JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant Mazibar Rahman @ Mojibor Rahman has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Rashida Khatun, wife of Motior Rahman (PW-1)-the informant. Rashida was about 30 years of age at the time of her death. 3. According to the prosecution case, Rashida was wife of Motior and out of their wedlock a son was born who was about 4 years at the time of occurrence. Rashida was earlier married to another person and her marriage with Motior was her second. Appellant - Mazibar was a neighbor of Motior and he had cordial relations with the family of Motior and this cordial relation turned into one sided affair of Mazibar with Rashida and the matter reached such an extent that it had to be referred to village Bichar. Suddenly on 09/02/2010 at about 7 p.m., when Motior was not at home the appellant caught Rashida while she was returning after attending the nature’s call and burnt her by pouring kerosene. The appellant had also tied Rashida with a rope against a betel-nut tree. On hearing the outcry of Rashida, Ali Akbar (PW-2) and Mst. Narjina Khatun (PW-4) rushed to her house and found her in burnt condition. Ali Akbar found her being tied against the tree with a rope by her neck which was also burnt. In the meantime, hearing the commotion many people gathered at the place of occurrence. Motior also arrived home on receiving information about the incident in the market. Sahar Ali (PW-3) and Abdul Rahim (PW-5) also arrived at the place of occurrence on being informed about the incident and found Rashida in burnt condition. Thereafter, Rashida was immediately taken to the Goalpara Civil hospital where she was treated for 22 days. Dr. Samser Ali (PW-12) treated her for 2nd and 3rd degree burns over her face, neck, chest and abdomen on 40-50% body surface. However, she was in a condition to speak. On the asking of Motior in the hospital she disclosed how the appellant set fire on her after tying against a betel-nut tree and at that time Sonowar Hussain (PW-9) was also present in the hospital. Motior then made the Ejahar (Exhibit-1) on 12/02/2010 at police station Baguan against the appellant. However, she was in a condition to speak. On the asking of Motior in the hospital she disclosed how the appellant set fire on her after tying against a betel-nut tree and at that time Sonowar Hussain (PW-9) was also present in the hospital. Motior then made the Ejahar (Exhibit-1) on 12/02/2010 at police station Baguan against the appellant. 4. Sub-Inspector Surajit Chaudhury (PW-11) on receipt of the Ejahar, went to the place of occurrence, drew sketch map etc. seized a black jerry can of 2 litres capacity and a piece of jute rope vide Seizure list Exhibit-4. He also recorded the statement Exhibit-5 of Rashida in the hospital on 12/2/2010 wherein she disclosed how she was burnt by the appellant. 5. After treatment, when Rashida slightly recovered, she was taken back home. Then, Surajit again recorded her statement vide Exhibit-6 at her house on 6/3/2010. In her this statement also she reiterated the allegation against the appellant. There Rashida narrated the incident to Swahid Bakht (PW-6) also. Rashida however died after about 11 days of coming home. 6. On 11/3/2010 when Surajit was intimated about the death of Rashida, he again went to her house and sent her dead body for post-mortem after inquest done in presence of Manowar Hussain (PW-8) and Shahibuz Zaman (PW-10). He also arrested the appellant in the meantime. 7. Dr. Rejaul Karim Sheikh (PW-7) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rashida and opined that she died due to sepsis for 50% epidermal burn injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. Exhibit-2 is his Post-Mortem Report. 8. On completion of investigation, Surajit (PW-11) submitted charge-sheet (Exhibit-9), against the appellant for offences under sections 302/341 of Indian Penal Code. 9. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The appellant took the defense that after Bichar regarding his affair with Rashida, she felt so humiliated that she committed suicide. To support his case, he adduced the evidence of Hatem Ali (DW-1) and Farman Ali (DW-2). The trial court however disbelieving the defense of appellant and relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the records, we do not find sufficient merit in the instant appeal. The trial court however disbelieving the defense of appellant and relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the records, we do not find sufficient merit in the instant appeal. The written dying-declarations made by Rashida before Surajit (Ext-5 and 6) as well as oral dying declarations made before Motior, Sonowar and Swahid are truthful and reliable. It is the evidence of Dr. Samser that Rashida was in a position to speak. He examined her from the initial stage after the occurrence and treated her for 22 days. So his evidence is reliable. Although, Dr. Reazul who conducted the autopsy has deposed in his cross-examination that Rashida had 90% burn injuries over her chest and stomach and a person having 90% burn injuries cannot speak, the same relates to her chest and stomach injuries only. He has himself deposed that Rashida got 50% burn injuries which were mainly epidermal. Besides, he did not treat her to know the actual physical condition of Rashida. As such, the evidence of Dr.Samser is more reliable to the effect that Rashida was in a condition to speak. 11. Surajit recorded her first statement Exhibit-5 in the hospital on 12/02/2010 i.e. just after 3 days of the occurrence and the second statement Exhibit-6 on 06/03/2010 in her house after she was taken home from hospital. There was no reason for Surajit, being the investigating officer of the case, to record the statements of Rashida, by falsely implicating the appellant as he had no personal enmity against him. Besides, he recorded two statements at two different places and time, where Rashida stated exactly in the same manner implicating the appellant. Surajit being a public servant, his action as well as evidence cannot be regarded as false and fabricated being guided by malice without any material to substantiate it. 12. Further, it is the evidence of both Motior and Sonawar that Rashida told them as to how the appellant committed the crime. She stated as to how the appellant tied her to the tree wrapping a rope by her neck and then burning her after pouring kerosene on her. So, it can safely be held that her mental condition was sound and she was fit enough to make statements in a balanced manner. She stated as to how the appellant tied her to the tree wrapping a rope by her neck and then burning her after pouring kerosene on her. So, it can safely be held that her mental condition was sound and she was fit enough to make statements in a balanced manner. Surajit also seized the jute rope and the jerry can in which kerosene was kept. The evidence of Rashida that she was tied by her neck with a rope is also corroborated by the evidence of Ali Akbar. Further, Swahid Bakht has also categorically deposed that Rashida told him in her house itself-when he went to see her-that appellant burnt her after tying her against a betel-nut tree. The evidence of Motior, Sonowar and Swahid are consistent and corroborative of one another on material particulars and hence reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, it can be safely held that Rashida made her statements at different point of time before different people and at different places. But her statements remained consistent with no material discrepancy at all,thereby attracting confidence of the court. It is clear from the evidence of Motior that appellant wanted to have affair with Rashida and regarding which a Bichar was also held and Rashida did not divulge her willingness to marry the appellant. 13. The appellant in defense adduced the evidence of Hatem and Farman to prove his innocence, but Hatem stated that he did not know as to how Rashida got burnt and he only called the ambulance whereas Farman said that Rashida had an affair with some person for which a village Bichar was called and so she had a quarrel with her husband. Even Farman had confirmed that a village Bichar was held for an affair of Rashida. Therefore, the appellant had a motive to commit the crime for grudge. The plea of defense taken by the appellant that Rashida committed suicide as she got humiliated after the Bichar is not believable in as much as in case of suicide, she would not tie her neck with a rope against a tree and then set fire on herself. Ali Akbar-who reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident- saw Rashida with a rope being tied on her neck against a tree. And Surajit seized such a jute rope from the place of occurrence. Ali Akbar-who reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident- saw Rashida with a rope being tied on her neck against a tree. And Surajit seized such a jute rope from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the plea of defense that Rashida committed suicide is totally ruled out. 14. In view of the above, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime and we have no hesitation but to hold that the conviction and sentence of the appellant are proper and hence not liable to be interfered with. 15. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.