nature and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Chatterjee has further opined that the fracture of ribs may be caused by blows, by lathi, or by pressure but not by any fall from the above and that there may not be any external injury in this case because of the various garments worn by the victim. He has also opined that in the case of blows by fists or lathi, swelling and acchymosis may be expected but those signs may not occur if death takes place immediately after the assault. Dr. Chatterjee did not find any other injury besides what is noted in the post-mortem report. Dr. Chatterjee (P. W. 8) has further opined that the ligature mark will be there on the throat, if the dead body is hanged within two hours of killing. According to Dr. Chatterjee clear signs of suicidal hanging are ligature mark obliquely upwards above the thyroid cartilage and non-continuous, secretion of saliva from the mouth upto neck and chest, and these signs will be absent if a person is hanged after being killed. Secretion of saliva being vital function cannot occur after death and accordingly the same is the sure sign of hanging taking place during the life time. The evidence of Dr. Chatterjee P. W. 8 with his opinion establishes beyond any doubt that Sandhyaranis death was homicidal and not suicidal as has been tried to be shown by accused Sunil because it is Sunil who himself first informed Chowkidar (P. W. 3) Manjura Sardar, that Sandhyarani had committed suicide as per the evidence of P. W. 3 Chowkidar Manjura Sardar. The medical evidence further shows that within about two hours after the murder of Sandhyarani, her dead body was kept hanging. The medical evidence further shows that within about two hours after the murder of Sandhyarani, her dead body was kept hanging. ( 9 ) THE dead body itself cannot tie its neck with a rope and then hang itself from the wooden beam of the room of the accused Sunil to make a show of suicidal death. Somebody then has done this camouflage with the dead-body after killing Sandhyarani by inflicting the ribs fracture injuries, ventricles rupture injury and parieadium injury on her person. Who is that assailant then? Prosecution says it is Sunil, the husband of Sandhyarani. Let us now see if prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused Sunil beyond any shadow of doubt. ( 10 ) WE have already shown that accused Sunil made a false statement to P. W. 3 Chowkidar, Manjura Sardar by saying that Sandhyarani committed suicide by suppressing the well established fact of the murder of Sandhyarani. Placing reliance of the decision in the case of Penhadi v. State of U. P. , we are justified to draw adverse inference against the accused Sunil in relation to the crime of murder of Sandhyarani. ( 11 ) P. W. 7, Santosh Mondal, the brother of Sandhyarani, has stated in his evidence that whenever Sandhyarani used to visit their house, she used to complain that her husband used to ill treat her. The evidence of this witness does not show that Sandhyarani complained against any other inmate of her husbands house about the ill-treatment. P. W. 2, Sahadev who is a neighbour has stated, however, that inmates of the house of Sunil used to ill-treat Sandhyarani and that sometime Sunil used to assault Sandhyarani. The medical evidence of Dr. Chatterjee has shown that Sandhyarani sustained the ante mortem fatal fracture injuries from the assault which no doubt followed from the ill-treatment meted out to her by some one in the house of her husband. The husband being the perpetrator of the ill-treatment and the occasional assault-one can reasonably hold the husband Sunil, responsible for the assault upon Sandhyarani on the date of occurrence when the evidence of P. W. 1 and other witnesses has proved the presence of Sunil in the house on that date and specially from 1. The husband being the perpetrator of the ill-treatment and the occasional assault-one can reasonably hold the husband Sunil, responsible for the assault upon Sandhyarani on the date of occurrence when the evidence of P. W. 1 and other witnesses has proved the presence of Sunil in the house on that date and specially from 1. 30 p m. when Sunil was seen with a thenga in his hand and shouts were being heard in his house, although there is no eye witness to the actual assault upon Sandhyarani. The dead body of Sandhyarani was found banging in the room of accused Sunil by P. W. 1, Sudhangshu Das, P. W. 2, Sahadev Das, P. W. 3, Chowkidar Manjura Sardar, P. W. 7, Santosh Mondal and the Investigating Officer Chittaranjan Das as per the inquest report. They found also one leg of the banging dead-body of Sandhyarani rested on the cot and other leg touching the ground, according to some witnesses, and just above the ground according to other P. W. 2 Sahadev is a neighbour of accused Sunil. The house of Sahadev is about 150/200 Cubits away from the house of Sunil. P. W. 2 has stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 1/1-30 p. m. , he went to the Bishnu Mandir near the house of the accused to take rest after taking his meal. He heard shouts coming from inside the house of Sunil. He came and saw the door of the room of Sunil closed from inside. From the shouts coming from inside the room of Sunil. P. W. 2 thought that Sandhyarani was being assaulted. P. W. 2 returned to his house when he saw the door of Sunils room closed from inside. According to his evidence, there were some boys only at Rishnu Mandir when he heard the shouts. P. W. 2 did not tell this fact to any body as according to hm such thing used to happen frequently. At about 7. 30 p. m. , after hearing the row of Sandbyarani's suicide, he came to Sunil's ghar and saw the hanging dead body of Sandhyarani with one foot on the cot and another on the ground. P. W. 2 did not tell this fact to any body as according to hm such thing used to happen frequently. At about 7. 30 p. m. , after hearing the row of Sandbyarani's suicide, he came to Sunil's ghar and saw the hanging dead body of Sandhyarani with one foot on the cot and another on the ground. ( 12 ) P. W. 1 Sudhangshu Das who was declared hostile after his examination-in-chief in part, has stated in his evidence that his two storied house is intervened by on wall from the house of accused Sunil, and that inside of the house of Sunil is visible from his house. His evidence further shows that inmates of the house of the accused had gandogol with Sandhyarani on the date of occurrence from the morning and that such gandogol used to take place between them every 3/4 days. His evidence further shows that be heard shout from the room of Sunil at about 1/30 p. m. when was in his house and that when the shouting was going on, he went to the roof of his house and saw Sunil moving about in his courtyard with a thenga (lathi like something) in his hand and that he did not see anyone else thereto move about like Sunil. The evidence of P. W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 2 to the extent that about 1. 30 p. m. , shouts were being heard from inside the house of Sunil. The medical evidence has shown that the fracture injuries and other injuries on the person of Sandhyarani might have been caused by the lathi-which may be the Thenga. ( 13 ) THE find of the dead body of Sandhyarani in the room of Sunil with a camouflage of its being hanged from the wooden beam, the shouts from inside the room of Sunil at about 1. ( 13 ) THE find of the dead body of Sandhyarani in the room of Sunil with a camouflage of its being hanged from the wooden beam, the shouts from inside the room of Sunil at about 1. 30 P. M. and the sight of Sunil with the thenga in his hand in the courtyard at that time on the date of occurrence together with the previous history of ill-treatment and assault upon Sandhyarani by Sunil and the false statement by Sunil to P. W. 3, Chowkidar Manjura Sardar about Sandhyaranis alleged suicide by suppressing the fact of murder are the established circumstances which conclusively prove without any doubt that it was Sunil who assaulted Sandhyarani to death, excluding every reasonable hypothesis, of the innocence of the accused Sunil. ( 14 ) MR. Roy has submitted that no reliance should be placed on the evidence of the hostile witness P. W. 1 who has been discredited by the prosecution itself by declaring him hostile. The well established principle of law in this respect has been enunciated in Prafulla Kr. Sarkar and another v. Emperor2 and in Bhagawan Singh v. State of Haryana3. In 35 CWN 731 it has been observed: The fact that a witness is dealt with under section 154 of the Evidence Act even when under that section he is TCross-Examined to credit, in no way warrants a direction to the jury that they are bound in law to place no reliance on his evidence, or that the party who called and cross-examined him can take no advantage from any part of his evidence. There is more over no rule of law that if a jury thinks that a witness has been discredited on one point they may not give credit to him on another. The rule of law is that it is for the jury to say. There is no rule of law, that the evidence of a witness who has been treated as hostile must be rejected either in whole or in part, or that it must be rejected so far as it favours the party calling the witness or so far as it favours the opposite party. In A. I. R. 1976 SC. There is no rule of law, that the evidence of a witness who has been treated as hostile must be rejected either in whole or in part, or that it must be rejected so far as it favours the party calling the witness or so far as it favours the opposite party. In A. I. R. 1976 SC. 202 it has been held: But the fact that the court gave permission to the prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness, thus characterizing him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible to the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. ( 15 ) IT has already been shown that the evidence of P. W. 1 Sudhangshu Das (hostile witness) has been corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 2 and medical evidence on salient points. It is true that same evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 7 before the court has been contradicted by their omission in their statement before the Investigating Officer. Mention may be made here that those omissions are not on vital points and that the 1. 0. Chittaranjan Das recorded the statements of different witnesses on 29. 9. 1982 in connection with the V. D. case started on the information of suicidal death of Sandhyarani in the Police Station by Anil the brother of Sunil on 29. 9. 1982 and such statements were treated as statements recorded in the P. S. Case No. 17 of 30. 9. 1982 registered on the information regarding the murder of Sandhyarani and it may be that the 1. 0. did not record all the detailed statements of witnesses. Such being the position, the reliance on the evidence of them witnesses before the court has been rightly placed by the learned trial Judge who has believed also the same. In view of what has been discussed above, we find that the learned trial judge has not committed any mistake in finding the accused Sunil guilty under section 302 Indian Penal Code and convicting and sentencing him in the way he has done. Against the acquittal of the accused Sunil on the charge under section 201/ 34 Indian Penal Code, there has been no appeal. So we refrain from expressing our opinion over the same. Against the acquittal of the accused Sunil on the charge under section 201/ 34 Indian Penal Code, there has been no appeal. So we refrain from expressing our opinion over the same. ( 16 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the accused Sunil are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.