DILIP MUHURI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILIP Muhuri, the accused in sessions trial No. 24(ST/B) of 2010, appellant herein, was convicted under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the IPC for committing cruelty leading to dowry death of his wife Smt. Soma Choudhury and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months vide judgment and order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in Sessions Trial case No. 24(ST/B) 2010 and the instant appeal is filed against the aforesaid judgment.

(2.) HEARD Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the respondent -State.

(3.) ON the following day, i.e., on 1.6.2008, the informant P.W. 2, father of the deceased Soma lodged a written complaint relating to the incident at the police station which was registered as P.R. Bari P.S case No. 56 of 2008 under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B of the IPC against the accused appellant and his mother Priyabala Muhuri stating, inter alia, that after one month of the marriage, his daughter came to his house and told him that she had been sent by her husband to bring Rs. 20,000/ - from him, otherwise she would not be allowed to stay in the house of the accused appellant. Then her father considering her future and happiness gave twenty thousand rupees to the appellant and his family through Soma as per their demand. Thereafter, Soma passed sometimes well and she got conceived and ultimately she gave birth to a girl child when her treatment costs were borne by the informant father. After the birth of the girl child, she went to the house of the accused appellant, but few days after she again came back to his house with her girl child and at the time of coming to the parental house, she was told by the accused appellant and his mother to bring another fifteen thousand rupees when returning from her parental house and unless the same is done, neither she nor her girl child would be allowed any place in the house of the accused appellant as they would not be able to feed them. His daughter was also tortured in his house by the accused appellant in presence of her mother for which she had to take treatment. Thereafter, his daughter Soma went to the house of her husband accused appellant when she was given Rs.1000/ - by him.