I.A.ANSARl, J. - (1.)By judgment and order, dated 30-11-2002, passed in Sessions Case No. l29(N)/2002, by the Additional (Ad hoc) Sessions Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, the appellant herein, namely, Sri Narayan Debnath, stands convicted under Sections 302 and 201,1. P. C. and sentenced to suffer for his conviction under Section 302, I. P. C, imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to undergo, for his conviction under Section 201,1. P. C, rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.
(2.)The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:
(i) As a result of strained relation with his wife, Lalita, the accused beat his wife and drove her away with their two children, both the children being very young and, in fact one of them being almost a suckling baby. Having driven away his wife, Lalita the accused married another woman and started living with her.

(ii) On being driven out of her matrimonial house by her husband, Lalita took shelter at the house of her sister, at Baithalangsu, and started living there along with her two female children. On 2-10-1999, i.e., the day preceding the day of election, which took place on 3-10-1999, Lalita along with her children, came to the house of her brother- in-law, PW 1 (Rabindra Debnath), whose house is at a distance of about one k.m. from the house of the accused. Lalita stayed, at the house of PW 1 with her children for the night on 2-10-1999, so that she could cast her vote on the following day.

(iii) On the day of election, i.e. 3-10-1999, leaving her elder child with PW 1 at his house Lalita went out with her younger child, to cast vote. About a week before the election, the second wife of the accused had gone to her mother's house and was not present on the day of the election at the house of the accused. Having cast her vote, when Lalita, accompanied by PW 2 (a neighbour of the accused) was returning, she was carrying her younger baby in her arms, Leaving the baby in the arms of PW2 on the road, Lalita went to purchase biscuits from a nearby shop for the child, whom she had left at the house of her brother-in-law (PW 1). After purchasing biscuits, when Lalita was proceeding further with PW 2, the accused arrived there and forcibly took Lalita to his house, though Lalita kept resisting. After about half-an- hour, PW 2 happened to meet Lalita at the tube-well, located near their house, where Lalita had come to fetch water. Near the said tube-well, Lalita told PW 2 that she was apprehending risk to her life. PW 2, however, consoled Lalita by saying that the accused would not do anything wrong to her, whereupon Lalita went back to the house of the accused carrying water. Even to PW 4 (Saraswati), another neighbour of the accused, Lalita told, at the said tube-well, that she was apprehending risk to her life, but PW 4 too consoled Lalita and advised her to stay with her husband and, upon being so advised by PW 2 and PW 4, Lalita went back to her husband's house carrying water.

(iv) On the day of election, i.e. on 3-10- 1999, Maheswari (PW 3), a neighbour of the accused, went to the police, where she had left her goat for grazing. The place was at a distance of about 40 feet from the house of the accused. When PW 3 reached the said place, she heard someone screaming. "Mago" (i.e, Mother), from the direction of the house of the accused and on looking towards the said direction, PW 3 noticed Lalita lying on the ground and a short while thereafter, the accused dragging Lalita to his house. At around the time, when PW 3 (Maheswari) had gone to the place, where her goat had been left for grazing, PW 4 too had gone there to .collect her cattle. She (PW 4) too heard someone screaming, "Mago" (i.e., Mother), and she too saw Lalita being dragged by the accused into his house. In fact, about half-an-hour after Lalita had gone back to the house of the accused carrying water, PW 2 too heard Lalita screaming, 'Oh Mago' (i.e. Oh! Mother), and thereafter PW 2 heard nothing.

(v) As Lalita did not come back to the house of her brother-in-law (PW 1), PW 1 became worried, particularly, because the child, whom Lalita. had left, at the house of PW 1, spent the whole night crying. On the following day at about 7 O' clock, in the morning, PW 1 along with the said elder child of Lalita, proceeded towards the house of the accused in search of Lalita. Before, however, PW 1 could reach the house of the accused, PW 1 happened to meet PW 2 and was informed by her that at about 4/4.30 p.m., on the previous day, i.e., 3-10-1999, the accused had forcibly takers away Lalita to his house and, a short while thereafter, PW 2 had heard Lalita screaming and that she (PW 2) had heard nothing further. PW 2 asked PW 1 to go to the house of the accused and make necessary inquiry. On being so informed, when the PW1 was proceeding towards the house of the accused, PW 1 found he accused coming and when PW 1 asked the accused about Lalita, the accused told him that leaving her baby at the house of the accused, Lalita had already left for the house of PW 1 to bring back her elder child whom she (Lalita) had left, on the day of the election, at the house of PW 1. When PW. 1 told the accused that Lalita had not come back to the house of PW 1, the accused told PW 1 that Lalita might- have gone to Baithalangsu.

(vi) As PW 1 did not believe the version of the accused, he, taking along with him, Lalita's younger child, came back to his house and, leaving the child there, he went- to Hojai Police Station and reported there about what had happened. PW 1, accompanied by the police, came to the house of the accused. Upon noticing policemen coming, the accused started running away and while he was descending to a beel (swamp), the people from the neighbourhood chased the accused and caught hold of him.

(vii) On being questioned by the police, the accused told them that he had kept Lalita's dead body buried at the bank of the pond, which is located within the compound of his house. Acting upon what the accused had told them, the police disinterred Lalita's dead body. Before, however, the dead body was recovered, PW 1 lodged a written information with the police, at the said police station, which came to be registered as an FIR. Police held inquest over the dead body of Lalita. Post mortem was also conducted on the said dead body. The post mortem examination revealed that Lalita had sustained injuries on her waist, back and head. The head injury, which had given rise to haemorrhage, became the cause of Lalita's death. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 302 and 201, I. P. C.

(3.)During trial, charges under Sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded hot guilty to both the said charges. In support of their case, prosecution examined eight witnesses including the doctor. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C, and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being an admixture of total denial and a plea of alibi. The accused also adduced evidence by examining two witnesses including his own self. Having found the accused guilty of the offences charged with the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal.