Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 297 (GAU)

Ajit Chakraborty v. State of Tripura

2010-04-28

H.BARUAH, H.N.SARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. In challenge is the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6-11-2003 passed in Case No. ST 19 (ST/U) of 2003 by Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, whereby and whereunder appellant Ajit Chakraborty was alone convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. Appellant was, however, not found guilty though a charge was framed against him under Section 304B, IPC and accordingly acquitted. It would also be appropriate to refer that the above case was also tried against one Saraju Bala Chakraborty, mother of the present appellant under the charges indicated above. The trial Court, however, did not record a conviction against Saraju Bala Chakraborty for want of evidence. 2. The facts leading to this present appeal, in a short campus, may be described as under: Deceased Sabita Chakraborty was the daughter of Narayan Chakraborty and Smt. Anjali Chakraborty of Maicherra under Belonia police station and she was given in marriage with the present appellant on 6th August, 2000 - as per Hindu rites. After the marriage Sabita was taken to her matrimonial home situated at Tulamura and started conjugal life with the appellant. In her matrimonial home she had other in-laws, namely, Saraju Bala Chakraborty (accused acquitted by the trial Court) and Ashutosh Chakraborty, younger brother of Ajit, the present appellant. On 18-7-2002 at about 13-40 hours the Officer-in-charge of Kakraban police out post received an information over VHF from BSF camp, Tulamura that there had been an occurrence of unnatural death of a woman named Sabita Chakraborty. The information so received was entered in the General Diary of the out post vide No. 521 dated 18-7-2002. Pranab Debnath, who was then Officer-in-charge of Kakraban police out post rushed to the spot where he received a written information (Ext. 4) from the present appellant wherein it was stated that his wife Sabita Chakraborty was found dead with burn injuries in front of the latrine of one of his neighbours. Mr. Debnath conducted inquest on the dead body of Sabita Chakraborty in presence of the witnesses and prepared an inquest report (Ext.1). He also caused seizure of one burnt Matchbox, matchsticks and one Aluminium Ghoti from the place of occurrence under a seizure memo (Ext.5) in presence of the witnesses. Mr. Debnath conducted inquest on the dead body of Sabita Chakraborty in presence of the witnesses and prepared an inquest report (Ext.1). He also caused seizure of one burnt Matchbox, matchsticks and one Aluminium Ghoti from the place of occurrence under a seizure memo (Ext.5) in presence of the witnesses. The photographer; who accompanied him also took snaps of the dead body before conducting inquest. Thereafter the dead body was dispatch to Tripura Sundari District Hospital morgue for post mortem examination. Mr. Debnath when revisited the police out post entered the written information lodged by Ajit Chakraborty in the general diary of the out post vide entry No. 533 dated 18-7-2002 which was later forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of R. K. Pur Police station for registration of a case. The In-charge R. K. Pur Police station, Mr. Milan Dutta, Sub Inspector of police on receipt of the information so forwarded registered a UD Case under Section 174, Cr. P. C. being No. 38 of 2002. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Sabita Chakraborty was conducted by Dr. K. L. Bhowmik (PW-7) of Tripura Sundari District Hospital, Udaipur. On 20-7-2002 Smt. Anjali Chakraborty, mother of the deceased lodged a written ejahar (Ext.-2) with the Officer-in-charge of R. K. Pur Police station which had been registered as R. K. Pur Police Case No. 183 of 2002 under Section 304B, IPC and endorsed the investigation with Sri Pranab Debnath, Officer-in-charge of Kakraban police out post. In course of investigation Mr. Debnath arrested the present appellant on 20-7-2002. He also prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext. 6) indicating the important locations/places and examined some material witnesses. Viscera of the deceased were also collected from Dr. Bhowmik (PW-7) on 26-7-2002 for further investigation. On 10-8-2002 Mr. Debnath, handed over the charge of investigation to Mr. P. Dey, Sub Divisional Police Officer (for short SDPO) (PW-9), Udaipur for completion of the investigation. Mr. Dey during the course of investigation also examined some more witnesses and procured the post mortem examination report. On completion of the investigation Mr. Dey (PW-9) submitted a charge sheet against Ajit Chakraborty, the husband of the deceased and Smt. Saraju Bala Chakraborty, the mother-in-law of the deceased under Section 304B read with Section 34, IPC. Mr. Dey during the course of investigation also examined some more witnesses and procured the post mortem examination report. On completion of the investigation Mr. Dey (PW-9) submitted a charge sheet against Ajit Chakraborty, the husband of the deceased and Smt. Saraju Bala Chakraborty, the mother-in-law of the deceased under Section 304B read with Section 34, IPC. It was also in the First Information Report (Ext.2) lodged by the mother of the victim that appellant Ajit Chakraborty, his mother and sister started ill treatment both mental and physical on Sabita Chakraborty on account of her failure to satisfy their dowry demand which compelled her to stay apart from her husband and the in-laws before coming to her matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the husband and her in-laws demanded 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) from the parents of the deceased. On account of her failure to satisfy their demand it was further alleged that she had been killed by her husband and her family members and thereafter ablazed her to convince others that she committed suicide by burning herself. 3. Case was committed to the Court of Session for trial of the appellant and his mother Saraju Bala Chakraborty. The trial Court having considered the materials placed before it framed charge against the present appellant, Ajit Chakraborty and his mother Saraju Bala Chakraborty under Section 302/ 304B, IPC. Both pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. It is noticed that prosecution to bring home the charge brought 10 (ten) witnesses including the Dr. K. L. Bhowmik and two I. Os., namely, Pradip Dey and Pranab Debnath. Defence also examined 4(four) defence witnesses. The trial Court on the basis of the materials and evidence available on record recorded a conviction against the present appellant under Section 302, IPC alone. Insufficiency of evidence led to acquittal of accused Saraju Bala Chakraborty, the mother-in-law of the deceased under both the charges under Section 302/304B, IPC. Trial Court also recorded acquittal of the present appellant under the charge 304B, IPC. 4. Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P. P. assisted by Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned special P. P. were heard at length. 5. Trial Court also recorded acquittal of the present appellant under the charge 304B, IPC. 4. Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P. P. assisted by Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned special P. P. were heard at length. 5. Issue before us is whether on the basis of the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record both oral and documentary the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court can be interfered with. On this issue Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant very strenuously argued that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence impugned cannot sustain in law inasmuch as the evidence on record are totally insufficient to record a guilt of the appellant under Section 302, IPC. It was argued that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence and the circumstances appearing in the face of the record cumulatively also failed to indicate the complicity of the appellant with the crime. It was argued further by Mr. Bhowmik that deceased died as a result of burn injuries. Her dead body was discovered in front of the latrine of one of the neighbours namely, Nidhu Baidya (DW-2) situated at a distance of 50 cubic feet away from the residence of the appellant. The seizure of the matchbox, matchsticks together with an aluminium Ghoti from the place of occurrence, it was argued, also indicate that Sabita committed suicide by sprinkling/pouring kerosene oil on her body and thereafter setting ablaze herself. Taking aid of evidence of PW-10 it was argued by Mr. Bhowmik that deceased committed suicide at the place where from her dead body was discovered. The aluminium Ghoti that seized along with matchbox and sticks emanated smell of kerosene oil. Recovery of those articles from the place of occurrence unerringly gives an inference/indication that the deceased committed suicide at the place. Now, let us see whether argument advanced by Mr. Bhowmik has a bearing in it in view of the testimony of doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 6. Dr. Kanulal Bhowmik (P. W.7) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sabita. Now, let us see whether argument advanced by Mr. Bhowmik has a bearing in it in view of the testimony of doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 6. Dr. Kanulal Bhowmik (P. W.7) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sabita. His evidence reveals that he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Sabita Chakraborty on being identified by constable Digbijoy Roy (PW-6) on 19-7-2002 in between 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. at Tripura Sundari District Hospital morgue. During autopsy he did find as follows: 1. 50% burn of the body, from head to leg and only in front of head, neck, chest, abdomen, thigh and legs. 2. Burns are muscle deep and charred. 3. No line of redness at the margin of burn and no vescication found in any of the superficial and deep part of burn area. 4. The burn line is linear and vertically downward at the level of anterior scapular line from head to foot separating the anterior aspect of burnt and posterior aspect of non-burnt area. 5. The back of the body shows no signs of burn from occiput to leg. 6. Both the palms and the feet do not show any signs of burn. 7. Fracture of thyroid cartilage of larynx noted. 8. Multiple haemorrhagic points, oedema and congestion in endolaryngeal mucase noted. 9. The vocal cords are congested. 10. Blood and blood clot noted in the cavity of larynx, and trickling down in urinal pipe. 11. The tongue is protruded and bitten by the incissers. 12. Rigor mortis is present. On the basis of these discoveries, PW-7 opined the cause of death of the deceased as under: In my opinion the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of air way obstruction caused by throttling which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The burn injuries are post mortem in nature. The probable age of death was within 36 hours from the post mortem examination. PW-7 after autopsy incorporating all these discoveries submitted a report (Ext.3). Now, in the face of the evidence of PW-7 whether the argument advanced by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik that the deceased committed suicide by burning herself can be accepted. The probable age of death was within 36 hours from the post mortem examination. PW-7 after autopsy incorporating all these discoveries submitted a report (Ext.3). Now, in the face of the evidence of PW-7 whether the argument advanced by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik that the deceased committed suicide by burning herself can be accepted. It is already indicated in the evidence of PW-7 that the burn injuries discovered rather found on the dead body of the deceased were all post mortem in nature that means after the death of the deceased burn injuries were caused. Further it is also indicated that deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of airway obstruction caused by throttling which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. These two opinions based on the discoveries found on the dead body together go to show that the deceased died as a result of throttling which caused asphyxia on account of air way obstruction and thereafter burn injuries were caused on the dead body. Doctor's evidence, therefore, thus reduces the tempo of the argument advanced by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik that deceased committed suicide by burning herself. The opinion of the PW7 completely negates the argument of Mr. A. C. Bhowmik in the context of death of the deceased. Now, the pertinent question next comes who caused the death of the deceased Sabita Chakraborty. It was opined by the doctor (PW-7) that death was within 36 hours from the post mortem examination. Post mortem examination was conducted on 19-7-2002 in between 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. In Ext. 4, the information in writing lodged by the appellant himself indicates that Sabita Chakrabory died on 18-7-2002 at about 12.30 p.m. From the evidence of Anjali Chakraborty (PW-1) and her First Information Report, Ext. 2, it has become crystal clear that about seven days before the death of Sabita Chakraborty, she herself and her brother-in-law Jiban Chakraborty put deceased Sabita Chakraborty in her matrimonial home when Ashutosh Chakraborty, brother-in-law of Sabita Chakraborty was present. Her evidence also goes to show that deceased Sabita Chakraborty left her matrimonial home on account of torture, ill treatment both mental and physical for her failure to satisfy their dowry demand. Her evidence also goes to show that deceased Sabita Chakraborty left her matrimonial home on account of torture, ill treatment both mental and physical for her failure to satisfy their dowry demand. Sabita, the deceased, showed reluctance to come back to her matrimonial home when she (PW-1) and her brother-in-law Jiban Chakraborty insisted her to go back to her matrimonial home to resume conjugal life because of her apprehension that she would be killed by her husband and her in- laws for her failure to satisfy their demand. It is also in her evidence that they were intimated to visit the house of the appellant saying that deceased Sabita Chakraborty was ill. They also provided a vehicle for them to come to their residence. Recovery of dead body by the side of the latrine of the house of the Nidhu Baidya has not been disputed. There is also no dispute that there was no burn injuries on the body of the deceased. The sketch map (Ext. 6) prepared by PW-10 indicates the distance between the house of the appellant and the place where the dead body of Sabita was discovered. House of the appellant has been indicated by letter 'P' while the place of discovery of the dead body is indicated by letter 'A'. Letter 'B' indicates the kachha latrine. Ext. 6, sketch map, however, does not indicate the place marked by Index A adjacent to the house of the appellant marked by Index-P. PW-1, Anjali Chakraborty, the mother of the deceased in her evidence stated that her daughter's dead body was found lying about 50 cubits away from the house of the appellant. There is no evidence forthcoming that during the relevant period deceased Sabita Chakraborty was not in the accompaniment of her husband Ajit Chakraborty, the appellant. Evidence of PW-1 without any ambiguity reveals that deceased Sabita during the relevant time stayed at her matrimonial home. Defence by adducing the defence evidence tried to show a cordial relation between the husband Ajit and Sabita, his wife. They have also not denied about the death of Sabita Chakraborty. Neither of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case reveals that the in-laws of the deceased were living separately from Sabita and the appellant. Defence by adducing the defence evidence tried to show a cordial relation between the husband Ajit and Sabita, his wife. They have also not denied about the death of Sabita Chakraborty. Neither of the prosecution witnesses examined in this case reveals that the in-laws of the deceased were living separately from Sabita and the appellant. In absence of such evidence there can be absolutely no finding that Sabita, the deceased did not stay during the relevant period of time with her husband and in-laws under the same roof. It is found from the evidence of DW-2 Nidhu Baidhya that on the relevant night he allowed Ashutosh Chakraborty and his mother Saraju Bala Chakraborty to stay in his house for the night. He stated in his evidence that he used to stay with his family members at Takdung village. The house situated in the village of appellant thus remained vacant wherein Ashutosh Chakraborty and his mother were allowed to stay for the night. No reason has been indicated in the evidence of Nidhu Baidya (DW-2) what prompted Ashutosh Chakraborty and his mother to stay away from their original home on the relevant night. On this point it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that this piece of evidence has been introduced through the mouth of DW-2 only to give an impression in the mind of ordinary prudent man that neither of the family members was involved in the killing of Sabita Chakraborty. 7. In the context of stayal of the deceased at her matrimonial home we also find evidence of PW-2, Sri Purnendu Chakraborty, brother-in-law of PW-1, PW-3, Sri Narayan Chakraborty, father of the deceased in particular. PW-2 in his evidence categorically stated that on account of ill treatment by the appellant and her in-laws to deceased Sabita Chakraborty on account of her failure to satisfy their dowry demand she returned to her parental home. On 19-7-2002, PW-1 along with her two son-in-laws and daughter had been to his house and informed the fact of death of Sabita at her matrimonial home. He along with Anjali Chakraborty visited R. K. Pur police station and narrated details of death of Sabita. This piece of evidence unerringly goes to show that at the relevant point of time deceased Sabita Chakraborty stayed at her matrimonial home. He along with Anjali Chakraborty visited R. K. Pur police station and narrated details of death of Sabita. This piece of evidence unerringly goes to show that at the relevant point of time deceased Sabita Chakraborty stayed at her matrimonial home. PW-3, Narayan Chakraborty, father of the deceased also in the same tune stated that Sabita, his daughter, the deceased at the time of her death was in the residence of Ajit Chakraborty, her husband. If the evidence of PW-1 together with PW-2 and PW-3 cumulatively read together it would undisputedly reveal that Sabita Chakraborty, the deceased at the time of her death stayed at her matrimonial home. This fact is also, however, not denied by the appellant that Sabita Chakraborty, the deceased did not stay at his residence during the relevant point of time. The most interesting aspect of the matter is in respect of separate living of co-accused Smt. Saraju Bala Chakraborty, the mother of the appellant along with her other son namely, Ashutosh Chakraborty in the house of Nidhu Baidya, DW-2 on the very night. It was argued by the learned P. P. appearing for the State respondent that such evidence has been introduced to negate the possibility of involvement rather complicity of the appellant and co-accused with the crime. On this point it was argued by the learned P. P. that no alibi had been taken by the appellant to prove that the appellant on the relevant night was absent from home, his inaction to do so together with the fact of stayal of co-accused Smt. Saraju Bala Chakraborty and her other son in the house of DW-2 gives an indication that they had the hands in killing of Sabita Chakraborty on the alleged day and time. Earlier it has been discussed that the claim of the defence that Sabita Chakraborty committed suicide has been disproved by the evidence of PW-7. Dr. Kanu Lal Bhowmik who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sabita Chakraborty. Per his evidence death was due to asphyxia as a result of closure of airway by throttling. Such injury was discovered during autopsy. It was opined that the same were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Further he also opined that burn injuries so discovered were post-mortem in nature. Per his evidence death was due to asphyxia as a result of closure of airway by throttling. Such injury was discovered during autopsy. It was opined that the same were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Further he also opined that burn injuries so discovered were post-mortem in nature. Therefore, from the evidence and opinion of the doctor one cannot safely arrive at a decision that Sabita Chakraborty, the wife of the appellant committed suicide by sprinkling Kerosene Oil on her body and ablazing herself, rather, a prudent man on the basis of evidence of PW-7 would go to say rather claim that Sabita Chakraborty was killed by assailant(s). therefore, there cannot be a second opinion on the death of the deceased Sabita Chakraborty. 8. Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel representing the appellant in the context of acceptance of evidence of PW-7 very strenuously argued that his evidence cannot be accepted and acted upon since autopsy was not conducted by a team of doctors at least two as required under the notification of Government of India. It was argued by him that in the face of fact of such death, it is always prudent to get the deceased examined by a team of doctor's having expertise in the line. This being not done so, evidence of PW-7 cannot reinforce that Sabita was killed by assailant(s). In a number of cases of this nature we have seen/noticed that autopsy is conducted generally by a medical officer expert in the line unless otherwise required an examination by a team of doctors. Though there may be some notification in regard to the point of conducting post mortem examination of the cases of the like nature, unless otherwise required, an expert is always asked to conduct autopsy or post mortem examination on the deceased. There is also no evidence forthcoming on this point. Mr. A. C. Bhowmik at this point of time raised the question of validity of the conduct of the autopsy on the dead body of Sabita Chakraborty. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument on this point advanced by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik. Moreover, we do not find any absurdity attached to the evidence of PW-7 so as to discard/reject his evidence in totality. Therefore, the evidence of PW-7 stands at its base without any infirmity whatsoever. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument on this point advanced by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik. Moreover, we do not find any absurdity attached to the evidence of PW-7 so as to discard/reject his evidence in totality. Therefore, the evidence of PW-7 stands at its base without any infirmity whatsoever. Further, from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses we also find that there was presence of burn injuries on the dead body of the deceased Sabita Chakraborty on her face, abdomen, leg etc. No severe burn injuries were however, detected on the back side of the deceased per inquest report, Ext.-1. PW-7 while conducting autopsy also discovered the injuries on the portion of the body as indicated above, he did never indicate in his report that he also discovered burn injuries on the back side of the deceased. A question on this point would come on to the surface whether such injuries were possible on the deceased. It is the claim of the defence rather the appellant that Sabita chakraborty committed suicide by setting her ablaze herself after pouring kerosene, if that be so, there would certainly be burn injuries on both sides of the body. More strangely no evidence is forthcoming that deceased Sabita Chakraborty also received burn injuries in her both palms. In a case of suicide of this nature as claimed by the appellant whether it is possible on the person concerned to stay stiff while burning. It is an impossibility, therefore, non-existence of burn injuries on both the palms as well as back of the deceased clearly indicate that burn injuries were caused after the death of the deceased. The wearing apparel of the deceased were stated to be completely burnt. These facts if read together, together with the evidence of PW-7 make it palpably clear that the dead body was set ablaze after poring kerosene while it remained facing upward. The existence of aluminium Ghoti and its seizure together with matchbox and matchsticks and emission of smell of kerosene oil from the aluminium Ghoti also gives an indication that there was setting of fire by pouring kerosene on the body, therefore, killing of Sabita Chakraborty cannot be ruled out at all. The claim of commission of suicide by deceased Sabita Chakraborty does not find any support from the facts and evidence available or record. 9. The claim of commission of suicide by deceased Sabita Chakraborty does not find any support from the facts and evidence available or record. 9. We have already indicated that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence learned trial Court taking recourse to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, both oral and documentary came to a finding that it was the appellant who killed his wife Sabita Chakraborty on the relevant night. Learned trial Court put emphasis more in the evidence of PW-7, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body while arriving at the decision. It also considered the evidence of the other witnesses in regard to the living of the deceased during the relevant point of time. We are also taking note of the facts and circumstances appearing in the face of the record together with the evidence both oral and documentary. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 we have found that before seven days of death of Sabita Chakraborty she came to her matrimonial home. There is no evidence forthcoming that she did not stay in her matrimonial home on the relevant point of time. The defence witnesses also do not reveal anything either about the absence of the appellant or deceased Sabita Chakraborty on the relevant point of time. It is in the evidence on record that an information was fetched to PW-1 and her family members by the in-laws of the deceased that deceased fell ill and there was necessity of their coming to attend her. Accordingly a vehicle was arranged by the appellant and his family members to bring the members of the informant party unto the appellants house. This piece of evidence also goes to show that on the relevant point of time deceased was at the residence of the appellant. There would have been no reason on the part of the appellant to make such an arrangement to bring the family members of the deceased unto the appellant's residence had the deceased not been in the residence of the appellant himself. So facts and evidence give clear indication that deceased died while she was in her matrimonial home. 10. There would have been no reason on the part of the appellant to make such an arrangement to bring the family members of the deceased unto the appellant's residence had the deceased not been in the residence of the appellant himself. So facts and evidence give clear indication that deceased died while she was in her matrimonial home. 10. Since there is no eye witness to the occurrence we are left with the only option to see whether the circumstances appearing from the facts and evidence on record would culminate the guilt of the appellant and appellant alone. Since no appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of Saraju Bala Chakraborty the mother-in-law, a co-accused of the appellant from the charges levelled against her we refrain from discussing the facts and evidence that may be available on the record. We are only concerned with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered against the appellant alone. It is in evidence that there was a strained relation between the deceased and the appellant and his family members on account of dowry. It is also in evidence that due to such strained relation, deceased had to leave the matrimonial home and stay in her parental home for a considerable time. It is also available in the evidence on record that at the instance of PW-1 and PW-2 deceased had to leave her parental home for matrimonial home and she was kept there at by PW-1 and PW-2 before seven days of her death. It also appears in their evidence that deceased showed reluctance to come to her matrimonial home on apprehension of her killing by the appellant and his family members on account of her failure to satisfy their dowry demand. After seven days of her putting in the matrimonial home by PW-1 and PW-2 on 18th July, 2002 at about 12.30 p.m. her dead body was discovered near the latrine belonging to one Nidhu Baidya (DW-2) with burn injuries. We have also found evidence on record that on the relevant night co-accused Saraju Bala Chakraborty and her son namely Ashutosh Chakraborty stayed in the house of Nidhu Baidya (DW-2) on the relevant night although Nidhu Baidya's house is situated at a distance of 50 cubit feet away from the house of the appellant. We have also found evidence on record that on the relevant night co-accused Saraju Bala Chakraborty and her son namely Ashutosh Chakraborty stayed in the house of Nidhu Baidya (DW-2) on the relevant night although Nidhu Baidya's house is situated at a distance of 50 cubit feet away from the house of the appellant. No explanation is found to have been offered by DW-2 why they had been allowed stayal for the night in his residence. Neither appellant nor co-accused or Ashutosh Chakraborty has come forward to place the reason of their stayal in the house of Nidhu Baidya on the relevant night. No plea of alibi has also been taken by the appellant. Discoveries of burn injuries in the face, abdomen, legs etc. only as is evident from the evidence of PW-7, if all these circumstances read together would certainly result the complicity of the appellant alone with the killing of his wife. These circumstances, therefore, seemed to have formed a complete chain affording no room for appellant to escape from liability of the criminal charge against the appellant. We, therefore, see sufficient force in the argument advanced by the learned P. P. that the facts and evidence on record and the circumstances emanating therefrom would go to culminate the complicity of the appellant with the crime. Learned P. P., therefore, argued before us that the learned trial Court did not commit any error or illegality in holding the appellant guilty under the charge under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife Sabita Chakraborty, the deceased and has rightly convicted and sentenced. It was also argued by him that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference from this Court and the said is allowed to be set at rest. 11. It would be appropriate before coming to a conclusion of this appeal for us to see whether the case references made by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant would come in aid of the appellant in the face of the facts and evidence on record and the circumstances emanating therefrom. Mr. A. C. Bhowmik put reliance on the decision reported in (1999 Cri LJ 3699 : AIR 1999 SC 2416 ) (Mohd Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu). A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant would come in aid of the appellant in the face of the facts and evidence on record and the circumstances emanating therefrom. Mr. A. C. Bhowmik put reliance on the decision reported in (1999 Cri LJ 3699 : AIR 1999 SC 2416 ) (Mohd Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu). In the case (supra) Apex Court denied to put reliance in the evidence of the doctor which was found to be self contradictory who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased. In the case(supra) it appears that the credibility of the doctor was tried to be shaken by putting suggestions to the doctor concerned on the basis of the statement found in authoritative text books. Doctor disagreed such statements without assigning any reason. No order of authority was produced in support of opinion. Supreme Court, therefore, recorded this aspect of the matter and the self contradiction as well and refused to accept the evidence of the doctor. In our present case the doctor, PW-7 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body was of the firm opinion that death was due to asphyxia on account of air way obstruction as a result of throttling which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He also gave an opinion that the burn injuries discovered on the dead body of the deceased Sabita were post mortem in nature. There appears no fruitful cross examination when the same is scrutinized by us. Therefore, to reject the evidence of PW-7 we find no scope whatsoever. A suggestion was put to the doctor by the defence that he submitted the report, Ext.-3 without doing any examination whatsoever on the dead body. The facts as we seen rather appearing in the face of the record are totally different to the facts incorporated in the case of Mohd. Zahid (supra). Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the appellant. 12. Further, Mr. A. C. Bhowmik to reinforcement of his stand in regard to the credibility of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 put reliance in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case between Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra; reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738). It was argued by Mr. Further, Mr. A. C. Bhowmik to reinforcement of his stand in regard to the credibility of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 put reliance in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case between Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra; reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738). It was argued by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik that no credit can be attached to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 inasmuch as they are all close relative of the deceased Sabita Chakraborty. PW-1 and PW-3 are the parents while PW-2 is the uncle. Therefore, there would always be a tendency of exaggeration by adding facts. We are unable to accept his argument in view of their evidence on record since no such exaggeration of facts do find place in their evidence. These witnesses have indicated in their evidence that deceased Sabita Chakraborty was mentally and physically tortured by the appellant and her in-laws on her failure to satisfy their dowry demand, for which she had to leave her matrimonial home and before seven days of her death by PW-1 and PW-2 put her in matrimonial home even after her reluctance to stay there. This piece of evidence to our considered view cannot be branded as exaggeration or adding of facts so as to receive support from the case law as referred to by Mr. A. C. Bhowmik. We reject this contention altogether noticing the facts and the evidence of record, more particularly evidence of PW-7. 13. It is true that the High Court being the final Court of facts in appeal, it should critically examine the evidence of the witnesses basing which conviction is awarded, let all the witnesses being the eye witnesses of the actual occurrence Apex Court in the case between Badam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2004 SC 26 : (2004 Cri LJ 22) held that High Court being the final Court of facts in appeal should examine the evidence critically even though the evidence of eye witnesses are found consistent against the accused. In this present case it is already indicated herein before that there is no eye witness at all. Altogether 10 (ten) witnesses have been examined by the prosecution out of which PW-7 appears to be a doctor who conducted the autopsy and PW-9 and PW-10 appear to be Investigating Officers. In this present case it is already indicated herein before that there is no eye witness at all. Altogether 10 (ten) witnesses have been examined by the prosecution out of which PW-7 appears to be a doctor who conducted the autopsy and PW-9 and PW-10 appear to be Investigating Officers. PWs-1 to 3 are near relative of the deceased. The learned trial Court while rendering the judgment and conviction did discuss the evidence and its credibility in detail. It has given/attached reasonings why it is constrained to accept the evidence of the witnesses. When we marshal the evidence appearing in the face of the record find no inconsistency(s) in the findings of the trial Court that arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record and the facts involved in the present case. 14. As a whole the reliance put in the case laws as referred to above do not to our opinion come in aid of the appellant in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record. We are of the considered view that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference from this Court. We accordingly affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 15. Appeal stands dismissed.