- (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgement of conviction dated 23.10.2002 and order of sentence dated 25.10.2002 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1997, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 498A IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for two years for the offence under section 498A IPC. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the informant (PW-5) gave fardbeyan on 09.10.1996 at about 11.00 AM to the effect that his daughter-Sumari Devi (deceased) was married with the appellant no. 1-Amarchandra Mandal seven years ago, but she did not bear child due to which the appellants and her mother-in-law used to quarrel with her and about which she used to tell him. He got her treated in the village but of no benefit. After five years of marriage, Amarchandra Mandal brought another girl about which there was a panchayati. Thereafter, the girl returned, but the in-laws of the deceased continued to quarrel with her. On the previous day, he went to take her on 'Bidai' but the appellants and her mother-in-law did not allow her. On this, the deceased started weeping. The appellants and her mother-in-law said that she was weeping on seeing her father and scolded her not weep otherwise she will be thrown into the well after killing her. The informant thought that such thing was said casually. He returned to his house. In the morning at about 7.00 AM, the villagers informed him that in the preceding night, her daughter has been killed and her dead body has been thrown into the well. He rushed there and found the dead body of her daughter lying on the cot and her husband and in-laws escaped. The reason attributed behind the incident was non-bearing of child by the deceased.
(3.) Mr. Jailisur Rahman, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts and the chain of circumstances is not complete. It is further submitted that the appellants were all along on bail in course of trial and after conviction, they are in jail from October 2002.;