Judgment : Tapen Sen J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 27/4/2011 and 30/4/2011 passed by the Ld. IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2010 arising out of Sessions Case No. 194 / 2010 whereby and whereunder the 2 appellants herein namely Bhaggi @ Bhaguddin @ Daggu Sk. and Jhalo Bibi W/o Daggu Sk. were convicted under Sections 498A / 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 more months. 2. That on 9/7/87 at about 8:45 A.M. one Jumman Sk. made a written report to the Kaliachak Police Station-in-charge at Malda in relation to an occurrence alleged to have taken place in the night of 8 / 9–7-87, wherein, while naming these two appellants as accused, he stated that his sister Hasina Bibi had married Ali Hossain S/o the appellants. She was dark in colour and therefore, the parents-in-law started misbehaving by assaulting and torturing her both physically and mentally. Respected persons of the village had made attempts for a compromise but to no avail. On the date of lodging the F.I.R at about 6 A.M., the informant’s uncle Samsuddin Khan informed him about his sister’s death. Having heard such a news he went to his sister’s matrimonial house and saw her dead body. 3. He noticed some marks of injury caused by weapons on the head and cheeks and there were marks of bleeding from her ears. The residents of the village namely Sakinuddin, Safiuddin and other neighbours told him that the parents-in-law of his sister had quarreled with her and that yesterday, the mother-in-law had mercilessly tortured his sister physically upon which the villagers had restrained her from doing so. However, at about 7 / 8 P.M. the parents-in-law of his sister again mercilessly tortured his sister physically. It was raining and early in the morning the villagers saw his sister’s dead body on a nearby rail line. When the villagers requested the parents-in-law to fetch the dead body home they tried running away and then the villagers caught them and compelled them to bring the dead body home. They also detained the parents-inlaw. It was raining and early in the morning the villagers saw his sister’s dead body on a nearby rail line. When the villagers requested the parents-in-law to fetch the dead body home they tried running away and then the villagers caught them and compelled them to bring the dead body home. They also detained the parents-inlaw. The villagers and the informant guessed that the parents-in-law had murdered his sister and dropped her body on the rail line so that she would be cut under the wheels of a train and the villagers would think that she had committed suicide. The informant claimed that Daggu Sk. and his wife Jhalo Bibi had mercilessly tortured his sister and murdered her. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report the Kaliachak Police Station registered Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 9 / 87 dated 9/7/87 under Sections 302 / 201 / 498A / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and took up investigation. During investigation the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and recorded their statements. Site maps of the two places of occurrence were drawn up by the police and Inquest was conducted upon the dead body on 9/7/87 at the matrimonial house of the deceased in the presence of witnesses. The dead body was subsequently sent for post-mortem which was conducted on 10/7/87. Wearing apparels etc were seized by the police and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302 / 201 / 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Malda whereafter it was transferred to the court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Malda for trial and disposal. 5. P.W 1 is Jumma Mirza, the informant of this case. He has stated that Hasina Bibi, his sister had been given in marriage to Ali Hossain and that the marriage had taken place in 1986. He stated that Hasina died in her matrimonial home a year after the marriage. He supported whatever he had said in the written report. He, however, stated that he had not lodged any F.I.R before the Police Station and it was the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station who wrote the F.I.R on his own accord and he told him to sign and therefore he put his L.T.I on the said written report. 6. He supported whatever he had said in the written report. He, however, stated that he had not lodged any F.I.R before the Police Station and it was the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station who wrote the F.I.R on his own accord and he told him to sign and therefore he put his L.T.I on the said written report. 6. In his cross-examination he stated that he was illiterate and he could not say as to what was written by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station in the F.I.R. He also stated in his cross-examination that he did not lodge any complaint over the incident of assault which had taken place previously nor had he informed the Gram Panchayat. He also stated that he did not know as to how his sister’s death had been caused or where was it caused. 7. P.W 2 is Safiuddin who is a co-villager. He was declared hostile after he said that he heard a rumour from the people that the dead body of the wife of Ali Hossain was lying on the railway track. 8. P.W 3 is one Badiruddin who is also known to the accused persons. He is an independent witness and he stated that he did not know how Hasina Bibi had died. 9. P.W 4 is Md. Sakimuddin who is known to the accused persons. He is a witness to the seizure list marked Exhibit 1/2 and he stated in his crossexamination that the ‘Darogababu’ had asked him to sign on a paper and he had accordingly signed as such but he was not interrogated by the Investigating Officer. 10. P.W 5 is one Samsuddin who was known to Hasina. He stated in his examination in chief that he had gone to her matrimonial house and had seen her dead body. He, however, did not see any marks of injury on the dead body of Hasina. This witness is also an independent witness. 11. P.W 6 is one Mahanu Mirza who is acquainted with the informant. He has stated that Hasina Bibi had died in her matrimonial house and that he had seen her dead body when he had gone to the house but he did not know as to why and how she had died. This witness is also an independent witness. 12. P.W 6 is one Mahanu Mirza who is acquainted with the informant. He has stated that Hasina Bibi had died in her matrimonial house and that he had seen her dead body when he had gone to the house but he did not know as to why and how she had died. This witness is also an independent witness. 12. P.W 7 is Hirendra Nath Roy, S.I. of Police who proved the handwriting of S.I. Shyamal Ghosh who had recorded the F.I.R. He is the Investigating Officer and during investigation he stated that he had visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch maps of the places of occurrence. He also conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and thereafter sent the body to the hospital for post-mortem examination through Constable No. 490, Sk. Nabul Hossain. He proved the dead body challan being Exhibit 6 and the Inquest Report marked Exhibit 2. He also seized some broken pieces of an earthen pot from the place of occurrence and proved the seizure list which was marked Exhibit 1. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased and the P.M blood under proper seizure list marked Exhibit 7. He has stated that P.W 2, Md. Safiuddin had told him that Hasina’s mother-in-law used to torment her since she was dark in complexion. Safiuddin had also told him that he had been to the house of the accused persons on 8/7/87 and had seen the mother-in-law assaulting Hasina by fists and blows. He also told him that Hasina died due to assault by her mother-in-law Jhalo Bibi. He also told him that the dead body of Hasina was left beside the railway track to prove that it was a case of suicide. In his cross-examination he has stated that he heard from witnesses that the dead body had been left beside the railway track and that the public had brought the dead body to the verandah of the house of the accused persons where it was kept. The Investigating Officer also went to the place beside the railway track where the dead body was found and which was about 1/4th kilometers away from the house. 13. P.W 8 is Dr. B.K. Sanyal who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Hasina Bibi on 10/7/87. The Investigating Officer also went to the place beside the railway track where the dead body was found and which was about 1/4th kilometers away from the house. 13. P.W 8 is Dr. B.K. Sanyal who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Hasina Bibi on 10/7/87. This witness had taken a vow of silence and had not spoken for the last 2½ years. So both the prosecution and the defence were requested to put leading questions to him so that he could answer by nodding his head either in the affirmative or in the negative. This witness indicated that he had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Hasina Bibi on 10/7/87. Upon examination he found the following injuries --- “Eyes closed, mouth half open, rigor mortis absent. Post mortem blebs over face, neck, abdomen. 1. ½ “ x ½” lacerated injury over left side of face 2. Liner bruise 1/x 1” X ¼” and 1 ½” X ¼” and 2” X ½” over right side back. 3. Haematoma on the back of neck with fracture 3rd. cervical vertebra associated with spinal injury. 4. Haematoma over left side of scalp On dissection I found the following : 1. Fracture right parital bone 2. Fracture 3rd. cervical vertebra 3. Sign of Subdural haematoma 4. Liquified laceration of spinal cord. 5. Fluid present 6. Stomach – empty 7. Liver – decomposed, Kidney – slight decomposed. All other organs – healthy.” 14. The Ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances was complete since (i) The marriage of the deceased woman with the son of the accused persons was not disputed; (ii) The deceased woman died within the 4 walls of the house of the 2 accused persons; (iii) The deceased woman was murdered in her matrimonial house; (iv) The deceased woman was subjected to brutal physical torture and this is demonstrated by various marks of injury on her body; (v) The Doctors neither ruled out the possibility of a normal or suicidal death; (vi) False explanation has been given by the accused persons to the effect that the deceased woman died on the railway track. The Ld. The Ld. Judge came to the conclusion that the fact remained that the eceased woman was murdered which was established by the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon and therefore false explanations supplied the missing link in the chain of circumstances; and (vii) The death of the deceased woman within the four walls of the house of the accused persons was certainly within the special knowledge of the accused persons but they did not furnish any explanation and therefore they did not discharge their burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 15. Basing his reasons on the aforementioned 7 circumstances, the Ld. Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances was complete and it proved that none but the two accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased woman within the lone environment of four walls and therefore charge under 498A / 302 of the Indian Penal Code stood established. 16. The fact remains that the death occurred within 7 years from the date of the marriage and the nature of the injuries are such that it leads the Court to come to the inescapable conclusion that before her death she was subjected to severe assault / cruelty. Therefore, the judgment of the Ld. Trial Judge by recording the aforesaid 7 factors upon and coming to the inevitable conclusion that the two accused persons had committed the murder of the deceased woman, cannot be said to be irregular or mechanical. 17. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal. 18. It is accordingly dismissed. 19. Let the Lower Court Records be sent down forthwith. I agree