JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - As the appellant has appointed a lawyer of his own choice, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Sreyashree Biswas, learned Advocate appointed on behalf the State Legal Services Authority are discharged from the case. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015 and 8th October, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No.07(07) 2009 arising out of Sessions Case No.23(05)2009 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The deceased Mamoni was married with the appellant on 26.04.2004. At the time of marriage Rs.40,000/- cash, gold ornaments and other articles were given as dowry. Mamoni started residing with her husband and parents-in-law Gour and Sandhya at the matrimonial home. Her Sister in-law and her husband, namely, Monika and Jagannath resided in a house near her matrimonial home. From the wedlock a girl child was born to the couple. Matrimonial life of Mamoni was fraught with agony. She was tortured by her husband and in laws over further demands of dowry. 4. On 15th of January, 2009 Jagannath informed the relations of Mamoni that she was missing from her matrimonial home. Hearing this P.W.1, her brother, Haradhan Ghosh, and others started searching for her, but to no avail. 5. On the next day, they went to the matrimonial home of Mamoni when Sandhya, her mother-in-law informed them there was a quarrel between Mamoni and the appellant. Thereafter she had gone missing. On the other hand, fatherin-law of Mamoni told them the appellant had assaulted her with a wooden stick. P.W.1 lodged missing diary at the police station (Exbt.13). Around 3 p.m. the appellant returned home in a bi-cycle. He confessed his guilt to the local people. 6. Witnesses noticed a bed sheet floating inside the well situated with the courtyard of the appellant. P.W.1 lodged missing diary at the police station (Exbt.13). Around 3 p.m. the appellant returned home in a bi-cycle. He confessed his guilt to the local people. 6. Witnesses noticed a bed sheet floating inside the well situated with the courtyard of the appellant. They suspected foul play and informed the police. Police came to the spot. With the assistance of divers, decomposed body of the deceased was recovered. Her body was covered with cement slabs. 7. On the leading statement of the appellant, his bloodstained wearing apparel and katari (weapon of offence) was recovered. 8. Post mortem of the deceased revealed she had suffered number of incised injuries resulting in homicidal death. 9. First information report was lodged by P.W. 1, brother of the deceased, resulting in registration of Rabindranagar P.S. Case No. 08 of 2009 dated 17.01.2019 against the appellant, mother-in-law, Sandhya Das, sister-in-law, Manika Naskar and her husband Jagannath Naskar. 10. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused persons. 11. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas for trial and disposal. 12. Charges were framed under sections 498A, 304B read with section 120B IPC, section 201 read with section 120B IPC and section 302 read with section 120B IPC against the appellant and other accused persons, namely, Sandhya Das, Jagannath Naskar and Manika Naskar. 13. In course of trial, prosecution examined 27 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. 14. Appellant resorted to a cut-throat defence. In course of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, he put the blame on his mother, Sandhya Das. On an analysis of the evidence on record trial Judge did not believe the outlandish defence of the appellant and by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2015 and 08.10.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 15. Mr. Bakshi learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted there is no direct evidence that appellant had murdered his wife. Appellant claimed that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Prosecution evidence is contradictory to one another on whether the appellant was present at his residence after the occurrence or not. Version of father of the appellant implicating the latter in the crime is inadmissible in evidence. Extra-judicial confession of the appellant suffers from various contradictions and/or inconsistencies. Appellant claimed that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Prosecution evidence is contradictory to one another on whether the appellant was present at his residence after the occurrence or not. Version of father of the appellant implicating the latter in the crime is inadmissible in evidence. Extra-judicial confession of the appellant suffers from various contradictions and/or inconsistencies. Recovery of bloodstained wearing apparel and katari on showing of the appellant has also not been proved. P.W. 10 claimed that the articles were recovered on the showing of the father of the appellant. Place of recovery also has not been proved. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Ms. Gour argued that the circumstances proved by the prosecution unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. Appellant resided with his wife at the matrimonial home. Although he claimed he was not present at the place of occurrence he did not prove such alibi. On the other hand, evidence is forthcoming that the victim housewife suffered brutal death and her body was secreted in a well within the compound of her matrimonial home. Conduct of the appellant after the incident is suspicious. Initially he claimed that his wife had gone to the residence of P.W. 1. Subsequently, he made an extra-judicial confession. On his showing weapon of offence and his bloodstained wearing apparels were recovered from his room. These circumstances establish his guilt beyond doubt. Evidence on Record:- 17. P.W. 1, brother and the de facto complainant deposed that Mamoni was married the appellant on 26.04.2004. Jagannath informed them that his sister was missing. He along with others searched for his sister but could not find her. He went to her matrimonial home. Sandhya Das, her mother-in-law, claimed she had left the matrimonial home after a quarrel with the appellant. On the other hand, her father-in-law stated that the appellant had murdered his wife. He lodged missing diary at Rabindranagar Police Station. In the evening appellant returned in a bicycle. He admitted he had murdered his wife and put her body inside the well. Police of Rabindranagar Police Station came to the spot and with the help of divers, body of his sister was recovered. He lodged written complaint which was scribed by P.W. 23. He proved the complaint. 18. In the evening appellant returned in a bicycle. He admitted he had murdered his wife and put her body inside the well. Police of Rabindranagar Police Station came to the spot and with the help of divers, body of his sister was recovered. He lodged written complaint which was scribed by P.W. 23. He proved the complaint. 18. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed her daughter had been killed by her husband and thrown into the well. She also deposed that the appellant had come to their house and stated that his wife could not be found. 19. P.W. 3 is the uncle of the deceased. He deposed that body of the deceased was recovered from the well where it was concealed with brick and cement. 20. P.W. 4 is the wife of P.W. 1. She corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1. She however did not corroborate her husband with regard to extra-judicial confession. On the other hand, she stated Tapas claimed that Mamoni had gone to their house. 21. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are the brother-in-law and sister of the deceased respectively. They have corroborated the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 4. They stated Tapas had made an extra-judicial confession at the spot. P.W. 5 is the signatory to the seizure list prepared in connection with seizure of weapon of offence and bloodstained wearing apparel of the appellant. 22. P.W. 7 is the neighbour of P.W. 1. He has corroborated PW1. He, however, did not speak of any extra-judicial confession made by Tapas. 23. P.Ws. 8 to 12 are the neighbours of the appellant. P.W. 8 stated the appellant made extra-judicial confession before police, while P.W. 10 claimed the appellant was detained in a room and upon pressure had made extra-judicial confession. PW10 further deposed father of Tapas brought out the Katari and bloodstained ganji of Tapas from the room. He proved his signature on the seizure list. P.W. 9, though declared hostile, proved his signature on the seizure list with regard to seizure of the aforesaid articles. P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 deposed regarding recovery of dead body from the well. 24. P.W. 14 and P.W 15 are the barber and the priest respectively who proved the marriage between the appellant and the deceased. 25. P.W. 9, though declared hostile, proved his signature on the seizure list with regard to seizure of the aforesaid articles. P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 deposed regarding recovery of dead body from the well. 24. P.W. 14 and P.W 15 are the barber and the priest respectively who proved the marriage between the appellant and the deceased. 25. P.W. 16 and P.W. 17 are the divers who had been requisitioned by the police for recovering the deadbody of the deceased. 26. P.W. 21 proved the general diary lodged by P.W. 1. 27. P.W. 24 conducted the magisterial inquest over the deadbody and P.W. 25 is the post-mortem doctor. He deposed that the body was in a state of decomposition and was covered with cement. He noted a number of incised wounds on the face and body of the deceased. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He opined the death was due to effects of the injuries, homicidal and ante-mortem in nature. 28. As the first investigating officer had died, the steps taken by him during investigation was proved by the then officer in charge, P.W. 27. Second investigating officer, P.W. 26 concluded the investigation and filed the chargesheet. Findings of the Court:- 29. From the aforesaid evidence it is admitted that the appellant was married to Mamoni and the couple was residing at the matrimonial home with the parents of the appellant, namely Gourmohan and Sandhya. 30. On and from 15th January 2009 the deceased was missing from her matrimonial home. Jagadish informed such fact to her brother P.W 1. They searched for the deceased but failed to trace her. When PW 1 went to her matrimonial home, Sandhya, mother in law of the deceased, told him Mamoni had a quarrel with the appellant and had left the residence. On the other hand, father in law of the deceased stated his son had murdered his wife. P.W 1 lodged missing diary in the afternoon of 16.1.2009. Subsequently, they noticed a cloth floating in the well of the appellant. In the meantime the appellant had arrived at the spot. Police was summoned and with the help of drivers dead body of the deceased which was hidden under slabs of cement was recovered. P.W 1 lodged missing diary in the afternoon of 16.1.2009. Subsequently, they noticed a cloth floating in the well of the appellant. In the meantime the appellant had arrived at the spot. Police was summoned and with the help of drivers dead body of the deceased which was hidden under slabs of cement was recovered. Post mortem doctor found the incised injuries on the face and the body of the deceased and opined that she had died due to effects of injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature. These facts particularly recovery of the decomposed body of the deceased which was hidden in the well of the appellant leave no doubt in my mind that the deceased had suffered a brutal end at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, her body was surreptitiously secreted in the well under slabs of cement. 31. The moot question is who is responsible for the brutal homicidal death of the housewife at her matrimonial home. Evidence has come on record the victim resided at her matrimonial home with her husband, the appellant herein and her parents in law. P.W 1, her brother did not suspect her father in law, Gour. He was not even cited as an accused in the FIR. Reason for exoneration of Gour is not far to seek. Evidence of PW 1 and other witnesses unequivocally show Gour told them that his son had murdered his wife and threw her into the well. Gour had died and was not examined during trial. 32. Accordingly, this hearsay piece of evidence cannot be used against the appellant. However, the reason for exonerating Gour in the facts of the case appears convincing. This leaves behind the appellant and his mother as the persons who were present in the matrimonial home when the victim suffered homicidal death. During trial appellant claimed he was away from his residence and it was his mother who committed the murder with outsiders. He, however, did not lead evidence either to prove his alibi by i.e. absence from the residence or to probabilize the fact that his mother along with outsiders committed the murder of his wife. I am conscious that weakness of the defence case is not a ground to accept the prosecution version. He, however, did not lead evidence either to prove his alibi by i.e. absence from the residence or to probabilize the fact that his mother along with outsiders committed the murder of his wife. I am conscious that weakness of the defence case is not a ground to accept the prosecution version. Hence, I have sought to shift the evidence on record to satisfy myself whether it was the appellant and not his mother (as claimed by him) who committed the murder. Evidence on record does not establish any motive why outsiders would be involved in the murder of the housewife. On the other hand, relations of the deceased (PW 1 to 7) have consistently deposed that matrimonial relation between the couple was strained over demands of dowry. She was ill-treated at her matrimonial home. These pieces of evidence establish the motive on the part of the appellant to commit crime and clearly rule out his outlandish and belated plea during trial that his mother along with outsiders committed the murder. Conduct of the appellant immediately after the murder is most suspicious and is a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to his guilt. P.W 2, 3 and 4 deposed appellant had claimed that his wife had gone to the residence of her brother PW 1. Such plea is wholly false as her dead body was recovered from a well within the compound of the appellant. I, however, do not give much importance to the extra judicial confession of the appellant. Although PWs 1, 5 to 8 and 10 deposed that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession, P.Ws 3 and 4 who were present at the place of occurrence do not corroborate such fact. Moreover, PW 8 claimed such confession was made before the police, while PW 10 stated police had been called and the appellant was detained in a room and pressurised when he made such confession. These contradictory pieces of evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession and the possibility that same was procured under the duress after the police had arrived at the spot persuade me to keep aside the aforesaid circumstance while assessing the evidence against the appellant. I am also not convinced that the seizure of blood-stain wearing apparels and 'katari' was on the showing of the appellant. I am also not convinced that the seizure of blood-stain wearing apparels and 'katari' was on the showing of the appellant. Such fact is not supported by P.Ws 5, 9 & 10, that is witnesses to the seizure. In fact, P.W 10 claimed father of the appellant had brought out the articles. Conclusion:- 33. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the following circumstances appear to have been proved against the appellant: (a) Appellant was married to the deceased and the couple lived together at the matrimonial home with her parents in law; (b) Victim was tortured over demands of dowry and relationship between the couple was strained; (c) Deceased was missing from the matrimonial home from 15.1.2009; (d) Appellant gave false explanation that his wife has gone to the residence of her brother PW 1 (e) Appellant was not always available at his residence after the incident; (f) Dead body of the deceased was hidden inside the well by using cement slabs.; (g) Post mortem doctor noted a number of incised injuries on the face and body of the deceased and opined her death was due to effects of injuries ante mortem and homicidal in nature (h) Appellant raised a false plea during trial that he was not at the residence and his mother had committed the crime along with outsiders. 34. These circumstance in my opinion clearly show it was the appellant who had committed the murder of his wife and thereafter had spread a false canard that she had gone to the residence of her brother. During trial, he resolved to a cut throat defence and claimed he was not in the house and his mother along with outsiders had committed the murder. No defence evidence was led by him to probabilize such preposterous defence. Contradictory and wholly absurd explanation offered by the appellant with regard to the cause of homicidal death of his wife (which was within his special knowledge). Additional circumstance reinforce the chain of circumstances against him and establishes his guilt beyond doubt. 35. Hence, I am of the opinion prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 36. Conviction of the appellant is accordingly upheld. Sentence imposed on the appellant is also upheld. 37. Additional circumstance reinforce the chain of circumstances against him and establishes his guilt beyond doubt. 35. Hence, I am of the opinion prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 36. Conviction of the appellant is accordingly upheld. Sentence imposed on the appellant is also upheld. 37. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 38. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 39. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. 40. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. 41. I agree.