JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. On repeated call, nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to argue this case. 2. On the request of the Court, Mr. Anita Sinha argued this case as Amicus Curie. 3. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 2nd of June, 1994 and order of sentence dated 3rd of June, 1994 passed in S.T. No. 396 of 1991 by Shri Om Prakash Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, by which judgment he bund the sole appellant guilty u/s 364 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I for three years. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence that the appellant, Ataur Rahman Khan, caused the death of the informant's sister, Dulali Dasi on the night on 06.02.1990. Accordingly, learned trial Court found no case under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but only on the basis of evidence of the witnesses that the deceased went behind with the accused, the accused Ataur Rahman Khan convicted u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code, for which also there is no sufficient evidences, as such, conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that there is sufficient evidences to prove the charges u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and it has come in the evidence of the witnesses that the victim lady was living in her Maika since last 12 years. After her marriage she has intimate relation with accused Ataur Rahman Khan and the victim lady was pregnant with three months. The accused was present in the house of the deceased on the date of occurrence at night, when the accused went from there, she also left her house behind the accused. Thereafter, her dead body was recovered on the next day, as such, he has rightly been convicted. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, P.W. 6, Sadhin Rabidas, stating therein that on 08.02.1990 at 7.00 P.M., her sister Dulali Dasi, who was married about 10-12 years back. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, P.W. 6, Sadhin Rabidas, stating therein that on 08.02.1990 at 7.00 P.M., her sister Dulali Dasi, who was married about 10-12 years back. Since, her husband has left her, she came to his house and lived there and used to bind biris in his house. On the date of occurrence accused Ataur Rahman Khan came there. After some time, both Ataur Rahman Khan and his sister found absent from the house. They thought that she had gone for easing out. But, she did not return to house till 10.RM. Then the informant and others began searching out his sister in the night. Till the next day morning his sister could not found in village and nearby village, but at about 3.P.M. his villager Ashraful Sk. informed him that the dead body of his sister was lying in the pond of village Guri Guriya, Pakur. Thereafter, informant went there with his villagers and found the dead body of his sister laying in the water of the pond. He took out the dead body of his sister from the water and found that she was killed by cutting through her neck. Whereupon he stated that Ataur Rahman Khan, had intimate relation with his sister. 7. On the basis of said Ferdbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case in all the aforesaid Sections. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and subsequently the case was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, who found the appellant guilty u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. 8. It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W. 1, Dr. Man Mohan Pd. singh P.W. 2, Kaushalya Dasi, mother of the deceased and the informant. P.W. 3, Lukhi Bala Dasi, wife of the informant. P.W. 4, Sharat Ravidas. P.W. 5, Murari Ravidas. P.W. 6, Sadhin Ravidas, is the informant. P.W. 7, Subodh Banerjee. P.W. 1, Dr. Man Mohan Pd. singh P.W. 2, Kaushalya Dasi, mother of the deceased and the informant. P.W. 3, Lukhi Bala Dasi, wife of the informant. P.W. 4, Sharat Ravidas. P.W. 5, Murari Ravidas. P.W. 6, Sadhin Ravidas, is the informant. P.W. 7, Subodh Banerjee. It appears that the informant, P.W. 6, Sadhin Rabidas, stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.02,1990 at 7.00 PM., his sister, Dulali Dasi, who was married with Gajal Rabidas about 10-12 years back. Since, she left her father-in-law's house, she came to his house and lived there and used to bind biris in his house. At that time accused Ataur Rahman Khan came there. Thereafter, he (the informant) began taking his meal. After some time, both Ataur Rahman Khan and his sister found absent from the house. They thought that she had gone for easing out. But she did not return to house till 10.P.M. And then the informant and others began searching out his sister in the night. Till the next day morning his sister could not in his village and nearby village, but at about 3.P.M. His villager Ashraful Sk. informed him that the dead body of his sister was lying in the pond of village Guri Guriya, Pakur, thereafter, informant went there with his villagers and found the dead body of his sister laying in the water of the pond. He took out the dead body of his sister from the water and found that she was killed by cutting through her neck. Whereupon he stated that Ataur Rahman Khan, had intimate relation with his sister. P. W. 2. Kaushalya Dasi, is the mother of the informant and the deceased stated that her daughter Dulali Dasi used to live at her house after one year of her marriage and she used to make Biris inside the house. On the date of occurrence she was making Biris in the house and the accused Ataur Rahman Khan was also there. After some time Ataur Rahman Khan left from there and his departure from there her daughter Dulali Dasi also went from there. They thought she was going for easing out, but she did not return in the night. Her son searched her. On the following day the dead body of her daughter was found with cut injury on her neck in the Guri Gurhiya Pond. They thought she was going for easing out, but she did not return in the night. Her son searched her. On the following day the dead body of her daughter was found with cut injury on her neck in the Guri Gurhiya Pond. She also stated that her daughter was pregnant for three months. Ataur Rahman Khan, who has committed murder of her daughter because he had intimate relation with her. Other witnesses, P.W. 4, Sharat Ravidas and P.W. 5, Murari Ravidas have also supported the prosecution case and stated that there is sufficient evidence that the accused enticed away the victim lady with intention to commit her murder. P.W. 1, Dr. Man Mohan Pd. Singh, is a doctor, who held the post-mortem on the dead body of Dulali Dasi and found that as many as four sharp cutting injury: (I) Sharp cutting injury in from and lateral side neck cutting all structerores from front to behind except right side vertebra and skin, (ii) sharp cut injury oh the right chest close to upper part of the nipple from above downwards- 1" 1/2"x muscle deep (iii) sharp 'cut injury on the auxiliary region right side chest 1/2" 1/4"x muscle deep. (iv) sharp cut injury on the left side of abdomen close to 12th rib 1" 1/2" x abdomen deep. On opening the abdomen the spleen was found cut half of its portion and fitter found about four months in the uterus. From the report of doctor, which is marked as 'Exhibit-1, proved that it is a brutal murder. In that view of the matter all the prosecution witnesses has fully proved that it was a case of brutal murder of the deceased, who had intimate relation with the accused, Ataur Rahman Khan, and probably she got pregnant. In that view of the matter, he has rightly been convicted and found guilty u/s 364 of the Indian Penal Code. I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the conviction and sentence.