SAPTAM SARKAR Vs. SITA SARKAR (DAS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this appeal, the convict, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, has questioned the legality of the judgment dated 28.11.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.12.2013 delivered in Case No.GR564 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.5) has been reversed and the appellant has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. As consequence of the conviction as afrorestated, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) The genesis of the prosecution case can be located in the complaint (Exbt-1 series) filed by the wife of the appellant namely Sita Sarkar (PW-1) in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate West Tripura, Agartala being CR Case No. 55 of 2008. It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance of the said complaint, instead he had directed the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. In compliance thereof, Sidhai PS case No. 53/08 under Section 498A/34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation.

(3.) Having completed the investigation, the final police report under section 173(2) of the CrPC was submitted in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No.5) hereinafter referred to as the trial court for purpose of trial. Due cognizance was taken of the police report and the charge was framed against the appellant and his parents namely Shri Jatindra Sarakr and Smt. Lalita Sarkar under Section 498A read with section 34 of the IPC for subjecting the complaint to cruelty in furtherance of the common intention of realizing unlawful demand of Rs.1,0,000/- as additional dowry. The appellant and the other co-accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.