JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant Jamal Ahmed Choudhury @ Jamaluddin Choudhury has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine Rs.1000/-. The jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The victim of the incident was wife Sultana Begum of the appellant. On the date of incident, she was aged about 40 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant married Sultana about 20 years prior to the date of incident and out of their wedlock, two sons - Shabas (PW-2) and Jabas (PW-4) and one daughter Afrin (CW-1) were born. The appellant did not do any work and hence had no income. He was dependent totally on the family members of Sultana for financial needs. Her brother - Kazi Nazrul Islam (PW-1) provided food, money and clothes etc. to the appellant and his children. In fact, the eldest son Shabas of appellant lived with Kazi Nazrul Islam to pursue his education peacefully. 4. The appellant, due to financial crisis, often demanded money from Sultana and for money he also frequently quarrelled with her. However, Sultana continued to stay with him bearing everything and her family members also supported her by whatever means they could. But, on 14/6/2013, at about 9 a.m., the appellant mercilessly assaulted Sultana with brick and hammer on her head and face. Sultan Ahmed (PW-5) lived in the neighbourhood of appellant. He telephonically informed Kazi Nazrul Islam about the beating of Sultana. Kazi Nazrul Islam was suffering from illness at that point of time. He, therefore, sent his mother Tombi Bibi (CW-2) and Shabas to the house of appellant. And, when both reached there, they found Sultana lying injured on the floor bleeding profusely. Sultana, on their asking, disclosed that appellant had caused injuries to her with brick and wood. Sultana was then immediately carried to the hospital in a vehicle. She was accompanied by her sons –Shabas an Jabas. Even the appellant joined them upto the hospital. Sultana succumbed to her injuries soon after reaching the hospital. Kazi Nazrul Islam lodged the First Information Report Exhibit-1 at Silchar Police Station. Sultana was then immediately carried to the hospital in a vehicle. She was accompanied by her sons –Shabas an Jabas. Even the appellant joined them upto the hospital. Sultana succumbed to her injuries soon after reaching the hospital. Kazi Nazrul Islam lodged the First Information Report Exhibit-1 at Silchar Police Station. The Station Officer of the Police Station – Chandan Jyoti Bora (PW-8) - rushed to the hospital and made the inquest of dead body. He also referred the dead body for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination report Exhibit-3 proved by Dr.Gunajit Das (PW-7) reported following multiple injuries on the dead body:- (a). Stitch wound with 11 stitches of 12 cm in length on right parietal region. On removing the stitches, the margins were found to be irregular and muscle deep. (b). Stitch wound with 17 stitches on forehead. On removing the stitches, the margins were found to be irregular and muscle deep with length 17 cm x 2 cm, (c). Stitched wound with 8 stitches present on temporo-parietal region 10 cm in length. On removing the stitches the margins were found to be irregular and muscle deep, (d). Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm to 2 cm x 1 cm over right chest, (e). Closed fracture on the middle 1/3 of nasal bone, (f). Contusion of 3 cm on left shoulder. (g). cranium sub-dural haemorrhage over both hemispheres except the frontal lobes. The doctor opined that Sultana died due head injuries, which were ante-mortem and caused by blunt force impact. 5. The appellant also reported injuries on his person and as such, he too was hospitalized in the Silchar Medical College & Hospital. After he was discharged from the hospital, the Investigating Officer arrested him for offences under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he was taken by Sultana for treatment and on the previous day of the incident, they returned to their house. On the date of occurrence, he was assaulted on his head by Sultan Ahmed (PW-5) and he fell unconscious. When he regained his senses, he found that Sultana was lying injured and hence, he did not have any idea as to how she got the injuries and suspected that Sultan Ahmed played a conspiracy to falsely frame him. On the date of occurrence, he was assaulted on his head by Sultan Ahmed (PW-5) and he fell unconscious. When he regained his senses, he found that Sultana was lying injured and hence, he did not have any idea as to how she got the injuries and suspected that Sultan Ahmed played a conspiracy to falsely frame him. However, the trial Court relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses - Basiratun and Afrin, disbelieved his defence and convicted him as aforesaid. The trial court also believed the evidence of Shabas, Tombi and Jabas. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court committed an illegality in convicting him in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence. It has also been argued that the trial court ought to have believed the defence of appellant. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently defended the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant. 8. Afrin is girl child of the appellant and Sultana. She being a small child was at home when the incident took place. She, therefore, saw the incident and was examined by the trial court as court witness. Afrin has deposed that one day when she got up in the morning, she saw appellant severely beating Sultana. She has further deposed that Sultana was crying for help, hearing which, her paternal Aunt came to their house followed by many other persons. According to Afrin, Sultana was profusely bleeding and hence was taken to the doctor. She has also deposed that appellant frequently used to assault Sultana. The evidence of Afrin is substantially corroborated by the evidence of her Aunt - Basiratun Bibi (PW-3). Basiratun has categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, Afrin came to her and asked to come to their house. According to her, when she reached the house of appellant, she saw him assaulting Sultana in one corner of the house with a piece of brick and at that time he was also holding a hammer in his hand. Basiratun then says that seeing the occurrence, she became afraid and ran out holding the hand of Afrin and fell unconscious after reaching her house. 9. A conjoint reading of the evidence of Afrin and Basiratun would go to show that both of them saw the appellant assaulting Sultana. Basiratun then says that seeing the occurrence, she became afraid and ran out holding the hand of Afrin and fell unconscious after reaching her house. 9. A conjoint reading of the evidence of Afrin and Basiratun would go to show that both of them saw the appellant assaulting Sultana. At first, Afrin saw him assaulting Sultana and when she brought Basiratun, she also saw him beating Sultana with a brick and holding a hammer in his hand. Tombi has deposed that Afrin and Basiratun told her that appellant assaulted Sultana with a hammer and brick. The post mortem examination report confirmed that the injuries on Sultana were caused due to blunt force impact. Brick and hammer are such blunt objects. Basiratun, being the sister-in-law of appellant, has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. As such, Afrin also being the daughter of appellant has no reason to falsely implicate him. We, therefore, find the evidence of both these witnesses truthful and trustworthy. 10. The evidence of Afrin and Basiratun has further been strengthened by the evidence of Shabas, Jabas and Tombi. They have deposed that Sultana made oral dying declarations before them. It is the evidence of Kazi Nazrul Islam that when he was informed by Sultan Ahmed that Sultana was lying injured on the ground, he immediately sent his mother - Tombi and nephew - Shabas to her house. Shabas has deposed that when he and his grandmother - Tombi reached the house, they found Sultana lying injured and bleeding profusely. According to his evidence, on being asked, Sultana told them that appellant had assaulted her. Shabas has also deposed that appellant used to frequently assault Sultana in front of him. According to his evidence, appellant used to demand money from the family of Sultana as he did not do any work and for this reason, both appellant and Sultana often used to quarrel. Similar is the evidence of Tombi. She too has categorically deposed that when she reached along with Shabas to the house of appellant, they found Sultana in an injured condition and on being asked, Sultana stated that appellant had assaulted her. Not only this, Jabas has also deposed that when he along with Shabas carried their mother Sultana to the hospital, she on way, disclosed that appellant had assaulted and caused injuries to her. Not only this, Jabas has also deposed that when he along with Shabas carried their mother Sultana to the hospital, she on way, disclosed that appellant had assaulted and caused injuries to her. According to Jabas, appellant had also accompanied them when Sultana was being carried to the hospital. These witnesses are consistent in their evidence and corroborate each other on materials particulars. All of them have categorically deposed that Sultana made dying declarations that appellant had assaulted and caused injuries to her. During cross examination also their evidence has remained unshaken. Shabas and Jabas being sons of appellant had no occasion to falsely depose against him. It is the evidence of Jabas that Sultana had made the dying declaration before him while she was being carried to the hospital. He has also deposed that even the appellant was present in the said vehicle accompanying them. Sultana in presence of her two sons and the appellant stated that she was assaulted by the appellant. Had the appellant not assaulted Sultana, he would have immediately disputed the same which he did not do. For these reasons, we find that there is no room left for any doubt that the appellant is the sole perpetrator of the crime. Besides, the appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence that Sultan Ahmed had assaulted him due to which he fell unconscious and could not explain the injuries on Sultana. As such, the explanation offered by him is not acceptable. The prosecution witnesses have also unequivocally deposed that the appellant had inflicted injuries to himself for his defence. 11. Kazi Nazrul Islam and Tombi have categorically deposed that appellant did not do any work and hence had no money. He, therefore, used to torture Sultana for bringing money from her family. Kazi Nazrul Islam says that he used to help Sultana by providing rice and other foodstuff regularly. Shabas and Jabas have also deposed that their maternal uncle used to help the family by providing food and appellant frequently assaulted Sultana. Even Sultan Ahmed has deposed that appellant did not do any work and always used to loiter whereas Sultana used to run the house by bringing money from her family. 12. From a combined reading of the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses it is crystal clear that the appellant did not do any work and had no income. Even Sultan Ahmed has deposed that appellant did not do any work and always used to loiter whereas Sultana used to run the house by bringing money from her family. 12. From a combined reading of the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses it is crystal clear that the appellant did not do any work and had no income. So, he used to regularly demand money from Sultana and she used to bring money from her family members, who used to support the appellant to run the house. Thus, it is proved that the appellant used to torture Sultana by demanding money and they often used to quarrel on this issue. It is also proved that on the date of occurrence, appellant assaulted Sultana with a brick and hammer, causing her serious injuries leading her to death. Both Afrin and Basiratun saw him assaulting Sultana and she also stated before her two sons - Shabas and Jabas - and her mother-Tombi -that the appellant had caused her injuries. Therefore, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant used to regularly torture Sultana demanding money and on the date of occurrence he assaulted her severely leading her to death. 13. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 14. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.