JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.7.2006 and 13.7.2006 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.-1, Sahibganj in S.C. case No. 62 of 2005, whereby, the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of which he was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal code with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which to undergo R.I. for a period of fifteen days. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as would appear from the written report (Ext-1) of informant Kamleshwar Sah is that, the informant got his daughter Sangeeta Kumari @ Seema married with son of Hardeo Prasad Sah namely Rajiv Kumar and the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rituals. As per written report just few days after her daughter’s marriage, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband started putting pressure upon his deceased daughter to bring dowry from her parents for which they subjected her to torture and cruelty. The informant and his eldest son had to fulfil the demands from time to time with a view to save his daughter from the torture of the accused. Just six months back before the incident father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of her daughter demanded Rs. 60,000/-. Then Rs. 55,000/- was paid by the informant’s eldest son whereas he himself paid Rs. 5,000/- to the aforesaid accused persons. Despite fulfilment of such demand, behavior of the accused did not change and their demand for more money continued. It is further said in the written information that on 4.10.2004, his daughter told him on phone to send the money immediately otherwise they would kill her. The informant told his deceased daughter on phone to take time from the members of her in-laws and the money would be arranged. On 6.10.2004 at about 1:30 a.m. the informant’s elder son called him on phone and told him that he was calling from Sahibganj and he informed that Seema had been killed by her in-laws. The informant told his deceased daughter on phone to take time from the members of her in-laws and the money would be arranged. On 6.10.2004 at about 1:30 a.m. the informant’s elder son called him on phone and told him that he was calling from Sahibganj and he informed that Seema had been killed by her in-laws. The informant along with his wife and daughter rushed to Sahibganj and reached his Samdhi’s residence on 7.10.2004 at 8 a.m. There he found the dead body of his daughter lying on the verandah of the house. When he enquired, his son told him that husband of the deceased Rajiv Kumar had informed him on phone at 9:30 p.m. regarding the ailment of Seema and on hearing the same his son immediately rushed to Sahibganj and found Seema dead in her in law’s house. Lastly in the written report informant said that his daughter was killed by the accused for dowry in the night of 6.10.2004 in a well planned manner. 3. On the basis of written report of informant a criminal case being Sahibganj (Town) P.S. case no. 141 of 2004 u/s 304B/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Charges were framed against the accused persons under sections 302/34,201/34 and 498A/34 IPC and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial was conducted, witnesses were examined and at the conclusion of trial, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. The Prosecution examined altogether thirteen witnesses to prove its case. The informant died and hence he could not be examined during trial. 5. PW.1 Manoj Kumar is the brother of the accused-appellant Rajiv Kumar. He deposed that the deceased Sangita Kumari @ Seema who happened to be the wife of his younger brother Rajiv Kumar was married with him on 26.11.96 and she died on 6.10.2004 without any ailment. He further deposed that inquest report was prepared in his presence on which he put his signature. She died in her in laws’ house. 6. P.W.-2 Renubala is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the appellant. She deposed that the deceased Sangita Kumari died on 6.10.2004 after shutting the door. He further deposed that inquest report was prepared in his presence on which he put his signature. She died in her in laws’ house. 6. P.W.-2 Renubala is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the appellant. She deposed that the deceased Sangita Kumari died on 6.10.2004 after shutting the door. In her cross-examination she deposed that Seema was hanging in her room and she was brought down by family members and neighbours. 7. P.W.-3 is Puspa Devi, she is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the appellant. This witness deposed that the deceased died due to hanging. She hanged herself by using a box and her dead body was hanging beside the box. She hanged herself with the help of dhoti which belonged to Rajiv, her husband. She further deposed that they saw her hanging at 8:30 p.m. 8. P.W. 4 Rita Devi deposed that the deceased Sangita was her choti gotni. She further deposed that her behaviour among the family members was cordial and she was very calm. 9. P.W.5 Aditi Dipankar is the daughter of the deceased as well as accused and a child witness. Learned trial court found her competent to testify. She deposed that she now lives with the elder mummy. Previously, she used to live with her mother. On the date of incident she was sleeping with her mother. Relationship between her mother and father was good. She was declared hostile. She further deposed in cross-examination that she saw her mother hanging, and her chacha and chachi brought the body down. 10. P.W.6 Madan Kumar Jha is the witness to the inquest report. He is the friend of the appellant. 11. P.W.8 is Kamla Sah, she is the mother of deceased. She deposed that after marriage, her daughter was harassed by her husband and father-in-law for money. This was informed by her daughter to her elder brother, Yashwant Kumar who was B.D.O. posted in Boraijor, District Godda. Rs. 15,000/- was demanded out of which Rs. 12,000/- was given to the deceased by her son. Prior to payment of Rs.12,000/- her son had given Rs. 60,000/- to her son-in-law for business. She further deposed that information regarding death of her daughter was received by her son. She received the news about the death of her daughter from her son. Thereafter they had gone to Sahibganj and seen the dead body of her daughter. Prior to payment of Rs.12,000/- her son had given Rs. 60,000/- to her son-in-law for business. She further deposed that information regarding death of her daughter was received by her son. She received the news about the death of her daughter from her son. Thereafter they had gone to Sahibganj and seen the dead body of her daughter. She cannot say how she died, but saw blackish marks on her neck. In her cross-examination, she deposed that her daughter informed her about the torture by telephone. In para 15 of her cross-examination she deposed that to find out about the torture meted out to her daughter, she was going to send some one, but her daughter told her not to do so since she was already defeated and on next day she died. 12. P.W.-9, Rashmi Kumari is the elder sister of the deceased. She deposed that when her sister used to come from her in-laws place to her paternal home, then she used to complain about her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and say that they are demanding money. Their demand was met by her brother and father. She further deposed that on 4.8.2004, while crying on the phone her sister had informed her mother that her in-laws were giving her much trouble. Mother had on phone itself said that she will send younger brother and told her to come alongwith her husband and daughter to Bhagalpur but Sangita told her not to send her brother, and said that she would come after ‘jitiya’. On the day of jitiya itself her brother telephoned her that Sangita had died in her matrimonial home.Then this witness along with her mother and father went to the deceased sister’s in-law’s place and saw the dead body lying on the verandah and there was marks on the left side of her neck. In her cross-examination in para 8 she has deposed that 2 to 3 years after marriage, money was demanded from the deceased. In para 13 she said that she saw marks on her neck. In para 16 she deposed that she saw injury mark on the body of the deceased and concluded she was murdered. 13. P.W.10 Yashwani Kumar, he is elder brother of the deceased. He deposed that his sister was harassed for money by her husband Rajiv Kumar, her father-in-law and mother-in-law. In para 16 she deposed that she saw injury mark on the body of the deceased and concluded she was murdered. 13. P.W.10 Yashwani Kumar, he is elder brother of the deceased. He deposed that his sister was harassed for money by her husband Rajiv Kumar, her father-in-law and mother-in-law. When he was posted as BDO of Boarijor, then harassment for money became more intense. During his said posting he used to give money to his sister’s husband from time to time. In this manner he had given to his sister’s husband Rs. 55,000/-. Even one week before his sister’s death, he had sent Rs. 12,000/- to his sister because his sister had telephoned that she was being pressurized for money. He further deposed that in the night of 6th October he received a phone call from Rajiv’s house that his sister is very ill, later on his mother telephoned him that she is unconscious. Then he went to Sahibganj and found the dead body lying on the verandah of his sister’s in-law’s house. He also saw a deep wound on her neck due to which he felt that her in laws had strangulated and murdered her. He has proved the written report which was marked as Ext.-1. In his cross-examination, he deposed that, soon after his sister’s marriage the demand for money had begun. Money was demanded from both his father and him. On the last occasion he had sent Rs. 12,000/- to his sister through one Tun Tun who was familiar to him. 14. PW-12 is Archana is the wife of PW-10 Yashwani Kumar and bhabhi of the deceased Seema. She deposed that after marriage, relation of her nanad Seema with her in-laws was not good as appellant husband demanded money from them. Her father-in-law and husband used to fulfill the demand of Rajiv. She further said that on getting information of death of Seema, she along with her husband went to Sahibganj. She saw Seema dead. Her body was kept on verandah. She saw mark on the left side of her neck. She further deposed that her father-in-law had during his life time given a letter to her which was written and signed by Seema. She proved the three letters which was in the handwriting and signature of Seema which was marked as Ext. 6, 6/1 and 6/2. 15. P.W.13 is Dr. She saw mark on the left side of her neck. She further deposed that her father-in-law had during his life time given a letter to her which was written and signed by Seema. She proved the three letters which was in the handwriting and signature of Seema which was marked as Ext. 6, 6/1 and 6/2. 15. P.W.13 is Dr. Deepak Kumar who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Seema @ Sangita Devi. He found antemortem injuries on her person:- a linear bruise mark 5”x2” on the left side of the neck extending from the ½” away from the midline and at the level of thyroid cartilage up to the back below left ear. On dissection extravasation of blood into the subcutaneous tissue under the bruise mark of her neck. The larynx and trachea were congested and contained frothy mucus. Lungs were congested and bronchial tubes contained frothy blood stained mucus. Right side of the head was full of black blood and left side is empty. He further deposed that substance used was hard and blunt substance which may be hard pressing substance. He said time elapsed since death was twelve to twenty four hours from the time of conducting autopsy. Doctor had opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The post-mortem report was prepared and signed by him and marked as Ext.7. In cross-examination he said that in a case of strangulation by throttling, finger marks may appear on the neck and this is not a case of strangulation by throttling. He further said that in case of hanging neck bends on either side normally opposite to knot. There will be wound mark of ligature obliquely on the neck in the case of hanging. He said that in a case of hanging obliquely placed ligature mark would be found in both side of the neck. Throttling is always applied by hands and is always pressed on the front side of the neck. In case of throttling there are marks of thumb and fingers. Length of mark of finger can be more than five inches. Injury caused by finger would be on the both sides of neck. 16. P.W.11 is Anil Kumar Dwivedi the investigating officer of the case. He has proved the written report of Kamleshwar Sah marked Ext-1. In case of throttling there are marks of thumb and fingers. Length of mark of finger can be more than five inches. Injury caused by finger would be on the both sides of neck. 16. P.W.11 is Anil Kumar Dwivedi the investigating officer of the case. He has proved the written report of Kamleshwar Sah marked Ext-1. He inspected the place of occurrence and inspected the room in which the deceased and her husband used to live. He found this particular room consisting of three doors. He found a bed placed against the wall and also a tin box measuring 3x4x2 feet. He found a rod installed towards the ceiling of the room. The height of ceiling was around ten feet. He seized one dhoti during investigation. The production cum seizure list of dhoti was marked as Ext.4. He proved the formal FIR and the inquest report as Ext 2 and Ext.3 respectively. He further deposed that during investigation father of deceased had given a photo copy of letter written by the deceased. The production cum seizure of the said letters was prepared which was marked as Ext.5. The letter (photo copy) was marked as Ext. 5/1. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he inspected the room where it is said that deceased Seema committed suicide. He found a pipe towards the ceiling and the distance between the floor and pipe was about 10 feet. Below the pipe a box was kept and the distance between the box and pipe was about 6 feet. A dhoti was also kept there with which it was said the suicide was committed. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:- 17. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has first and foremost argued that the case is based on the circumstantial evidence only since there are no eye witness to the alleged offence. Therefore, the allegation and the evidence gathered must be cautiously used in coming to any judicial conclusion. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out some of the inconsistencies, contradictions or weakness in the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses. Firstly, he has referred to the evidence of P.W.-2 Renu Bala P.W. 3 Pushpa Devi and P.W.-4 Reeta Devi and submitted that these three witnesses are sister-in-laws of the appellant and they have not supported the prosecution case. Firstly, he has referred to the evidence of P.W.-2 Renu Bala P.W. 3 Pushpa Devi and P.W.-4 Reeta Devi and submitted that these three witnesses are sister-in-laws of the appellant and they have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.-2 Renu Bala has deposed that the deceased Sangita Kumari died after shutting the door of her room. P.W.3 Pushpa Devi has deposed that the deceased died by hanging with the help of a box and with dhoti of her husband. P.W.-4 is Rita Devi has deposed that the deceased was well behaved and had good relation with all the members of the family and she died in her in-laws place. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that P.W.5 is Aditi Dipankar, the daughter of the deceased. She deposed that the relationship of her mother and father was good. She had seen her mother hanging and her uncle and aunty had brought down the deceased. Counsel for the appellant submitted that even the daughter of the deceased of eight years says that the relationship between her parents were good. She is a child witness, so her evidence is important and reliable. 20. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.8 is Kamla Sah the mother of the deceased. Counsel says that P.W.-8 has not said anything substantial. This witness has in para 3 deposed that Rs. 60,000/- was given to the son-in-law for business purpose. Counsel says money being loaned for business between friends or close relatives is not a new thing. The money requested by the appellant’s side or given to them was for business and not as a dowry demand. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the findings of the learned court below wherein it is indicated that Ext. 6, 6/1 and 6/2 are virtually the personal notes of the deceased in her writing and signature in which she has expressed her apprehension of her death at the hands of her husband Rajiv Kumar. Learned counsel says that these notes of the deceased is of the year 2001 and the death took place in 2004. The notes are old and as time changes, man changes, attitudes changes, hence, Ext. 6,6/1 and 6/2 cannot be considered. They are not relevant to be considered as are not soon before death. Learned counsel says that these notes of the deceased is of the year 2001 and the death took place in 2004. The notes are old and as time changes, man changes, attitudes changes, hence, Ext. 6,6/1 and 6/2 cannot be considered. They are not relevant to be considered as are not soon before death. Further, these exhibits are inadmissible because they were not placed before him for his defence u/s 313 Cr.P.C. On this point, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V. State of Maharastra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 . Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that only the vague allegation of torture has been made. Torture has to be alleged by the manner of torture only to say “torture” is not sufficient. The prosecution failed to prove the torture meted out to her. No overt act of violence or torture is there. 22. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of doctor also does not make out a case of strangulation, as whether deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation has not been proved. Only linear bruises are there which do not amount to much and there is ligature marks. Counsel has pointed para 7 of the evidence of the doctor where it is mentioned that there was no mark of violence. Since, medical evidence is not consistent hence, death has not been opined by the doctor and therefore prosecution has failed to prove homicidal death. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that apart from the aforementioned, the demand of money is itself reflected inconsistently. In the written report it is stated that demand of money was raised after some days of marriage while in para 8, P.W.9 says demand for money was made after two-three years of the marriage. Learned counsel said that there was no demand of money and cruelty was not caused to the deceased. Learned counsel relied on a judgment of Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharastra reported in (2002)5 SCC 177 . Learned counsel thus concluded by saying that for all these aforesaid reasons the conviction and sentence of the learned court below cannot be sustained and should be set aside. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE-APP: 24. Learned counsel relied on a judgment of Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharastra reported in (2002)5 SCC 177 . Learned counsel thus concluded by saying that for all these aforesaid reasons the conviction and sentence of the learned court below cannot be sustained and should be set aside. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE-APP: 24. Learned counsel for the State, learned APP on the other hand argued that though this is a case of no direct eye witnesses, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that P.W.-8 Kamla Sah, P.W.9 Rashmi Kumari and P.W.10 Yashwani Kumar have stated about demand of dowry. P.W.8 the mother of the deceased has in para 2 of her deposition said that after marriage her daughter was harassed by her husband and father-in-law for money. Her daughter used to tell about this to her son, who was a B.D.O. at Boarijor. The details of amount given are mentioned in para 3 and 12. She deposed in para 15 that her daughter informed about harassment on phone and that she wanted to send some one to see her daughter, but just after receiving the information about the harassment, her daughter died on the next day. P.W.9 is the elder sister of the deceased, she has corroborated the evidence of P.W.8 in para 2 of her deposition. In para 13 and 16 she has deposed about seeing injuries on the body of the deceased. 25. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that P.W.10 who is the elder brother of the deceased has also corroborated about the demand of money and harassment meted out to her sister. He deposed that his sister was harassed for monetary demand and when he was posted as B.D.O. at Boraijor frequently demands were raised and he had given money from time to time and in this way he had given Rs. 55,000/- to her husband. Also just a week before the death of deceased he had sent Rs. 12,000/- because there was a lot of pressure on her for money. He had seen the dead body of his sister in the verandah of his sister’s in laws’s house. He noticed deep wound on the dead body of his sister and felt she had been strangulated by the neck. 12,000/- because there was a lot of pressure on her for money. He had seen the dead body of his sister in the verandah of his sister’s in laws’s house. He noticed deep wound on the dead body of his sister and felt she had been strangulated by the neck. Regarding the exhibits 6,6/1 and 6/2, learned APP submits that these have been exhibited without objection and they are good evidence to indicate the state of mind of the deceased as well as the behavior of the husband. There was continuing offence, ultimately culminating in the death of the deceased. 26. Learned APP also submits that as per opinion of the doctor death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has pointed out para 4 of the doctor’s deposition wherein it is said that in the case of hanging neck bends on other side, normally opposite to knot. He has then pointed out to para 5 of the inquest report and said that there was black marks on the left side of the neck. So it is a conclusive case of hanging. 27. Referring to the evidence of the investigating officer learned APP has submitted that it has been argued by the learned defence counsel that the door was closed, however it is clear from para 2 of the deposition given by PW-11, the investigating officer that the room where the occurrence had taken place consists of three doors, so it cannot be said that all doors were closed. Finally, he has concluded that for all the aforesaid reasons, and the fact that death occurred after seven years of marriage the appellant was rightly convicted under section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is proper and requires no interference. FINDINGS: 28. After going through the records and evidences and hearing both counsels the following is observed :- (i) In this case initially there were three accused including the present appellant. Apart from the present appellant husband herein, the father- in-law, mother- in-law were acquitted. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and it is based on circumstantial evidence. Apart from the present appellant husband herein, the father- in-law, mother- in-law were acquitted. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and it is based on circumstantial evidence. In this case as many as thirteen witnesses were examined including the doctor and the investigating officer. (ii) From the evidence of the doctor and prosecution witnesses it is established that death was not under ordinary circumstances and hence, it needs to be explained. The defence of appellant is that deceased hanged herself. In the memo of appeal appellant has raised the point that doctor (P.W. 13) has suppressed the fact that there was ligature mark on both sides of the neck of the deceased. So, the question arises deceased Seema died due to suicide by hanging or homicide by strangulation. On going through the post mortem report, we find that doctor found ante mortem injury as linear bruise mark 5”x1/2” on the left side of the neck. Regarding substance used doctor said substance may be hard pressing substance. Doctor opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. So, this post mortem report has to be tested in light of evidence of prosecution witnesses and other facts and circumstances. In the inquest report (Ext.-3) at column no. 5, regarding injury on the body, it is written one black injury on the left side of the neck. P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 12 have also said in their evidence that when they reached the matrimonial home of the deceased, they saw the deceased body lying on verandah and they witnessed injury on the left side of her neck. So, doctor rightly came to the conclusion that strangulation was caused to the deceased by hard pressing substance and hence, he found ante mortem injury of 5”x1/2” on the left side of the neck. Hence, doctor opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 said that deceased died due to hanging but all are related witnesses and P.W. 5, who was a child witness was declared hostile. So, there is no reason to disagree with the medical opinion of the doctor and hence the death of deceased was homicidal caused by the appellant. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 said that deceased died due to hanging but all are related witnesses and P.W. 5, who was a child witness was declared hostile. So, there is no reason to disagree with the medical opinion of the doctor and hence the death of deceased was homicidal caused by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried hard by pointing out characteristics of death when caused by hanging and when by strangulation but failed to dislodge the doctors report that very much is definitive about the nature of injury and the reason for it. So the theory of ligature mark was raised by the appellant only to create impression that deceased committed suicide by hanging only to escape from the charges under section 302 IPC. (iii) Now from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW-8,PW-9, PW-10 and P.W. 12 it has come that after some time of marriage there was constant demand of money from the in-laws of the deceased particularly, the husband and father –in-law and for which she used to be often or continuously harassed and threatened. P.W.-8 Kamla Sah is the mother of the deceased has deposed that her daughter was harassed for money by the father-in-law and her husband. This was informed by her daughter to her elder brother who had given Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- to the son-in-law. P. W.-8 was further informed by her daughter about harassment by telephone and also that just the day before her daughter died she was going to send some one to see her, but the daughter herself had told her not to do so. P.W.-9 Rashmi Kumari the elder sister of the deceased has also deposed that her sister often complained of harassment for money and the difficult situation at her in law’s place. She also deposed about the harassment of her sister just the day before her sister died, but her sister had told her mother not to send anyone. P.W.10, Yashwani Kumar, the brother of the deceased girl has also deposed about the harassment and difficulties of his sister because of the demand for money. He deposed regarding his awareness about these monetary demand and harassment. In fact, he has said that after he became BDO of Boarijor, the demand increased. This demonstrates very well the greedy nature of the appellant i.e. husband of the deceased girl. He deposed regarding his awareness about these monetary demand and harassment. In fact, he has said that after he became BDO of Boarijor, the demand increased. This demonstrates very well the greedy nature of the appellant i.e. husband of the deceased girl. He has also deposed to have given Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- to the husband of his sister at different intervals of time. From the evidence of the mother, sister and brother of the deceased girl it is amply made out that the deceased was continuously harassed and tortured for money by the appellant. (iv) Ext.-6, Ext.-6/1 and Ext.-6/2 are letters written by the deceased Seema. These letters reveal that deceased had apprehension of her death. Lastly she died in her matrimonial home. 29. The judgment in the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade (supra), relied upon by the appellant is of no help to him because there is concrete evidences of P.W. 8, P.W.9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 12 regarding demand of money. Another judgment in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) is also of no help to the appellant as Ext. -6, Ext.-6/1 and Ext.-6/2 which are the letters written by the deceased, was admitted without objection and it cannot be said that appellant was prejudiced due to non questioning of these letters in his cross examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. 30. So looking at the evidence of the doctor, letters Ext.-6, Ext.-6/1 and Ext.-6/2 and supported by the evidences of mother, sister and brother of the deceased about the demand of money and harassment, lends support to the conclusion that the husband of the deceased, who is now the sole appellant, is responsible for the homicidal death of his wife. Hence the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 31. Therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2006 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.-1, Sahibganj in S.C. Case no. 62 of 2005 is upheld. 32. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.