JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State. None has appeared for the informant. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11/02/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in connection with Sessions Case No. 75/2011, convicting the 3 (three) appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is to the effect that the victim Hafija Khatun was married to the accused Karimul Islam about 3 (three) years before the incident. After their marriage, the accused persons used to torture Hafija on demand of dowry. Since such dowry demand was not fulfilled by the parents of the victim, the accused persons had killed victim Hafija. On 27/08/2009 at around 3 a.m. one of the accused, viz. Arman Ali came to the house of the informant and informed that the daughter of Hafija Khatun i.e. Kohinoor was suffering from some serious illness. Then the father of Hafija and her mother rushed to the house of the accused persons and found that Hafija was lying dead on the road but their grand children Kohinoor was not suffering from any ailment. 4. On 28/09/2009, the uncle of the victim, viz. Md. Saiful Islam Bhuyan had lodged an ejahar before the in-charge of the Kalgachia Police Outpost informing the Police about the incident. In the ejahar dated 28/09/2009, 7(seven) persons including the present appellants had been named as the accused persons. On the basis of the ejahar dated 28/09/2009, Sarbhog PS case No. 169/2009 was registered under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/34 IPC. The matter was then taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, Police had submitted charge sheet under Section 498(A)/304(B) IPC against the following seven accused persons : i) Karimul Islam, ii) Nur Hussain, iii) Osman Gani @ Ali, iv) Sorman Ali, v) Kamela Khatun, vi) Noim Uddin and vii) Arman Ali. 5. Be it mention herein that the accused no.1 Karimul Islam is the husband of the victim whereas the accused No. 6 Noim Uddin and accused No. 5 Kamela Khatun are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the victim. 6. 5. Be it mention herein that the accused no.1 Karimul Islam is the husband of the victim whereas the accused No. 6 Noim Uddin and accused No. 5 Kamela Khatun are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the victim. 6. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the Police, charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/302 of the IPC and the same were read over and explained to the accused persons. However, since the accused persons had pleaded innocence ad claimed to be tried, hence, the matter went up for trial. 7. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. During trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 14 witnesses. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, they had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. However, the defence side did not adduce any evidence. 8. On conclusion of trial and after considering the materials available on record, the learned trial Court had acquitted 4(four) accused persons, viz. Osman Ali, Nur Hussain, Arman Ali and Sorman Ali in respect of all the charges by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges brought against these accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In so far as the accused/appellant Karimul Islam, Noim Uddin and Kamela Khatun are concerned, they were also acquitted by the learned trial Court in respect of the charges framed under Section 498(A)/304(B) of the IPC on the ground that those charges could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. However, these three appellants/accused persons, were convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing the murder of deceased Hafija Khatun and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed. 9. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the appellants under Section 302 IPC by adducing sufficient circumstantial evidence. It is also the submission of Mr. Ahmed that the appellants could not have been convicted by the learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC without the assistance of section 34 of the IPC, that too, without recording any finding ascribing specific role on each of the appellants in committing the offence under section 302 of the IPC. Mr. Ahmed has further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge brought under sections 498(A)/304(B) of the IPC. Mr. Ahmed has further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge brought under sections 498(A)/304(B) of the IPC. As such, the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted all the accused persons in respect of the aforementioned two charges. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Ahmed, the present is a fit case for granting acquittal to the accused persons/appellants in respect of charge framed under section 302 IPC. 10. Responding to the above, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, has argued that there are convincing materials available on record to establish the fact that just before her death, the victim was tortured by the accused/appellants on dowry demand and later on, she was found dead under mysterious circumstances, dying an unnatural death. It is also established from the evidence available on record that the incident took place within 7(seven) years of the marriage between the accused No.1 Karimul Islam and the victim. As such, a clear case of conviction under Section 304(B) of the IPC is made out against the accused/appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The learned APP has, however, submitted in her usual fairness that the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the 3 (three) appellants with regard to the charge framed under Sections 498(A)/304(B) of the IPC. Ms. Bhuyan has further argued that the evidence available on record are sufficient to establish each link in the chain of circumstances so as to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was none other than the appellants/accused persons who had caused death of the victim. Under the circumstances, submits Ms. Bhuyan, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the three appellants u/s. 302 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased Hafija Khatun. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the evidence available on record. Since the appellants’ counsel has argued that the prosecution has filed to prove the charge brought against the appellants/accused persons under section 302 IPC and to that extent, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside by this Court, it would be necessary to analyze the evidence brought on record by the prosecution side so as to come to a conclusion on the above aspect. 12. As noted above, the informant viz. Md. 12. As noted above, the informant viz. Md. Saiful Islam Bhuyan in this case is the paternal uncle of the victim. He was examined as PW-1. In his deposition, the PW-1 has stated that the incident took place on 28/08/2009. It was a fasting day of “Ramadan”. He and his family members were having meal at 3 a.m. At that time, two persons came to their residence and informed that Kohinoor i.e. the daughter of Hafija has died. On hearing the said news, he had sent his brother Abdul Rahim Bhuyan and sister-in-law Ankamala to the house of Hafija. On reaching there, they saw that Hafija had died but her daughter (Kohinoor) was hail and hearty. When his brother informed him about the matter, he had also immediately gone to the place of occurrence and saw that Hafija was lying dead on the bank of the pond, situated near her matrimonial house. PW-1 has also stated that he had seen injury marks on the neck of Hafija and also saw that blood was oozing out but he did not find Hafija’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, who had fled away. When the villagers assembled there, they informed the Police. PW-1 has further stated that about two years before the incident, his niece Hafija got married to accused Karimul Islam but since the time of solemnization of their marriage, Hafija had been tortured by her in-laws family on demand of dowry. PW-1 has further stated that sometimes, Hafija used to tell them about the assault she had to face for dowry and accused Karimul also used to demand dowry by coming to their house. They tried their best to fulfill the demands. PW-1 has also stated that he had lodged ejahar (Ext-1) with the Police Station, based on which, Police had conducted investigation in the matter. According to PW-1, his niece Hafija had been killed by the accused for dowry. 13. During his cross examination, this witness has stated that he had settled the dispute of dowry demand between Hafija and Karimul Islam by holding “trials” on several occasions. He has also state that sometimes, deceased Hafija used to come to their house in tears and asked for money. 13. During his cross examination, this witness has stated that he had settled the dispute of dowry demand between Hafija and Karimul Islam by holding “trials” on several occasions. He has also state that sometimes, deceased Hafija used to come to their house in tears and asked for money. He had also complained to the village society about the assault made on the deceased but according to the advice received by him from the village authorities, he had given money to the accused to settle the dispute between them. Accused Karimul Islam was working as “Handyman” of a vehicle. 14. The father of the deceased Md. Abdul Rohim Bhuyan was examined as PW-2. This witness has deposed that his daughter Hafija was married off to the accused Karimul Islam about three years before she died. About 3 a.m. on the date of the occurrence, accused Arman Ali along with another boy came to their house and informed that his granddaughter i.e. Hafija’s daughter was not well. On being so informed, he along with his wife Ankamala, went to the house of Karimul and saw their granddaughter was present there. However, on their arrival, they had found that Hafija had been killed and her body was left at the steps of a pond situated in between the house of Arman Ali and Naimuddin. When he went closer to Hafija, he had seen marks of squeezing on her neck and upper portion of her left arm. Blood was oozing out from her ear and nose. Froth and blood was coming out from her mouth. He had seen Naimuddin and Karimul sitting in their house. Accused Naimuddin and his younger brother Saiful had lodged ejahar with the Police, whereafter, Police from Sarbhog Police Station came and took away the dead body. PW-2 has also stated that at the time of the marriage of Hafija with the accused Karimul Islam, he had given an amount of Rs. 34,000/-in cash, gold earrings, silver chain and gold bangles as dowry. However, accused Karimul and his father Naimuddin had been torturing his daughter a lot since the time of the marriage on demand of dowry. As he was working as a Chowkidar in a School, he could fulfill the demands of the accused persons by occasionally giving them money. He had given them 25 mounds of paddy. 15. However, accused Karimul and his father Naimuddin had been torturing his daughter a lot since the time of the marriage on demand of dowry. As he was working as a Chowkidar in a School, he could fulfill the demands of the accused persons by occasionally giving them money. He had given them 25 mounds of paddy. 15. In his cross examination, PW-2 has stated that accused Osman, Noor Hussain, Arman and Surman are the maternal uncles of accused Karimul but they did not live in the same house with the accused. On his arrival at the house of Karimul at about 3-30 a.m. on the date of the occurrence, he only found Karimul and Naimuddin present there. His brother Saiful came with Police at around 10 a.m. Police arrested Karimul and his father Naimuddin that day itself. PW-2 has further stated that PW-1 Saiful was aware about giving money, gold and silver ornaments to the accused and several meetings for arriving at extra-judicial settlement of the matter had been held in the village regarding demand of money made to Hafija by the accused persons. Head Master Khalilur Rahman was present in one such meeting. This witness has also stated that accused Karimul Islam sometimes went to Guwahati in connection with work and he married another girl there. PW-2 has also stated that 15 days prior to the occurrence, accused Karimul came to his house and took Hafija away. That day, accused Karimul had dinner in their house and had also quarrelled with him and his wife. Then Hafija told that she would come back after some days. 16. PW-3 Md. Mobarak Ali is also related to the victim’s family and is a cousin of PW-1. PW-3 has stated that at the time of the marriage between Hafija and accused Karimul, Rs. 34,000/-was given to him as dowry besides gold earrings, bangles and silver chain. Hafija got married to Karimul 3 (three) years before the incident. One year after their marriage, the accused, his father Naimuddin and mother Eliza Khatun had tortured and assaulted Hafija in connection with dowry demand. 2/ 3 weeks before her death, Hafija had come to their house and told that she was being assaulted for dowry and would not go back. Hafija had also told them that Karimul had married again at Guwahati. 2/ 3 weeks before her death, Hafija had come to their house and told that she was being assaulted for dowry and would not go back. Hafija had also told them that Karimul had married again at Guwahati. Karimul’s father had told that his second wife would not come to their house and convinced Hafija to go back with him and, therefore, Hafija was sent back with Naimuddin. On the date of the incident, he went to the place of occurrence and saw Hafija was lying dead on the steps of the bank of a pond and the accused persons and the mother-in-law of Hafija were sitting beside her. When Police arrived, Hafija’s mother-in-law Kamela Khatun disappeared. He has seen black squeezing marks on her neck and on the upper portion of her right arm and froth was coming out through the nose and blood was oozing out from her mouth. Police came and held inquest over the dead body. 17. PW-4 Md. Halim Bhuyan is the grandfather of the deceased Hafija and he had also stated that an amount of Rs. 34,000/-along with ornaments were given to Hafija as dowry at the time of her marriage. Hafija used to come back of mother’s house on many occasions after her marriage and he had heard that Karimul had married for the second time and did not want to continue his conjugal life with Hafija. On the date of the occurrence, early in the morning, he was informed that Hafija’s baby had died. But on going there, he saw that it was Hafija, who had died. PW-4 had also stated that he had seen injury marks on Hafija’s body and blood was oozing out from her ears and nose. He had also seen injury in the upper portion of her left arm and neck. 18. PW-5 Musstt. Ankomala is the mother of the victim. Her evidence was recorded on 15/12/2011. She has also deposed that 02 years and 03 months ago, her daughter Hafija had died. Three years prior to the incident, her daughter Hafija was given away in marriage to Karimul. At the time of their marriage, accused Karimul had demanded Rs. 34,000/-in cash, gold earrings, silver chain, gold bangles and accordingly, those articles were given to Hafija at the time of her marriage. Three years prior to the incident, her daughter Hafija was given away in marriage to Karimul. At the time of their marriage, accused Karimul had demanded Rs. 34,000/-in cash, gold earrings, silver chain, gold bangles and accordingly, those articles were given to Hafija at the time of her marriage. Even after her marriage, Hafija and Karimul were not in good visiting terms to their house for some time. Since that time, accused Karimul used to harass her daughter for money and used to send her home to bring money. In the meantime, accused Karimul went to Guwahati and married for the second time. He came back home with his second wife. On this occasion, Hafija came home and said that since Karimul got married for the second time and brought his second wife home, she would not return to her matrimonial home again. PW-5 has further stated that she had accompanied her husband to the house of Hafija on that day of “Ramadan” fasting after 2(two) persons came to their house and informed that Hafija’s daughter was ill. When she went there, she had seen that Hafija had been killed and her dead body was lying at the bank of the pond. She went near Hafija and saw a scratch mark on her neck and blood was also oozing out from her nose and mouth. She had seen marks of injury in the upper parts of both her arms. When she raised the head of Hafija, she had found some hair missing in the rear side. According to PW-5, the accused persons had harassed her for demand of money and ultimately killed her. 19. During her cross examination, PW-5 has stated that accused Karimul was engaged in a vehicle business prior to his marriage and he had asked for money by saying that he had to pay installment for his vehicle. Prior to the incident, she had seen the second wife of Hafija’s husband. She did not know how Hafija was killed but she has seen injuries on the body of the deceased. PW-5 has further stated that occasionally accused Karimul had created trouble and he even assaulted the deceased when they came to their house but she did not want to break her marriage. 20. PW-6 Musstt. Tara Bhanu is the wife of accused Osman Ali; PW-7 Musstt. PW-5 has further stated that occasionally accused Karimul had created trouble and he even assaulted the deceased when they came to their house but she did not want to break her marriage. 20. PW-6 Musstt. Tara Bhanu is the wife of accused Osman Ali; PW-7 Musstt. Chan Khatun is the wife of accused Arman Ali and PW-8 Miss Eliza Khatun is the sister of accused Karimul. The prosecution side had examined these three witnesses despite being aware that they were all related to the accused persons. Naturally, therefore, none of these three witnesses had either implicated the accused persons or supported the prosecution case in any manner. These witnesses were also not declared hostile. 21. PW-9 Musstt. Sahida Khatoon is the wife of Md. Mehboob Ali, who is the employer of the accused Karimul. She has deposed that about 2 ½ years ago, in the year 2009, one day accused Karimul came to their house and had food but she did not know as to where Karimul went thereafter. She had to wake up at night to cook because it was “Ramadan” month. When she went to Karimul’s room to get the matches, Karimul had asked her to take the same from the room. She entered the room and saw Karimul in a restless state and she had guessed that Karimul could not sleep that night. PW-9 has further stated that accused Karimul used to sleep on a bed in the same room where Nurul Amin (PW-10) used to sleep on the other bed. Accused Karimul woke her from sleep that morning and asked for rice. She gave him rice but after eating a little, Karimul left. After sometime, a boy came to their house on a bicycle and picked up Karimul and took him away. Later, she had heard that accused Karimul had killed his wife. 22. Md. Nurul Amin (PW-10) has also deposed that accused Karimul was their employee, who used to work in their vehicle. The incident took place about 2 ½ years ago. Around 9 p.m. on that day, accused Karimul and he were sleeping in two beds in the same room after having dinner. He did not know when Karimul suddenly went out that night and came back home around 1 a.m. He had opened the door and accused Karimul entered the room and went to sleep. Around 9 p.m. on that day, accused Karimul and he were sleeping in two beds in the same room after having dinner. He did not know when Karimul suddenly went out that night and came back home around 1 a.m. He had opened the door and accused Karimul entered the room and went to sleep. After sometime, his sister-in-law (PW-9) came to that room and asked for matches. Since about three days before the incident, he had seen Karimul in a restless state and that he had stopped eating properly. The next day, a man came and met Karimul and informed that his wife (Karimul’s wife) was ill. Then Karimul went home. On the same day he had heard that wife of Karimul had died. During his cross examination, PW-10 has stated that he did not ask Karimul as to why he was in a restless condition three days prior to the incident. 23. PW-11 Dr. G.C. Medhi had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim. PW-11 had proved the post-mortem report Ext-3 by identifying his signature therein. According to the post-mortem report, the following injuries were seen in the dead body :- “One lacerated injury over the back of the head. Size approximate 2” x 1” x 1”. Bleeding from right and left ear, black coloured. Black coloured bleeding from nose. Swelling over the front of the chest and both breast, black bluish in colour. Soft tissue swelling on both side of the neck. All injuries are anti mortem in nature.” 24. The doctor had opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury. During his cross examination, PW-11 has stated that he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased in reference to Kolgachia Outpost GDE No. 495 dated 28/08/2009. 25. PW-12 Nurul Islam is the Investigating Officer (IO) in this case. The IO has deposed that on 28/08/2009, he was working as In-charge in Kolgachia Police Outpost. At 6-15 a.m. on that day, Abdul Kasem, the VDP Secretary of Monakocha village had informed him over mobile phone that around 12 a.m., the daughter-in-law of Md. Naimuddin had died in the pond near his house. The IO has deposed that on 28/08/2009, he was working as In-charge in Kolgachia Police Outpost. At 6-15 a.m. on that day, Abdul Kasem, the VDP Secretary of Monakocha village had informed him over mobile phone that around 12 a.m., the daughter-in-law of Md. Naimuddin had died in the pond near his house. On receipt of the said information regarding the death of deceased Hafija Khatun under suspicious circumstances, an entry was made by him vide GD Entry No. 494 dated 28/08/2009 and thereafter, he had visited the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he had examined the witnesses, recorded their statement, got the inquest held on the dead body through a Magistrate, sent the body for post-mortem examination and collected the report there-after. During the course of investigation, he had arrested accused Naimuddin and Karimul Islam and had produced them before the Court. On 29/08/2009, Saiful Islam i.e. the paternal uncle of Hafija Khatun lodged an ejahar, which was forwarded to Sarbhog Police Station for registering a case. He had drawn up a sketch map of the place of occurrence. During the course of investigation, the other accused persons had surrendered before the Court. After completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet under sections 498(A)/340(B)/34 of IPC against the 7(seven) accused persons, named in the ejahar. Ext. 6 is the charge sheet which bears his signature. During cross examination, the IO had remained firm. 26. PW-13 Ms. Junu Das Saikia was working as Circle Officer, Kolgachia Revenue Circle on 28/08/2009 when a Police requisition in connection with Kolgachia Outpost GDE No. 495 dated 28/08/2009 was received by her for performing inquest over the dead body of Hafija Khatun. PW-13 had proved the inquest report Ext. 2 by identifying her signature therein. 27. It appears from the record that Shri Tilaka Pathak, who was working as Deputy Superintendent at the FAAMCH, Barpeta, was also examined as a prosecution witness and he has deposed that he knew the Medical Officer Dr. G.C. Medhi, who had performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Hafija Khatun but the weapon by which the injury was caused to the deceased had not been mentioned in the post-mortem report. This witness has also deposed that this type of head injury may be caused by dashing on stone if the depth of water is low. 28. This witness has also deposed that this type of head injury may be caused by dashing on stone if the depth of water is low. 28. The fact that the victim had died a homicidal death due to the injuries received in the vital part of her body is well established from the post-mortem report Ext. 3 as well as the testimony of the PW-11 i.e. the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. The time, date and place of occurrence has also come out from the testimony of PWs 1 to 5. Although, none of these witnesses had seen the occurrence but they had reached the place of occurrence immediately on receipt of the information about the incident. It appears that PWs 2 and 3 had reached the place before the others on receiving the information that daughter of Hafija i.e. Kohinoor had suffered death and/or was seriously ill. On reaching the place of occurrence, they found it was their daughter Hafija, who was lying dead. On receipt of information, PWs-1, 3 & 4 appears to have reached the place of occurrence thereafter and had seen the dead body lying in the bank of the pond. Not only that, these witnesses had also seen injury marks on the dead body which matches the medical evidence. They had also seen blood and froth oozing out from the ear, nose and mouth of the victim, thereby, indicating that the victim had died an unnatural death under suspicious circumstances. 29. It is also firmly established from the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 that not only during the marriage but even thereafter, there were persistent demands of dowry from the accused Karimul Islam and in connection with such dowry demand Karimul even used to torture the victim. On many occasions, the victim had to come to her matrimonial home asking for money and at times, her parents and uncle would fulfill such demand of accused no.1 Karimul Islam. There is also evidence to show that village ‘bichar’ or extra-judicial trials for settling the dispute between the accused Karimul Islam and victim Hafija Khatun pertaining to dowry demands used to be held and one such meeting was even presided over by the village Head Master. 30. The circumstances brought on record by the PWs 1 to 5 appears to be consistent and free from any material contradictions. 30. The circumstances brought on record by the PWs 1 to 5 appears to be consistent and free from any material contradictions. Therefore, considering the fact that the incident took place about 3 years after the marriage of the victim with the accused Karimul Islam and that she had died an unnatural death, under suspicious circumstances and also considering the fact that there is evidence to show that the victim was tortured by the appellants in connection with dowry demand and she had also been tortured just before the occurrence, the irresistible conclusion which would follow in this case is that, the charge brought against the accused Karimul Islam and his parents under Section 304(B) of the IPC ought to have been held to have been established. The accused persons, more particularly, the husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have also failed to offer any explanation as to the circumstances under which, the victim had died. Notwithstanding the same, we are surprised that the learned trial Court had acquitted all the appellants in respect of charge framed under Sections 498(A)/304(B) of the IPC. On a careful reading of the impugned judgment, we do not find any cogent reason reflected therein for arriving at such conclusion. In our opinion, the learned trial Court had committed a serious mistake in acquitting the accused persons/appellants in respect of the charges framed under Sections 498(A)/304(B) of the IPC. However, although the learned APP has argued that such acquittal was not justified in the eye of law, the fact remains that neither the State nor the informant had preferred any appeal against such judgment of acquittal. Under the circumstances, it will not be open for this Court to go into the said aspect of the matter this point of time. 31. Having held as above, we now come to the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC. Here also, we find that although in the charge sheet, Section 34 of IPC was applied, yet, the learned trial Court had neither framed charge against the 7 (seven) accused persons under Section 34 IPC nor is the conviction of the 3 (three) accused/appellants with the aid of section 34 of IPC. There is also no finding of any common intention on the part of the accused persons to commit the offence. There is also no finding of any common intention on the part of the accused persons to commit the offence. The learned trial Court has also failed to record any finding of facts ascribing specific role to the three appellants in committing the murder of the victim Hafija Khatun. If that be so, in our opinion, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC without the assistance of section 34 IPC, would not be sustainable in the eye of law, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 32. The homicidal death of the victim is well established. From the evidence available on record, the fact that the victim had died under suspicious circumstances is also proved. Therefore, a genuine suspicion, as regards the involvement of accused Karimul Islam and his parents in perpetrating the crime arises and there is a strong probability that the appellants or at-least accused Karimul might have some role to play in the death of the victim. However, it is the salutary principle of law that mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. 33. Ordinarily, the chain of circumstances emerging from the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 read with the testimony of PWs-9 to 12 would have offered a valid basis for this Court to examine as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the accused persons u/s. 302 IPC by adducing circumstantial evidence. However, such recourse in this case, in our opinion, would also not be permissible in view of the evidence adduced by PWs-6, 7 and 8, who had given a different and conflicting version of the prosecution story. If the testimonies of PWs-6, 7 and 8 are examined carefully, then we find that these witnesses have not only failed to implicate the accused persons but had virtually exonerated them in respect of the charges framed under section 302 IPC. 34. As noted above, PWs. 6, 7 and 8 have not been declared hostile. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 5 SCC 272, followed by this Court in Sharifa Khatun Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2020 (2) GLT 24, the evidence of these witnesses would be binding on the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case of Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 5 SCC 272, followed by this Court in Sharifa Khatun Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2020 (2) GLT 24, the evidence of these witnesses would be binding on the prosecution. According to PW-6, on the date of the incident, accused Karimul was not at home and he returned home on the following day of the incident only after receipt of information. This witness has stated that there is a chance of drowning of the deceased since she did not know swimming. According to PW-7, the deceased Hafija herself went out of the house and did not return back. They went out to search for her. They found the dead body floating in the pond located near the house of Karimul Islam. PW-8 has also stated that there is a chance of drowning. Hafija did not know how to swim and therefore, she never took bath in the pond. She did not see any quarrel that took place between Hafija and Karimul regarding the second marriage of Karimul Islam. On the day of the incident, Karimul was not in the house and on receiving the information, he came home. 35. It is apparent that the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution that their evidence brings into light, mutually conflicting versions inasmuch as the first set of witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 5 have implicated the accused persons of making dowry demand and torturing the victim since the time of her marriage till immediately before her death, thereby clearly bringing this case within the fold of Section 304(B) of the IPC. However, as noticed above, the appellants have been acquitted by the learned trial Court in respect of the said charge. On the other hand, if the evidence of the said set of witnesses viz. PWs 6 to 8 is taken into account, then the charge brought against the appellants under Section 302 IPC clearly become un-sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, in our considered view, would be unsustainable in the eye of law. 36. PWs 6 to 8 is taken into account, then the charge brought against the appellants under Section 302 IPC clearly become un-sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, in our considered view, would be unsustainable in the eye of law. 36. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 11/02/2021 passed in Sessions case No. 75/2011 is held to be unsustainable in law and hence, the same is set aside. 37. The accused/appellants, viz. (1) Karimul Islam, (2) Naimuddin and (3) Kamela Khatunare hereby acquitted. 38. We are informed that the appellants are in jail. Therefore, we direct that the appellants be released from jail forthwith unless their custodial detention is deemed necessary in connection with any other case. 39. Appeal stands allowed. Send back the LCR.