- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1992 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 52 of 1990 sentencing thereby each of the accused persons to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that one Nausad Ali lodged complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Kaliachak Police Station alleging that his sister Rohila Khatun was married with Erfan Ali Sekh alias Sannu. On 30.09.1980 at night Erfan Ali Sekh alias Sannu came to the house of the informant and took back his wife to his own house. On the next morning, the informant came to learn that Rohila Khatun died and the family members of Erfan Ali Sekh alias Sannu buried her in the village. THE informant subsequently came to learn that it was not a natural death. Rohila Khatun was about 17-18 years old at that time. After the information regarding the death of Rohila Khatun was lodged by Nausad Ali on 02.10.1980, U.D, Case No. 22/1980 dated 02.10.1980 was started. The inquest was held in presence of the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter taking permission of S.D.O. the dead body was lifted from the graveyard. The postmortem examination was done by the Autopsy Surgeon and on the basis of the inquest report, postmortem report and other materials appearing in the CD. of the U.D. Case, the suo motu F.I.R. was lodged by the O.C. (P.W.- 1) Kaliachak Police Station under Section 302,201/34, Indian Penal Code being Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 10 dt. 10.10.1980. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The learned Trial Judge framed charges under Section 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tired.
(3.) Mr. Basu appearing for the appellants submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in such a case, motive being an important factor, the prosecution could not prove by clinching evidence that appellants were the perpetrators of the crime. MR. Basu contends that mere suspicion cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. It is contended that there is no evidence regarding the alleged ill treatment by the husband or members of his family upon the victim. It is contended that there is no evidence regarding the inimical relation of the accused persons with Rohila. It is contended that at the time of burial of the deceased, the villagers were present and till the completion of inquest report there was no specific complaint with the P.S.;