JUDGMENT : P.K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2013, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 46/2011 convicting one Sri Monmahan Mandal, appellant herein, of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, RI for another period of one month. 2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment aforesaid, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. A. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Mazumdar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that one Sonaka Mondal, since deceased, (hereinafter referred to as the victim) was married by appellant herein sometime in the later part of 2010. On 04.05.2011, at about 10 am, Naren Mondal, father of Sonaka Mondal got information that her daughter committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree in a jungle nearby their house. 5. On getting such information, he rushed to the residence of his son-in-law, situated at a distance of about two and a half mile from his house and found her daughter hanging from a branch of a small tree. He suspected that his daughter might have been killed by the appellant and his other family members since they tortured her during her life time and thereafter, they might have hanged her from a tree to look it like a case of suicide. 6. The informant, Sri Naren Mondal, therefore, lodged an Ejahar with OC, Morigaon Police Station on the same day. On receipt of such an Ejahar, police registered a case vide Morigaon P.S. Case No. 62/2011 u/s 302/34 IPC against the appellant and his other family members and ordered investigation. During the course of investigation, police visited the PO, removed the body from the tree and caused an inquest to be done on the dead body. 7. The IO of the case also sent the dead body to hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, did other things needful and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 304 (B) IPC against the appellant herein and forwarded him to the court to stand trial for the offence aforesaid. 8. 7. The IO of the case also sent the dead body to hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, did other things needful and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 304 (B) IPC against the appellant herein and forwarded him to the court to stand trial for the offence aforesaid. 8. The learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session at Morigaon since the offence u/s 304 (B) IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon on the receipt of the case on commitment and on hearing the parties was pleased to frame charges u/s 302/304(B) IPC. 9. Charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses including the informant, Medical Officer (in short, 'MO') and the Investigating Officer (in short, 'IO') of the case. In due course, the statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded. 10. In his statement, recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused/appellant pleaded that on the eventful night, he was not in his house and as such, he did not know why his wife committed suicide. He also adduced the evidence of two DWs to show that on the night in question, he was not in his house and as such, he is no way responsible for the death of his wife. 11. On the conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant herein u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 12. Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to convict a person u/s 302 IPC, the prosecution is to prove that death of a the person, concerned, was homicidal in nature. However, in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that death of the person, concerned was homicidal in nature. Rather all the materials on record including the evidence of the Doctor reveal that death in question was suicidal in nature and therefore, the learned Trial Court could not have convicted the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC. 13. Rather all the materials on record including the evidence of the Doctor reveal that death in question was suicidal in nature and therefore, the learned Trial Court could not have convicted the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC. 13. It has also been contended that though PW 1, Naren Mondal and PW 5, Ram Prasad Mondal, father and brother of the deceased respectively in their evidence claim that they suspected that the accused/appellant had killed their daughter/sister and thereafter, hanged her from a tree to look it like a case of suicide, but such evidence hardly makes out the charge brought against the accused/appellant. 14. Equally importantly, their claim that the accused/appellant and his father might have killed the victim, and thereafter, they had hanged her body from a tree to look it like a case of hanging hardly draws any support from the evidence of other witnesses. Rather, all evidence available on record has strongly projected a picture that the person aforesaid had committed suicide on the night in question. 15. In support of such contention, it has been submitted that there is specific evidence in the form of photograph of the victim, taken by the IO, during the course of investigation which shows that the body of the deceased was found hanging from a tree. More importantly, the independent witnesses too support such fact. Since said body did not touch the ground, it needs to be concluded, in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the death was suicidal in nature. 16. The learned counsel for appellant further submits that there was no convincing evidence on record to show that the appellant had ever misbehaved/tortured the victim. Quite contrary to it, all available evidence shows that the deceased was not happy with the appellant since she wanted to marry another boy but in vain which kept the victim in unending melancholy and being in such a depressed mood over a long period of time, she killed herself on the night in question. 17. Quite contrary to it, all available evidence shows that the deceased was not happy with the appellant since she wanted to marry another boy but in vain which kept the victim in unending melancholy and being in such a depressed mood over a long period of time, she killed herself on the night in question. 17. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, had the victim been killed and then hanged, then, there might have been very many marks of injuries on the body of the victim since nobody allows him or her to be killed without resisting her killer in some form or other and in that event, the victim must have sustained some injuries on her person. 18. But in the present case, the situation was quite different. Barring some small scratches here and there on the body of the victim, there was absolutely no serious mark of injury on her body. More importantly, there is evidence on record to show that when the people discovered her body in a jungle, everybody found her in a well-dressed state. Even the bangles of glass were found intact position which is prolific testimonies to the fact that the deceased committed suicide. 19. Referring to the remarks in the Modi's Jurisprudence on suicide and strangulation, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the marks which were noticed by the Doctor on the body of the deceased far too firmly show that the death of the victim was suicidal in nature. In view of above, it was not proper on the part of the learned Trial Court to convict the appellant of offence u/s 302 IPC. 20. He, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the judgment under challenge on acquitting the accused/appellant of offence u/s 302 IPC. 21. On the other hand, Mr. K. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Trial Court had committed no error, whatsoever, in convicting the accused/appellant of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to punishment as aforesaid since materials on record clearly establish the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused/appellant. 22. In that connection, it has been stated that in their evidence, PW 1 and PW 5 clearly deposed that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his other family members before her death. 22. In that connection, it has been stated that in their evidence, PW 1 and PW 5 clearly deposed that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his other family members before her death. There is also evidence on record to show that even her father-in-law tried to molest the deceased many times. Being afraid of such a state-of-affairs being made public, the appellant and his family members had killed the hapless woman. 23. Referring to the testimonies of some of the witnesses, the learned Addl. P.P. further submits that the body of the victim was seen touching the ground. In such a situation, it cannot be concluded that the death in question was suicidal in nature. Rather when the evidence on record is read in the light of evidence of the Doctor, it would appear clear that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature. 24. According to the learned Addl. P.P., the post crime conduct of the appellant is also enormously unnatural. In that connection, it has been stated that had the deceased committed suicide, the appellant would have communicated the same to the family members of the victim immediately. However, there is material on record to conclude that the appellant did not communicate the death of his wife to her family members. 25. Rather her father-in-law and other family members came to know about the incident in question from others. Such very unnatural conduct on the part of appellant again points its accusing finger to the accused/appellant and none else and as such, the learned Addl. P.P. urges this Court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 26. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the evidence on record. Before we could proceed further, let us consider the evidence of the Doctor who was examined as PW 7. He was Dr. A.K. Phukan. According to him, on 05.05.2011, he was working as SDM and HO and was posted at Morigaon Civil Hospital. On that day, he conducted autopsy on a female body, aged about 19 years and found the following:- 1. Ligature mark on the neck from left to right. 2. Nostril’s present on the chin. 3. Prominent veins present on the left arm and forearm. 4. Intestinal coils are distended. 5. Perchmentisation in the ligature mark is present. 6. Forth in the nose and mouth is present. Ligature mark on the neck from left to right. 2. Nostril’s present on the chin. 3. Prominent veins present on the left arm and forearm. 4. Intestinal coils are distended. 5. Perchmentisation in the ligature mark is present. 6. Forth in the nose and mouth is present. 27. Let us consider the evidence of the Doctor in the light of observations made in Modis' Jurisprudence vis-a-vis death caused by strangulation and suicidal death. In that connection, we can profitably peruse the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bagadhar Gogoi v. State of Assam, reported in (2015) 5 GLT 674. 28. This Court in the case of Bagadhar Gogoi (Supra) had the occasion to consider the effect of death, caused by strangulation and effect of death, occasioned by suicide. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below:- "35. Let us consider the above evidence of doctor in the light of observations made by Modi in respect of death caused by strangulation and death caused by hang (suicidal) in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence. For ready reference, the chart made on death caused by strangulation and death caused by hang (suicidal) is reproduced below:- "Differences between Hanging and Strangulation-The differences between hanging and strangulation are given below in tabulated form: Hanging 1. Mostly suicidal. 2. Face-Usually pale and petechiae rare. 3. Saliva-Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. 4. Neck-Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. 5. External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked. 6. Ligature mark-Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-like. 7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, rare. 8. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-White, hard and glistening. 9. Injury to the muscles of the neck-Rare. 10. Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop. 11. Fracture of the larynx and trachea-Very rare and may be found that too in judicial hanging. 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrate-Common in judicial hanging. 13. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. 14. No evidence of sexual assault. 15. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs-Not present. Strangulation 1. Mostly homicidal. 2. Face-Congested, livid and marked with petechiae. 3. Saliva-No such dribbling. 4. Neck-Not so. 5. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrate-Common in judicial hanging. 13. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. 14. No evidence of sexual assault. 15. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs-Not present. Strangulation 1. Mostly homicidal. 2. Face-Congested, livid and marked with petechiae. 3. Saliva-No such dribbling. 4. Neck-Not so. 5. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect). 6. Ligature mark-Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, common. 8. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-Ecchymosed. 9. Injury to the muscles of the neck-Common. 10. Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinary ruptured. 11. Fracture of the larynx and trachea and hyoid bone. 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrate-Rare. 13. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually present. 14. Sometimes evidence of sexual assault. 15. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs-May be present. 36. A perusal of above chart in the light of evidence of doctor as well Ext.3 reveals that the body of the person aforesaid bears most of the signs which were found in case of death caused by strangulation. Very significantly, signs which were found on the dead body in case of suicidal hanging are also found conspicuously absent in case of death of person aforesaid. A careful perusal of evidence of doctor alongside the chart aforesaid makes such a conclusion inevitable. Being so, we have no difficulty in concluding that the death of the person aforesaid was homicidal in nature." 29. We have found that the evidence of the Doctor did not disclose specifically whether death was suicidal or homicidal in nature. On reading the evidence, in between the lines, in the light of the decisions aforementioned, one would find that the evidence of the Doctor projected a picture which justifies that death in question was suicidal in nature. 30. So situated, let us consider the evidence of two prime prosecution witnesses, they being PW 1 and PW 5. On reading the evidence, in between the lines, in the light of the decisions aforementioned, one would find that the evidence of the Doctor projected a picture which justifies that death in question was suicidal in nature. 30. So situated, let us consider the evidence of two prime prosecution witnesses, they being PW 1 and PW 5. According to PW 1, father of the victim, his daughter was married off to the appellant five months before her death but soon after her marriage, the appellant, his sister and his parents started torturing her. The family members of the accused/appellant also did not allow his daughter to live with her husband. They also did not allow her to come to her parents house. 31. All those were narrated by the victim to her mother days before the alleged incident. It is also in his evidence that his daughter never visited his house. But in his cross-examination, he deposed that his daughter visited his house every month. In his cross-examination, he further deposed days before the incident in question, the victim came to their house and narrated all those episodes to her mother. 32. PW 5, Sri Ram Prasad Mondal deposes that his sister was misbehaved by father of the appellant since the father of the accused/appellant wanted to establish illicit relationship with her. He suspected that out of fear, the appellant might have killed her sister. One day, he got information that her sister committed suicide. He immediately rushed to the place and found her sister hanging from a tree. 33. He also noticed that her body touched the ground. It is also in his evidence that the accused killed the victim in league with his sister and parents. In his cross-examination, he, however, stated that his house is situated at a distance of 2 (two) miles from the house of the accused person and that his deceased sister and his brother-in-law visited their house before the death of the victim aforesaid. 34. PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 8, PW 9 and PW 10 are Sri Suren Biswas, Sri Dharmeswar Chauhan, Sri Sri Kemp Kanta Boro, Sri Subhash Biswas, Sri Sunil Biswas and Smti Lakhi Biswas respectively. It is found from their evidence that they came to the PO on getting information about the death of the daughter of PW 1 and found her hanging from a tree. It is found from their evidence that they came to the PO on getting information about the death of the daughter of PW 1 and found her hanging from a tree. All of them deposed that the body of the victim was found hanging about 1 feet above the ground. 35. PW 8 and PW 10 are also found saying that they heard the appellant and his other family members quarreling with the victim on some occasions. Even on the night in question, they heard such quarrel but they did not know why such quarrel took place. PW 6 is the scribe who wrote the FIR on the dictation of PW 1 and he wrote the FIR on being dictated by PW 1, Sri Narendra Mondal. 36. On the other hand, PW 11, Sri Buddeswar Bora is the IO of the case. According to him, on getting information about the alleged incident, the Officer-in-Charge made a GD Entry on the FIR and he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the PO and found the victim hanging from a tree. 37. In that connection, he also took photographs of the victim which were proved as Ext. 7 to Ext. 10, removed the body from a tree, caused an inquest on the dead body, examined the witnesses, did other things needful including collection of post mortem examination report and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant u/s 304 (B) IPC. 38. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence makes out the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused/appellant. A perusal of evidence of witnesses reveals that there is undeniable evidence on record to show that the body of the victim was found hanging from a tree and it did not touch the ground. Rather it was found hanging about 1 feet above the ground. 39. We have also found that the victim did not sustain any major injury on her body. We have also found that the people discovered the body of the deceased in a well dressed condition. Even her bangles were found intact condition. All those facts when read together one would find it difficult to conclude that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature. Such conclusion derives support, as stated above, from the evidence of Doctor. 40. Even her bangles were found intact condition. All those facts when read together one would find it difficult to conclude that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature. Such conclusion derives support, as stated above, from the evidence of Doctor. 40. It is worth noting here that some of the PWs viz. PW3, PW 4 and PW 8 depose that on the morning which followed the night in question, they heard that the victim had committed suicide on the night in question. Such evidence, in the facts and circumstances, shows more and more that the death of the victim was not homicidal but suicidal instead. 41. However, on perusal of the record in between the lines, it is found that during her life time, the accused/appellant had subjected the victim to torture of various kinds Such torture went to such extent that she was not even allowed to live with her husband. The materials on record further reveal that on the night in question, there was a quarrel in the house of the accused/appellant in which the victim was probably badly scolded. The evidence of PW 8 and PW 10 makes such a position very clear. 42. It may be noticed here that in the FIR, the father of the victim stated that his daughter was subjected to serious torture soon after her marriage with the appellant. Such allegations stand confirmed in view of evidence rendered by various witnesses. Those revelations, therefore, led us to conclude that the victim was brutally tortured by the appellant and such torture ultimately forced her to commit suicide. 43. That being so, in our considered opinion, the conviction of the accused u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained but on the materials on record, the appellant, herein, cannot escape being found guilty of offence u/s 498 (A) IPC. 44. Resultantly, the conviction of the accused/appellant u/s 302 IPC is set aside but he is convicted of offence u/s 498(A) IPC. 45. Accordingly, conviction of the accused stands altered from conviction u/s 302 IPC to a conviction u/s 498 (A) IPC. 46. On considering the submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the materials on record, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 45. Accordingly, conviction of the accused stands altered from conviction u/s 302 IPC to a conviction u/s 498 (A) IPC. 46. On considering the submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the materials on record, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default R.I. for another 6 (six) months for the offence aforesaid. 47. The period which the accused/appellant had already spent in jail is to be set off against the period of imprisonment. 48. The appeal is partly allowed. 49. Return the LCR.