JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - The appellant was charged under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC for causing cruelty on 09.12.2013 and before and murder of his wife namely Sampa Purkayastha on 09.12.2013 at Gobindapur, Kailashahar. On regular trial, the appellant has been convicted for causing cruelty and murder by the judgment dated20.12.2017 by the Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar in Case No. ST/39(NT/K) of 2014. Pursuant to the said conviction, by the order dated 20.12.2017, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. The sentences are directed to run concurrently and the period of detention undergone by the convict has been directed be set off against the term of imprisonment as per provision of Section 428 of the CrPC. It has been also observed that if the fine money is realized that shall be paid to the parents of the victim. 2. By this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged on multiple objection, including inadequacy of legal evidence to prove guilt of the appellant, suspicion has been given the colour of substantive evidence and there is no proper examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC. It has been also asserted that the import of disclosure under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as the incriminating evidence is grossly against the settled proposition of law. Even, according to the appellant, the last seen together has been applied without taking into consideration the gap between time of seeing together and the time of death. The chain of circumstances cannot in the case in hand be held to have been proved to meet the requirement of the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". Finally, it has been asserted that the trial court has not separated the "improved versions" and did not give any importance to the facts as brought out during the cross-examination. 3. The chain of circumstances cannot in the case in hand be held to have been proved to meet the requirement of the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". Finally, it has been asserted that the trial court has not separated the "improved versions" and did not give any importance to the facts as brought out during the cross-examination. 3. The prosecution against the appellant has evidently been commenced when one Subinay Purakayastha (PW-1) filed an oral ejahar to the Officer-in-Charge of Kailashahar Police Station on 10.12.2013 revealing that his younger sister Sampa Purakayastha married the appellant following a love affair. After marriage, they had started residing in a rented house at Gobindapur at Kailashahar and both the appellant and his sister had continued their study at RKM College. It has been alleged in the complaint that after someday of their marriage, his sister was pressurized for bringing dowry. PW-1 used to help his sister by providing some money regularly. On 10.12.2013, he was informed that the dead body of his sister was lying in the rented house and her husband consumed poison and had been admitted in the RGM hospital. PW-1 suspected that his sister had been strangulated bythe appellant on demand of dowry. Based on the said ejahar dated 10.12.2010, Kailashahar PS case No.246/13 under Section 304B was registered and taken up for investigation. 4. On completion of investigation, the final police report charge sheeting the appellant under Sections 498A/302 of the IPC was filed. Having taken cognizance, the police papers were committed to the court of Sessions as the principal offence of murder is exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. On 07.06.2014, the Sessions Judge framed the charge as noted above. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 31 witnesses (PWs-1 to 31) and introduced 15 documentary evidence (Exbts-1 to 15) including the inquest report (Exbt-1), the post-mortem examination report (Exbt-9) primary post-mortem report (Exbt-10) and the toxicology report (Exbt-13). The defence, with a view to rebut the prosecution evidence, adduced two witnesses (DWs 1 and 2). After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC for having his response to the incriminating materials those surfaced in the evidence. The defence, with a view to rebut the prosecution evidence, adduced two witnesses (DWs 1 and 2). After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC for having his response to the incriminating materials those surfaced in the evidence. During the said examination, the appellant reiterated his plea of innocence and stated that the incriminating evidence has been fabricated to implicate him maliciously. 6. After appreciation of the evidence, the Sessions Judge returned the finding of conviction. Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the episodes of circumstances which were considered by the Sessions Judge are as under: 1. Both of them married for love and were still pursuing studies in the college. 2. They were residing together in the rented house of PW 23 away from their families and none else was residing with them. 3. The accused used to envy the deceased as she did better then him in exam and he also used to ill-treat he demanding Rs. One lad and also used to suspect her chastity. 4. On the fateful day i.e. 09.12.2013 the deceased was last seen together with the accused in their living room as made out by the evidence of PW 4. 5. The room in which deceased was recovered was under lock from outside and the accused was missing without information to anybody since the afternoon of 09.12.2013 i.e. when they were last seen together. 6. The medical evidence unequivocally says the cause of death to be asphyxia due to smothering. 7. There is no explanation by the accused as to how his wife died though he was seen last together with the deceased in the same room. 7. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has quite stoutly submitted that the circumstances relating to envy, the last seen together and absence of explanation by the appellant have been considered in the chain without substantive evidence and mostly on surmise. Even the episode of monitory demand has evidently been improved as PW-1 who filed the oral complaint did not give any reference of any specific amount of money demanded by the appellant. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that in the post-mortem report, the cause of death has been attributed to asphyxia following smothering but no material had been seized from the crime scene to support that claim. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that in the post-mortem report, the cause of death has been attributed to asphyxia following smothering but no material had been seized from the crime scene to support that claim. In this regard, he has referred to three seizure lists (Exbts 6, 7 and 8) and contended that the materials those were seized in the seizure cannot be used for smothering inasmuch as death by smothering can only occur if the breathing is completely obstructed and for that purpose some object is ordinarily to be used, if not, it is a case of strangulation. 8. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel having referred to the ante mortem injuries has submitted that there is no reference to ligature mark but abrasions and lacerated injuries are found around the neck. According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel, the opinion of the post mortem doctor is, therefore, not above suspicion. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the evidence of PW-21 (uncle of the appellant) was given weightage out of proportion. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel having referred to the testimony ofPW16 (the landlady) has submitted that the said witness did not see the victim after the afternoon (3pm), but according to the estimate as made by the post mortem doctors, the death did occur 18-21 hours prior to the post mortem examination. Post mortem examination commenced at 1.10 pm on 10.12.2013. Thus, the time of death would be between 4 am of 09.12.2013 and 7 pm of 09.12.2013. PW16 has clearly stated that she cannot vouch that the victim and the appellant were present in that hut in that night. If the evidence of PW-16 and PW-21 is read together, the prosecution's theory incriminating the appellant in causing murder of his wife would be broken into pieces, inasmuch as PW-21 who was not declared hostile to the prosecution case, has stated that he found the appellant in the house of one Manindra Deb, his uncle in a marriage ceremony. But he has mentioned the time of seeing the appellant at about 4.30 pm. 9. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has expressed his disapproval the way, the trial judge has put question to PW-13, one of the post-mortem doctors. According to Mr. But he has mentioned the time of seeing the appellant at about 4.30 pm. 9. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has expressed his disapproval the way, the trial judge has put question to PW-13, one of the post-mortem doctors. According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel, the question that was put by the trial judge is whether the injuries 1, 2 and 3 under column No. A are signs of smothering. PW-13 did not state anything prior to that question how that smothering took place. This, according to Mr. Acharjee, is highly prejudicial. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no substantive evidence to prove that it is the appellant, and none else who had killed Sampa. [the wife of the appellant] 10. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has stated that the testimony of Dipa Das cannot be believed by this court as her statement has generated her chance conversation with the victim in a place of proximate occurrence or based on, sudden glimpse' to the hut where the victim and the appellant used to live. In this regard, it may be noted that statement of PW- 4 was also recorded under Section 164(5) of the CrPC. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has been highly critical of the finding of the trial judge that from the evidence of PWs 1, 4, 20 and 13, it has been proved with absolute certainty that after marriage Sampa (the victim) was being tormented and tortured by the appellant on demand of money. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has contended with adequate emphasis that the evidence of DW-2 being of material importance has not been appreciated by the trial judge in the perspective of facts. Finally, Mr. Acharjee, has submitted that the serious discrepancies has been kept out of appreciation considering those as minor discrepancies by the trial judge. Thus, their pervading impact on the prosecution case has been overlooked. 11. To repel the submission of the counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Debnath leaned Addl. PP has clearly submitted that the chain of circumstances to prove the charge has been fully established by the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 13, 16, 20 and 25. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the evidence of DW-2, if placed in the perspective, would as well support the prosecution case. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has clearly submitted that the chain of circumstances to prove the charge has been fully established by the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 13, 16, 20 and 25. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the evidence of DW-2, if placed in the perspective, would as well support the prosecution case. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has submitted that it was not the case of the defence that except the appellant, someone had entered in the rented hut for causing death of the victim. The defence case as revealed from the testimony of the appellant (DW-1) is a case of alibi inasmuch as the appellant has admitted his marriage with the victim when they were still in the college and prosecuting their studies. He has stated that after coming from the college he had asked his wife to get prepared for attending a marriage ceremony in the house of his relative in a place called Krishnan agar. He left the house for attending the marriage at 4-4.30 pm. According to him, he did not return home in that night and he was in the company of Haripada Datta and Digbijoy Deb. He was depressed and consumed poison in the housed of Sudhangshu Deb. When he regained sense at RGM Hospital, Kailashahar, he came to learn that his wife died in the rented house in Gobindapur. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestions contrary to his statement in the examination-in-chief. 12. DW-2, as Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has pointed out has only confirmed that he met the appellant at the marriage ceremony at around 4-4.30 pm in the afternoon. He has not stated anything beyond that. Mr. Debnath learned counsel has further submitted that DW-1 did not explain why his house was under lock and key from the outside. Even, he has denied the statement of PW-16 (the landlady) that she saw their hut was locked from outside. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has quite critically stated that raising objection without support from the evidence or record is of no use. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has submitted that most of the objection raised by the appellant did not get support from the record of evidence. On the contrary, from the evidence, it has transpired that the appellant was suspecting the victim engaged in an extra-marital affair. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has submitted that most of the objection raised by the appellant did not get support from the record of evidence. On the contrary, from the evidence, it has transpired that the appellant was suspecting the victim engaged in an extra-marital affair. He was also nurturing envy for her better academic performance. On the fateful day, the victim had denied to accompany the appellant to a marriage ceremony. It is that foundational fact that allows any prudent person to draw a presumption that the said refusal had incited the appellant to smother the victim. Thus, the inference of the trial court in this regard cannot be faulted with. 13. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. PP has completely rejected the argument that the trial judge has applied the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act quite inappropriately. While supporting the opinion of the trial judge, Mr. Debnath learned Addl. PP has referred to this court the following observation recorded in the judgment of conviction: "Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find force in the submission of learned PP with regard to the application of the principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the discourse of the instant case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Here the victim was last seen with the accused being her husband in their room and in that very room her dead body was found door being locked from outside and the accused leaving the household without any murmur. In this scenario it was for the accused to explain how death of his wife occurred. But there is no such explanation by the accused. The circumstances in its entirely, therefore, leads squarely to the guilt of the accused and excludes all possibility of his innocence. In the light of the above, I hold that the circumstances and the evidence on record unflinchingly establishes that the accused Pranesh killed his wife by smothering and made good his escape after locking the room from outside. Or else the least he owed is an explanation as to how his wife died. But he has not done nothing like that. I accordingly hold the accused guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC." [Emphasis added] 14. Or else the least he owed is an explanation as to how his wife died. But he has not done nothing like that. I accordingly hold the accused guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC." [Emphasis added] 14. As already pointed out, PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 20 and 25 came forward to substantiate the prosecution case, particularly PWs 1, 4, 20 and 13 according to the trial judge has proved the cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC "with absolute certainty". 15. For appreciating the objections raised in the appeal as well as the contentions of the counsel representing the respective parties, it would be appropriate and incumbent to make a short survey of the evidence as recorded in the trial. 16. PW-1, Sri Subinay Purakayastha lodged the oral ejahar content of which has already been noted and he has admitted the said ejahar (Exbt-2) in the trial. But in the trial, he has stated that the appellant after three months of his marriage with Sampa (the victim) started torturing her mentally and physically on demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-. PW-1 along with his mother went to the house of the appellant when the victim narrated the act of cruelty but when they asked the appellant, he denied. They took up that issue with the parents of Pranesh (the appellant) but they had denied any knowledge. However, they had assured that they would take care of the issue. After two days both the appellant and the victim came and stayed in their house for two day. PW-1 gave one mobile phone to the victim but that was broken by the appellant. Thus, there had been no other alternative but to talk to Sampa on mobile phone of the appellant. As a result, Sampa could not open her mind. PW1 has stated that the appellant used to envy her. The appellant one day had beaten Sampa mercilessly as she came to their house but later on the appellant came to their house with his parents and apologized. His parents also had expressed their annoyance. After two and half months from that incident, PW 1 got the information first from his mother that the appellant consumed poison and he had been taken to the hospital. His parents also had expressed their annoyance. After two and half months from that incident, PW 1 got the information first from his mother that the appellant consumed poison and he had been taken to the hospital. When he had been attending the appellant at Kailashahar Hospital, he got the information from his mother to rush to the rented house of the appellant. When he reached there, he found the dead body of Sampa lying on the floor that was wrapped by a blanket. He has significantly made the statement in the trial that "I found one handkerchief over the mouth of Sampa and noticed black ligature mark around the neck of Sampa. His mother informed him that one Dipa, another tenant of that house, informed her that on the previous day around 3pm, Sampa went to her hut and at that time, Pranesh (the appellant) called her to their own hut. Dipa came out of her hut at around 5pm and found the door of the hut of the appellant under lock and key. The chappals and few dresses of Sampa were lying outside the said hut. 17. On having such information, his mother became suspicious and with help of the local people broke the lock of the hut and found Sampa (the victim) lying on the floor. PW-1 has also inquired from Dipa and she narrated the same story to him. Subimal Dey (PW-23), the landlord called the police. The police carried out inquest over the dead body. PW-1 being a witness of the procedure had signed over the report. At that time, the police recorded his oral ejahar (Exbt-1). In the cross examination, he has admitted that he did not mention in the ejahar that after three months of her marriage, Sampa, for the first time, had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant. He has also admitted that he did not mention in the ejahar that he and his mother went to the rented house of Pranesh at Gobindapur when the victim had narrated the story of torture to them. Even he did not mention in the oral ejahar, the allegation of envy. Even it is not mentioned in the ejahar that Sampa came to their house or on the following day, Pranesh and his parents came to their house when Pranesh apologized and his parents expressed their annoyance for conduct of Pranesh. Even he did not mention in the oral ejahar, the allegation of envy. Even it is not mentioned in the ejahar that Sampa came to their house or on the following day, Pranesh and his parents came to their house when Pranesh apologized and his parents expressed their annoyance for conduct of Pranesh. But, he has stated that in the ejahar, he did mention that Pranesh and Sampa went to their house and stayed for two days. In the ejahar, PW-1 did not mention that his mother use to visit the rented house of the appellant at Gobindapur or that they had gifted a mobile phone to the victim. The suggestions beyond what had been admitted by PW-1 were all denied. But, in the cross examination, PW-1 had admitted that they did not file any complaint to the police or to the local people over the issue of cruelty. At that point, PW-1 volunteered to state that they expected the conjugal life of the appellant would see better days and the victim would ultimately find peace. 18. PW-2, Md. Chabbir Ahmed had appeared in the place of occurrence pursuant to the information recorded in the GDE No.546 dated 10.12.2013. He found the dead body of the victim lying on the floor inside the hut being wrapped by a blanket. He also noticed ligature mark around the victim's neck. He had recorded the oral ejahar and took the signature of PW-1. The information contained in the said ejahar was entered in the printed FIR form vide KLS PS case No 246/13. He has identified the ejahar and the printed FIR form. 19. PW-3, Sri Arindam Paul was the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.01.2014 at Kailashahar. He had recorded the statement of one Dipa Das under Section 164(5) of the CrPC in connection with Kailashahar PS Case No. 246/13. Dipa (PW-4) has stated in the trial that the appellant and the victim got married following their love affairs. They were residing at the adjacent house of her as tenant. In the same house, the appellant and PW-4 were having their rented huts. Thus, PW-4 and the victim became very close. Sampa told Dipa (PW-4) that Pranesh used to suspect Dipa and for that reason, he did not allow her to mix with other people. Sampa informed her that now and then the appellant used to physically torture her. In the same house, the appellant and PW-4 were having their rented huts. Thus, PW-4 and the victim became very close. Sampa told Dipa (PW-4) that Pranesh used to suspect Dipa and for that reason, he did not allow her to mix with other people. Sampa informed her that now and then the appellant used to physically torture her. On the fateful day i.e. 09.12.2013, Dipa returned home from the college around 3 pm. The appellant was sitting in a shop near the college. On that day, Sampa did not attend the college. On her return from the college, Sampa entered into her and gossiped for 25 minutes. Pranesh called Sampa into their hut. Dipa did not see Sampa thereafter, meaning after 4 pm Pranesh and Sampa were supposed to go their private tutor. But Dipa did not see them go to the house of their private tutor. At around 5 pm, while going to toilet Dipa noticed that hut of Sampa and Pranesh was under lock and key. For going to the toilet, Dipa had to go by the hut of Sampa and Pranesh. At around 8-8.30, pm while going to the toilet, Dipa again noticed that the hut of Sampa and Pranesh was under lock and key and the windows were closed. There was no light lit in their hut. Dipa thought Sampa and Pranseh must have gone to Fatikroy. On the following day at about 8.30 am, mother of Sampa called on Dipa. Being comprehensive, they broke the door of the hut of Sampa and found that her body was covered by blanket. Infact, she was lying dead. Pranesh was not available in the house. On call, the police arrived at that place. PW-3, the CJM has stated that he read out the statement as made by Dipa Das (PW-4) and thereafter she had signed thereon. He had admitted the statement as recorded by him under Section 164(5) in the evidence as Exbt-4. 20. PW3 has also recorded the statement of one Arbinda Debbarma (PW-20) on 15.01.2014 under Section 164(5) of the CrPC. The said witness had stated to him that he was the student of 1st year of RKM College. He was also tenant to the house of Sukomal Deb of Gobindapur. In the adjacent hut, Sampa and Prenash were also tenants. They were also students of RKM College, Kailashahar. The said witness had stated to him that he was the student of 1st year of RKM College. He was also tenant to the house of Sukomal Deb of Gobindapur. In the adjacent hut, Sampa and Prenash were also tenants. They were also students of RKM College, Kailashahar. The living hut of Sampa and Arabinda was made of bamboo fencing and as such when Sampa and Pranesh used to talk, it would be audible. Arabinda has stated that Pranesh and Sampa used to quarrel over the issue of money. Before the Durga Puja days there was serious scuffle between Sampa and her husband, and the husband had badly assaulted her. Arabinda heard Sampa crying on 12.09.2013. Arabinda returned from the college at 3.30 pm. While taking lunch, he had heard Sampa being scolded. Arabinda left his hut for collection of some study materials from one of his friends and he returned at his hut at 9 pm. He has also noticed, there was no light inside the hut of Pranesh. At about 1 am in the night when he went to bed, he had noticed no light inside the hut of Sampa. On the following morning at 8.30 am, he heard some hue and cry around the hut of Sampa and appearing inside the hut, he found Sampa lying dead on the floor. Form the mother of Sampa and the assembly that was formed he came to know that Sampa was dead and Pranesh was not traceable. PW3 identified the statement recorded by him as Exbt-5. Surprisingly, there was no cross-examination of worth. 21. PW-4, Dipa Das is the sterling witness of the prosecution case. The substantive part of her statement stood recorded in the statement recorded by PW-3, but as the rule of evidence requires she was examined in the trial and she stated that she and Sampa was tenants in the adjoining huts. But after their marriage, they shifted to the hut where PW-4 was the tenant. It was the house of one Subimal Dey (PW23). The hut of the victim was 20 metre away from her hut. PW-4 and Sampa used to gossip. Three months prior to the death of Sampa, Sampa came to her hut revealing that her husband used to suspect her chastity and demanded money to be brought from her parents. According to PW-4, she was in despair before her death. The hut of the victim was 20 metre away from her hut. PW-4 and Sampa used to gossip. Three months prior to the death of Sampa, Sampa came to her hut revealing that her husband used to suspect her chastity and demanded money to be brought from her parents. According to PW-4, she was in despair before her death. PW-4 advised her to keep her parents informed. PW-4 had to use the toilet which was in a little distance away and to reach the toilet, she had to cross the hut of the appellant and the victim. On 10.12.2013, mother of Sampa arrived in their rented house and stated that Pranesh consumed poison. When they found the hut of Sampa under lock and key, they called Sampa from outside, but no response came from inside. That generated suspicion and they broke open the door and found Sampa lying on the floor dead and her body was covered by a blanket. Out of fear, she did not move closer to the dead body. But after sometimes the police came. In the trail, PW-4 has stated that "In the previous day I returned from college at around 3-30 pm while returning from college I found Pranesh was sitting in a shop near to the College. Sampa came to my hut and we gossiped for about 15 minutes. Now Pranesh arrived and called Sampa. At around 5-30/ 6 pm when I went to the toilet I found the living hut of Sampa under lock and key and there was no light inside. In that night at 8-30 pm again I went to toilet and found their hut under lock and key I thought they might have gone to Fatikroy." She identified her statement as recorded by PW-3 as Exbt-4. She has also stated that Arabinda Debbarma another student was a tenant of Subimal Deb, the brother of Sukumal Deb (PW23). The hut of Arabinda and Sampa was divided by a partition. In the cross-examination, she has reaffirmed that fact. Nothing could be extracted from her cross examination which might be considered debasing her statement made during the examination-in-chief. Suggestions as advanced contrary to her statement were all denied. 22. PW-5, Smriti Purakayastha is the mother of the victim. She has narrated in detail how Sampa fell in love with the appellant, her classmate and got married. Nothing could be extracted from her cross examination which might be considered debasing her statement made during the examination-in-chief. Suggestions as advanced contrary to her statement were all denied. 22. PW-5, Smriti Purakayastha is the mother of the victim. She has narrated in detail how Sampa fell in love with the appellant, her classmate and got married. According to her, the said marriage was not accepted by the family of the appellant. They did not allow her daughter to come to their home for three months after marriage. One maternal uncle, who used to support him, stop supporting him after marriage. The newly married couple thus faced serious financial stringency. PW-5 has stated that she used to support them. On the pretext that his father was in dire need of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Pranesh asked Sampa to bring that money from her parents. PW-5 has testified in the trial that she took up that issue with the appellant's father. The appellant's father had clearly come out by stating that that he had no such demand and consoled her. The appellant's father had stated that was nothing more than ordinary tear of life. Being enraged, Pranesh had broken the mobile phone of Sampa. Thus, Sampa was not in a position to talk to her, unless the appellant allowed her to use his mobile phone. PW-5 has stated that she got an impression that their marital life was in rough weather. On10.12.2013, the appellant's father namely, Pranoy Dhar came to her house and stated that appellant had consumed poison had been and taken to Fatikroy Hospital. Having received such information, she and her son, Satyajit went to Fatikroy Hospital and when the appellant was referred to Kailashahar hospital, they accompanied him. Leaving her son there at Kailashahar, she came to the rented house where the appellant and her daughter were residing. Then she had called on Dipa Das (PW-4) another college student and the tenant at the same house. Dipa informed her that on the previous day, she had chat with Sampa at around 3.30 pm and after that she was called by the appellant and Sampa left for their hut. From the evening, as she had noticed, the hut of Sampa was under lock and key and there was no light inside the hut. PW-5, being apprehensive, decided to break the lock. From the evening, as she had noticed, the hut of Sampa was under lock and key and there was no light inside the hut. PW-5, being apprehensive, decided to break the lock. In presence of the local people and with the help of Dipa, she had broken the door. Inside the room, she found Sampa was lying in the floor and her dead body was covered by a blanket. She removed the blanker partly and discovered Sampa was no more. She found the bed cover, pillow and katha on the cot adjacent to the dead body and those were scattered. Her elder son was contacted. Even her elder sister contacted as well. After sometimes, her son, her sister and the police arrived there. She identified the inquest report(Exbt-1) where she put her signature as the witness. In witness of her, two photographs relating to the marriage of Sampa and the appellant were seized by the police officer on preparing the seizure list (Exbt-6). She identified the said seizure list by proving her signature thereon. In the cross examination, she had admitted that she had not stated to the investigating officer that her sister removed a piece of cloth from the mouth of Sampa which she had stated in her examination in chief. She was examined by the police officer but she had denied the suggestion that the appellant never demanded any sum from them. The statement which is extremely relevant and made to the evidence has not been contested in the cross-examination. 23. PW-6, Satyajit Purakayastha, is the brother of the victim. He has also stated in detail how their marriage happened between Sampa and the appellant. He has also corroborated the statement of PW-5 that on 10.12.2013 in the early morning, the appellant's father went to their house and stated that the appellant consumed poison in the house of his maternal uncle and he had been taken to Fatikroy Hospital. Thereafter, PW-6 along with PW-5 went to Fatikroy hospital. The appellant was referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. PW-6 has testified that he was busy arranging treatment for the appellant. He was contacted by the police to accompany them to Gobindapur. Accordingly, he came to the house where Sampa and the appellant were living. Thereafter, PW-6 along with PW-5 went to Fatikroy hospital. The appellant was referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. PW-6 has testified that he was busy arranging treatment for the appellant. He was contacted by the police to accompany them to Gobindapur. Accordingly, he came to the house where Sampa and the appellant were living. PW-6 has stated thereafter as follows: "My mother informed me that by unlocking the door of the living hut of Sampa she found Sampa lying dead on the floor. I also found her lying dead on the floor. I noticed ligature mark around her neck. Police officers asked us not to touch the dead body. Police prepared a report over the dead body and shifted it to hospital for P.M exam." In the cross examination, nothing could be extracted from PW-6 which would offend the statement as he made in the examination-in-chief. However, he has admitted that he did not state to the investigating officer that his mother informed him that the family of the appellant wanted some money for performing boubhat ceremony. He has denied the suggestions contrary to what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. 24. PW-7, Samar Purakayastha, father of the victim was informed by one person that Sampa "fell seriously ill". He was asked to come without delay. After he came to Kailasahar from his place, his sister informed him that Sampa had been murdered. When he saw the dead body of Sampa at around 4.20 pm at the hospital where the dead body was brought for post mortem. He found ligature mark on the neck of Sampa. His wife, PW-5 informed him that keeping Satyajit at RGM Hospital, she came to the rented house of Sampa and found the living hut of Sampa under lock and key. As Sampa was not available around and she became apprehensive, she broke the door and found Sampa lying dead on the floor. The appellant married Sampa when both of them were students of Kailashahar College. According to him, the appellant demanded a motor-bike and dressing table but they could not give the motor-bike, but gave one dressing table. His wife (PW-7) used to go to their house and pay them some money. He was witness to the seizure of one mobile phone by the seizure list (Exbt-6). According to him, the appellant demanded a motor-bike and dressing table but they could not give the motor-bike, but gave one dressing table. His wife (PW-7) used to go to their house and pay them some money. He was witness to the seizure of one mobile phone by the seizure list (Exbt-6). PW-7 has categorically stated in the cross-examination that he had stated to the investigating officer that he noticed the ligature mark around the neck of Sampa. But, he has admitted at the same breath that he did not state to the investigating officer that at the instance of his wife, the lock was broken down. Even PW-7 has stated that over the issue of demand of money, he had discussion with Pranesh's father. He has given a narration how time to time his family used to support Sampa and the appellant. 25. PW-8, Subir Das was witness to the seizure of wearing apparel and viscera collected from the dead body of Sampa Purakayastha by the seizure list (Exbt-7). There had been no cross examination for obvious reason. 26. PW-9, Makhan Chakraborty is the priest who performed the marriage ceremony of Sampa and the appellant. 27. PW-10, Bipul Das is the Deputy Collector and Magistrate in the office of SDM and on 10.12.2013 he went to the house of Subimal Deb of Gobindapur. In his presence, Prativa Sinha, woman assistant Sub-Inspector carried out the inquest procedure. As witness, he put his signature on Exbt-1 (the inquest report). 28. PW-11, Prativa Sinha had carried out the inquest in presence of PW-10 over the dead body of Sampa Purakayastha. PW-11 has testified in the trial what she saw during the inquest procedure on exterior of the body of the deceased. She has replicated the inquest report by stating thus: "Her hair colur was black, both the eyes were half closed, mouth was partially opened, blood stained, saliva around her mouth. There was a cut injury about an inch on the right side of her neck. Her right had was half closed. There was black spot injury on the palm of her left hand, both the knees were partially band, her wearing apparels were a nighty, a read and black colour. PW-11 identified the inquest report (Exbt-1), one black handkerchief and one mobile phone (Exbt M.O-II series) which were seized from her by preparing the seizure list (Exbt-8). There was black spot injury on the palm of her left hand, both the knees were partially band, her wearing apparels were a nighty, a read and black colour. PW-11 identified the inquest report (Exbt-1), one black handkerchief and one mobile phone (Exbt M.O-II series) which were seized from her by preparing the seizure list (Exbt-8). There had been no remarkable cross-examination. 29. PW-12, Ratan Sarkar had collected the call detail report (CDR) of the phone number No. 9612447791 as per requisition of the investigation officer. But, this witness did not produce that call details report (CDR) in the proceeding. 30. PW-13, Dr. Bapu Sen carried out the post mortem examination over the dead body of Sampa Purakayastha in connection with Kailashahar PS GD No.546 dated 10.12.2013 along with the other medical officers who assisted him. He has testified in the trial on the basis of the post mortem examination report (Exbt-10) which was finally prepared after the final report of SFSL was received by the investigating officer. PW-13 has testified in the trial by stating as follows: "There were rigor mortis present. Dry stain of blood mixed saliva seen on left angel of mouth. Synosis of nail bites. One abrasion 2.5 X 1 cm over neck. 2 cm right lateral to mid line, 2 cm below mendival. Lacerated injury of 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm in inner aspect of lower lip at the level of lower incisor tooth. A contusion 2 cm x 1 cm at the inner aspect of upper lip at the level of incisor and canine teeth. Ribs healthy, diaphragm, oesophagus, trachea and bronchae, congested. The lungs were congested and oedemataus and exude bloody serum on dissection right side of heart and pericardiam sac, large blood vessels left side empty. Abdominal wall - healthy. Paritonial cavity -congested. Stomach and contents - mucus membrane, hyperaemic contents food matter, emits pungent odours. Small intestine - healthy with semi digested good. Additional remarks - all the findings were ante mortem in nature. Viscera preserved for SFSL examination and handed over to the accompanied constable Dilip Debnath. Time of death was 18 to 24 hours since the P.M. We opined that the death was due to asphyxia following smothering. This is report which were prepared after receiving the report from TSFSL. The report bearing my hand writing and signature. On identification marked Exbt-9. Dr. Time of death was 18 to 24 hours since the P.M. We opined that the death was due to asphyxia following smothering. This is report which were prepared after receiving the report from TSFSL. The report bearing my hand writing and signature. On identification marked Exbt-9. Dr. D. Debnath expired a few months back. I am acquainted with his hand writing and signature since I worked with him for some period." The final post mortem report (Exbt-10) was prepared after getting the report of the SFSL. To a question asked by the court, PW-13 has replied that injury No. 1, 2, and 3 of column A of the post mortem examination report could be caused by smothering. Three injuries are of definite sign of smothering. Suggestions advanced by the defence have been denied by PW13. 31. PW-14, Sri Babul Dhar is a close neighbour. He has stated that when he appeared in the place of occurrence, the gathering was uttering that someone had been killed inside the hut. He had noticed a body was lying on the floor. The police personnel came and broke the lock. One Magistrate was also present. According to him, one report was prepared in the procedure(Exbt-8) and he had signed on that report as the witness. This witness has denied in the cross-examination any acquaintance either with the appellant or with the deceased. 32. PW-15, Nirendra Deb is the witness to the seizure of the medical certificate in respect of the appellant by the SDPO namely Mahendar Choudhury from RGM Hospital, Kailashahar by preparing the seizure list (Exbt-11). 33. PW-16, Smt. Mousumi Deb is one of the important witnesses as she was the landlady where the appellant and the deceased were living as tenants. She has testified in the trial that Dipa Das was also her tenant for about 4 years. In the morning of 10.12.2013, the mother of Sampa called on her and she was crying. People from nearby houses had also gathered in that place. Dipa had informed her that the mother of Sampa had broken the lock of the hut and found Sampa lying on the floor being wrapped by a blanket on her body. Actually, Sampa was dead. After some time, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and they shifted the dead body at the hospital. Dipa had informed her that the mother of Sampa had broken the lock of the hut and found Sampa lying on the floor being wrapped by a blanket on her body. Actually, Sampa was dead. After some time, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and they shifted the dead body at the hospital. PW-16 had also stated that she saw injury mark at the victim's right elbow. But, she did not tell anything about the conjugal life of the appellant and the victim. On the day of the occurrence, as PW-16 has testified, Sampa and Dipa were talking to each other in the hut of Dipa and then Sampa left for her living hut. At that time the appellant was present at their living hut. After that, she did not see Sampa and the appellant was not present in the hut in that night. But, in the following morning, she was confronted with the said situation. In her presence, the police had seized the broken lock by preparing the seizure list (Exbt-12). She has identified the seized lock (Exbt-MO.3 series). 34. PW-17, Priyotosh Debnath used to give the appellant and Sampa private tution but on 09.12.2013 even though Sampaand the appellant were supposed to attend his tution, but they did not. On the following day, he heard about the death of Sampa. 35. PW-18, Satyendra Kr. Das was the witness to the seizure of the broken lock and he had identified the seized materials (Exbt MO. 3 sereis) and the seizure list thereof as Exbt-12. 36. PW-19, Dr. Dipak Chandra Haldar, has testified in the trial that on 10.12.2013 at about 6.45 am one Pranesh Dhar was brought to PHC as he had consumed poison. He had referred that patient to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. 37. PW-20, Sri Arbinda Debbarma was tenant just next to the hut of Sampa and the appellant. From his hut, conversation of Sampa and the appellant could be heard by him clearly. He used to overhear Pranesh and Sampa engaged in altercation over the demand of money made by Pranesh from Sampa. On 10.12.2013, dead body of Sampa was found in their hut. He returned from the college at 3 PM on the preceeding day and thereafter he went to the market and returned at around 9 pm. He used to overhear Pranesh and Sampa engaged in altercation over the demand of money made by Pranesh from Sampa. On 10.12.2013, dead body of Sampa was found in their hut. He returned from the college at 3 PM on the preceeding day and thereafter he went to the market and returned at around 9 pm. He observed that when he returned at his hut, there was no light in their living room. On the following day, after hearing the hue and cry he went to the said premises and found that Sampa lying dead. He was examined by a Magistrate. The statement as recorded under Section 164(5)CrPC (exbt-5) has been admitted in the evidence by him. His statement could not be dented in the cross-examination. 38. PW-21, Sri Digbijoy Deb is the maternal uncle of the appellant. He has testified in the trial that on 09.12.213 around 4.30 pm, he was in front of the house of Manindra Deb, his uncle, a neighbour found the appellant. In the early morning of 10.12.2013 he heard murmur in the house of Sudhangshu (the neighbour). Sudhangshu's family members went to Machli to attend a marriage ceremony and their house was under lock and key. He found that the fencing of the kitchen of Sudhangshu was lying broken and inside the kitchen, Pranesh was struggling on the floor. He found a container of poison lying beside him. With the help of the local people, he shifted the appellant to Fatikroy PHC, but he was completely unaware about what had happened later. 39. PW-22, Sri Buddha Debbarma, had accompanied the officer in charge, Chabir Ahmed and other people. In the house of Subimal Deb situated at Gobindapur, they found the dead body of one female lying on the floor. The brother of the victim lodged the complaint to the Officer-in-Charge. The said Officer-in-Charge had directed a Sub-Inspector namely Nikhil Debbarma to do the pre-investigation. PW-22 had also recorded the statement of Subinay Purakayastha. 40. PW-23, Sri Subimal Deb has testified in the trial that his wife informed him that in the rented hut, Sampa was found dead. After having this information, he talked to his brother, Sukumol Deb and retuned home at 10 am. The dead body was still lying on the floor of the rented hut. 40. PW-23, Sri Subimal Deb has testified in the trial that his wife informed him that in the rented hut, Sampa was found dead. After having this information, he talked to his brother, Sukumol Deb and retuned home at 10 am. The dead body was still lying on the floor of the rented hut. The mother of Sampa told him the appellant used to torture her daughter of and on, on demand of money. The appellant and his wife (the victim) used to stay at rented hut which was situated 7/8 cubits away from their. He did not divulge anything beyond this in the trial. He has identified the broken lock (Exbt MO. 3 series). 41. PW-24, Shri Dilip Debnath is the witness to the seizure of three containers containing viscera of the victim, one nighty and one bra caused by Prativa Sinha, a woman Sub-Inspector. He had identified the seizure list (Exbt-7) and those material (MO 1 series) as seized. 42. PW-25, Smt. Rekha Deb Purakayastha, has stated in the trial that she is the sister in law of the victim. Whenever the victim used to visit her paternal home, she would express her despair saying that the appellant used to demand money from her with hard persuasion to bring the money from her parents. Her mother used to give some money and other articles within her means. In the cross-examination, nothing could be extracted which could disturb the prosecution case. 43. PW-26, Manabendra Choudhury who was posted as the SDPO at Kailashahar at the relevant time. On his being entrusted with investigation, he had verified the case diary whether the investigation was properly done. He has given a short narrative how he had carried out the investigation by recording the further evidence and bringing out the material objects by way of seizure. He has denied the suggestion questioning the fairness of investigation. 44. PW-27, Kamal Husain, a fellow student, studying with the appellant and the deceased has corroborated that even though they were supposed to attend the tution given by PW-17 on 09.12.2013, but they did not attend. On the following day, he got the information of death of Sampa. According to him, the appellant used to pick up quarrel with Sampa even over the trifling issues. 45. PW-28, Suman Kr. On the following day, he got the information of death of Sampa. According to him, the appellant used to pick up quarrel with Sampa even over the trifling issues. 45. PW-28, Suman Kr. Chakraborty the Deputy Director and Assistant Examiner from SFSL has stated that he had examined all the bodily materials which were seized by the police and sent to SFSL for forensic examination. On examination, he had found those samples negative for presence of organ phosphorus, organi choloro and carbamates group of pesticides. Remnants of were retuned separately. He had identified the report (Exbt-10) in the trial. 46. PW-29, Sukomal Deb has stated that his house is situated adjacent to the house of his younger brother. In that house the occurrence took place. On 10.12.2013, one woman called his daughter and stated that there was no response from the hut of the appellant. Ultimately, the lock of the door was broken. Inside, the dead body of Sampa was lying. He has further stated that at that time, his younger brother and the woman who had entered in the hut were present. The victims body was covered by a blanker, but her husband was not available. She has testified that her husband was not available in that hut. In the cross-examination, he had simply stated that when he had reached that house of his younger brother, he had found the hut of Sampa lying open. 47. PW-30, Shri Nikhil S. Debbarma, one of the Sub- Inspectors of police from Kailashahar, was attached with the investigation. He has testified that the oral complaint field by Subinay Purakayastha (PW-1) was reduced in writing by the officer in charge and that was duly registered. After the inquest was done, the dead body of Sampa was forwarded to the hospital in presence of five witnesses for post mortem examination. He received the supplementary case diary from Prativa Sinha, Assistant Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, he has narrated what he has done, such as, recording of the statement of the witnesses and he has confirmed that Satyajit Purakayastha (PW-6) did not state that his mother informed him that she had unlocked the door of the rented house. Even, Satyajit Purakayastha (PW-6) did not state that he had noticed ligature mark on the neck of Sampa. 48. PW-31, Dr. Even, Satyajit Purakayastha (PW-6) did not state that he had noticed ligature mark on the neck of Sampa. 48. PW-31, Dr. Purnakrit Debbarma, from whom the discharge certificate of the hospital was seized by the seizure list (Exbt-11) has introduced the said discharge certificate regard the discharge of the appellant from RGM Hospital in the evidence. 49. As stated earlier, the defence did adduce two witnesses including the appellant (DW-1) and another person namely Niranjan Datta (DW-2). 50. DW-1, Pranesh Dhar the appellant has stated that his marriage with Sampa was a culmination of their love affairs. He has stated that his relation with the victim was good. He has stated in the trial taht on 09.12.2013 I went to college at 11 am. and my wife was in the house. After coming from college I asked my wife to go to attend a marriage ceremony in the house of my relative at Krishnagar to which she declined and thereafter, I alone went there. I reached there at 4/4.3 pm. There, I met Haripada Mitra, Digbijoy Deb and Niranjan Datta. At night in the house of my relative Sudhagshu Deb I was depressed and consumed poison available in their house near the paddy stock. I regain my sense at RGZ hospital, Kailashahar. There I learnt that my wife died in the rented house of Gobindapur. In the cross examination, DW-1 denied the suggestion in respect of envious relation and demand of money by him. He has also denied that he has throttled his wife to death and out of guilty feeling, he did consume poison. 51. DW-2, Niranjan Datta has confirmed that there was a marriage ceremony in the house of the relative of the appellant. He met the appellant there in that night. He (DW 2) did not, however, disclose the name of the relatives in whose house such ceremony was attended by him. The appellant, according to him, was present in the marriage ceremony. 52. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the appellant and the state, this court is of the view that the prosecution has placed the circumstantial evidence quite distinctly from the last seen episode at 3.30 pm to the discovery of dead body of the victim. PW4 and PW 16 saw Sampa Purakayastha last when she entered the hut being called by the appellant. PW4 and PW 16 saw Sampa Purakayastha last when she entered the hut being called by the appellant. Thereafter, none did see Sampa till discovery of her dead body. PWs-4 and 20 had categorically stated after 4.30pm and throughout the night till the lock of the hut was broken, the hut was locked from outside. No light was lit inside. DW1 has admitted that after the college, he came to the house and asked his wife to go the marriage ceremony with him but she declined. Then he alone reached there at 4-4.30 pm. From the post-mortem report it has been revealed that the death took place between 1pm to 7 pm of 9.12.2013. Since the house was locked from outside, the presence of any other person inside the house after 4-4.30 can safely be excluded. The medical opinion is very clear that the death was caused by smothering. The injuries around the neck support the episode of smothering as those injuries were not ligature marks for strangulation. These marks, as PW-13 has stated to a query to the trial judge, are definite signs of smothering. It has also surfaced that the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim was not quite tranquil and it faced rough weather for financial stringency. Moreover, the appellant failed to accept the success of the victim in her academic career. From the attendant circumstances it can also be gathered that as the victim denied to accompany the appellant to the so called marriage ceremony, he had, out of anger, smothered her. But, the way, the appellant conducted himself after death, it shows that it was not from sudden rage. As such, this court is of the view that the finding of the trial judge that the victim was being tormented and tortured by the appellant on demand of money cannot be faulted with. The evidence on record has unflinchingly established that the appellant had killed his wife by smothering and later on kept the hut under lock from outside. The said finding does not form any infirmity. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence stand affirmed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Send down the LCRs forth with.