Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Dharnidhar Jha JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 22nd May, 2002, and the order dated 27.05.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj has held the sole appellant guilty u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 205/2000 and has awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that the deceased Safura Khatoon was married to appellant Md. Aslam since about three years prior to the occurrence and he used to assault the deceased often. According to the fardbeyan of P.W. 9 Md. Jamal recorded by Sub-Inspector S.N. Singh of Kurli Court Police Station on 9.11.98 at 18.00 hrs. at the place of occurrence, on that date at about 12 in the noon the informant, a brother of the deceased had come back from work to take his lunch and he heard sound of quarrel and crying. He ran to the house of his brother-in-law, the appellant and saw his sister being assaulted by the appellant in a cruel manner with Danda, fists and leg. Soon his mother (P.W. 8) and brother Kamlesh, (P.W. 7) also arrived there alongwith some villagers. The deceased disclosed that she had been badly assaulted and she may not survive. Thereafter she became unconscious. She was taken for treatment to Thakurganj hospital but the doctor advised to go to Siliguri. While going to Siliguri on a jeep, the sister of the informant died in the way near Sannamati bridge. Her dead body was brought back to the house of the appellant. The informants mother looked at the back of the dead body and found marks of assault by Danda. The brother-in-law of the informant alongwith other members of the family fled away. The death had allegedly taken place at about 3 P.M. 3. After recording the fardbeyan and lodging Thakurganj (Kurli Court) Police Station Case No. 144/98, P.W. 10 Sachidanand Singh investigated the case as its Investigating Officer. He inspected the place of occurrence which was shown to be the house of the appellant. He found the dead body kept there. He prepared the inquest report. Ext. 3 and recorded the statement of witnesses. He found that the accused had absconded from his house. He sent the dead body to Kishanganj Sadar Hospital for postmortem and later collected the postmortem report, Ext. 5. He found the dead body kept there. He prepared the inquest report. Ext. 3 and recorded the statement of witnesses. He found that the accused had absconded from his house. He sent the dead body to Kishanganj Sadar Hospital for postmortem and later collected the postmortem report, Ext. 5. On finding the case true against the appellant chargesheet was submitted accordingly. After cognizance case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant denied the charge and claimed to be innocent. After trial he has been convicted and sentenced as noticed earlier. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the charge has examined altogether twelve prosecution witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1 Nasiruddin, P.W. 2 Ahmad Hussain, P.W. 3 Amna Khatoon, P.W. 4 Jumatan, P.W. 6 Jamaluddin, P.W. 8 Julekha, P.W. 9 Md. Jamal and P.W. 11 Kitab Ali have chosen not to support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile by the prosecution P.W. 5 Jamsed is a formal witness who has proved his signature on the inquest report as Ext. 1. But prosecution case rests mainly on the evidence of P.W. 7 Kamlesh who is the brother of the deceased as well as of the informant Md. Jamal, P.W. 9. In his deposition P.W. 7 has stated that the deceased Safura Khatoon was his sister who was married to appellant Aslam who had assaulted her about two years back leading to her death and at the time of her death she was pregnant. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he heard hulla at about 12 in the noon on which he ran and went to her sisters place. There his sister told him that she is not likely to survive because she has been badly assaulted by Aslam, the appellant. She begged to be taken to some other place. Thereafter, the witness has stated how she was taken to Thakurganj hospital and from there on doctors advice to Siliguri but in the way she died and the fact of her death was communicated to the Police Station. He has claimed that the statement of his brother Jamaluddin was recorded by the police and the same was read over to his brother. Thereafter, Jamal (P.W. 9) put his thumb impression on the said statement. He has claimed that the statement of his brother Jamaluddin was recorded by the police and the same was read over to his brother. Thereafter, Jamal (P.W. 9) put his thumb impression on the said statement. On the issue of recording of fardbeyan by the Sub-Inspector of Police, the same statements have been made by this witness even in cross-examination. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examnation of this witness which may throw any doubt regarding his veracity as a witness. His attention was drawn to his earlier statement where he had stated before the police that the deceased had disclosed that she would not survive as Aslam had beaten her and she should be taken to some other place. On this point the Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 has replied in paragraphs 17 and 18 of cross-examination to reveal that in the earlier statement this witness had disclosed similar utterings of the deceased while she was in injured condition except that name of Aslam was not explicit. But from the overall context showing that deceased had been assaulted at her husbands place and on her cries the witnesses including P.W. 7 had arrived there, it is apparent that P.W. 7 had rightly understood the implication of her statement alleging assault upon her by her husband. In the entire cross-examination of P.W. 7 or other witnesses it was not suggested that the deceased was assaulted at some other place or that there was any other person present in the house of the appellant who could have assaulted the deceased. 5. As noticed earlier P.W. 10 Sub-Inspector of Police Sachidanand Singh has supported the prosecution case by disclosing that he had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, read the same to P.W. 9 Md. Jamal and then obtained his thumb impression on the same. This claim of the Investigating Officer is supported by deposition of P.W. 7 Kamlesh, a brother of the informant. The Investigating Officer has also supported the place of occurrence. From his deposition it further transpires that soon after the occurrence this appellant had chosen to abscond. 6. According to P.W. 12 Raj Kishore Mishra a Compounder in Subdivisional hospital, Kishanganj, Dr. U.N. Jha had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Safura Khatoon and prepared the postmortem report but now Dr. U.N. Jha was dead. From his deposition it further transpires that soon after the occurrence this appellant had chosen to abscond. 6. According to P.W. 12 Raj Kishore Mishra a Compounder in Subdivisional hospital, Kishanganj, Dr. U.N. Jha had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Safura Khatoon and prepared the postmortem report but now Dr. U.N. Jha was dead. He has proved the postmortem report in the pen and under the signature of Dr. U.N. Jha as Ext. 5. A perusal of Ext. 5 discloses that altogether seven injuries mostly in the nature of bruise were noticed by the doctor in course of autopsy. Apparently the bruises or abrasion had been caused by hard blunt substance having a width of 3/4". Injury nos. 1 to 4 were bruises or abrasion of different lengths on the left thigh, left forearm, left elbow and on left side back of scapular region. Injury no. 5 consisted of three bruises : 5½" x 3/4", 4" 3/4" and 3/2" x 3/4" on lower portion of left side back. On dissection the doctor had found fracture of tenth and eleventh ribs on the back side and the spleen was also found ruptured. Abdominal cavity contained liquid blood and blood clotts. The uterus was found gravid and it contained a female foetus of 20 to 24 weeks size. Death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries, specially injury no. 5 which was found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 7. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the informant Md. Jamal, P.W. 9 has turned hostile although he is a brother of the deceased and therefore the entire prosecution case must be thrown out as doubtful. It has further been submitted that even the mother of the deceased P.W. 8 Julekha has not supported the prosecution case and since there are no independent witnesses available to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 7 Kamlesh, hence, the same cannot be treated sufficient in law to uphold the conviction of the appellant. 8. Although on their face the aforesaid submissions look attractive but each case has to be decided on its own facts. 8. Although on their face the aforesaid submissions look attractive but each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case it is clear and apparent from the materials on record that the deceased was wife of the appellant who was living with him and she died on the date of occurrence itself on account of serious injuries inflicted on her body as found by the doctor. It is further clear from the materials on record that the house of the informant and P.W. 7 is close to the house of the deceased or her husband and it has not been questioned that P.W. 7 could hear hulla and cries whereupon he ran to the house of his deceased sister and saw her in injured condition. He (P.W. 7) has claimed in evidence that the deceased in injured condition disclosed that she had been seriously assaulted by the appellant and it was difficult for her to survive. At this juncture it is relevant to notice that although Kitab Ali, P.W. 11, has been declared hostile because he attempted to go back upon some of his earlier statements but still in his examination-in-chief he has clearly stated that the occurrence took place three years earlier and there was an occurrence of assault between Aslam, the appellant and his wife. The defence has cross-examined this witness but only on the point that contents of inquest report were not read over to him. The defence has not questioned the disclosure made by this witness that the occurrence took place about three years earlier and there was assault between the appellant and his wife. Even the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) has disclosed in his examination-in-chief that prior to recording of the fardbeyan, at about 5 in the evening he heard a rumour that a lady had been assaulted by her husband leading to her death and this information was recorded as Station Diary Entry bearing no. 110. Clearly it was in the knowledge of people of the locality that the deceased had been assaulted by the husband. As noticed earlier, the defence has not suggested In the cross-examination of P.W. 7 or any other witness that the deceased had been or couid be assaulted in the house of the appellant by anybody else. 9. 110. Clearly it was in the knowledge of people of the locality that the deceased had been assaulted by the husband. As noticed earlier, the defence has not suggested In the cross-examination of P.W. 7 or any other witness that the deceased had been or couid be assaulted in the house of the appellant by anybody else. 9. Thus, on a careful analysis of the relevant facts it is found that although the informant Md. Jamal, P.W. 9 has chosen not to support the prosecution case, he has avoided to take a stand that he had not made any statement to the police officer. His stand is that he could not recall what he had stated to the police and that the Sub-Inspector of Police had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper. But inspite of such claim by the informant, since the evidence of the Investigating Officer, claiming that he had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and had obtained his thumb impression after reading out the same has been supported by P.W. 7 also, we have no reasons to doubt that the fardbeyan was recorded by the police officer, P.W. 10 on the basis of statement made by the informant in presence of P.W. 7. In Court P.W. 7 has clearly supported the prosecution case in all material particulars and we find no material to create any suspicion that this witness has chosen to falsely implicate the appellant for the murder of his sister. The evidence of P.W. 7 is found to be natural and wholly reliable. 10. As a husband of the deceased, the appellant who was living with her in the same house had a burden to disclose facts especially within his knowledge as to under what circumstances the deceased received injuries inside the house Jeading to her death. Such burden, in terms of Sec. 106 of the Evidence Act not only remains undischarged, a look at statement of the appellant u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows absolute lack of any reasonable and probable plea of defence to rebut presumption u/s. 114 of the Evidence Act. 11. As noticed earlier the house of both the parties are close to each other. The description of the place of occurrence and some other facts shows that the parties are poor and from lower state of the society. 11. As noticed earlier the house of both the parties are close to each other. The description of the place of occurrence and some other facts shows that the parties are poor and from lower state of the society. In such a situation we find nothing unusual if people of the neighbourhood have shown reluctance to come and depose as a witness when both parties are neighbours. The closeness of the two sides appears to be the probable reason why some of the relatives of the deceased including the informant have subsequently turned hostile. Nonetheless on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and mainly on the basis of evidence of P.W. 7 as corroborated by the Investigating Officer and the medical evidence we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. We find no good reason to reverse the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court. Hence the conviction of the appellant as made by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, it is found that besides awarding life imprisonment for the offence u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code the Trial Court has also awarded a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 but has not suggested any alternative sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. This would make the award of the fine ineffective and non-executable. Hence, the part of sentence awarding fine of Rs. 5,000.00 is set aside. 12. With this modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed.