THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF TRIPURA Vs. SRI ARABINDA GHOSH AND SMT. BIMALA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. J. Majumder, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant, the State of Tripura as well as Mr. H. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.06.2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2007 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur.

(2.) A complaint filed by Mamata Ghosh (P.W. 8) has disclosed that at the time of her marriage with the accused person, namely Arabinda Ghosh @ Shankar, her parents gave the said accused person, some valuable materials including cash of Rs. 50,000, golden ornaments and wooden furniture's. The complainant has stated in the complaint further that after 1 -2 days of the marriage, the said accused person had started inflicting physical and mental torture on her for realising more Rs. 50,000 from her parents for purpose of starting a shop. Her mother -in -law, namely Smt. Bimala Rani Ghosh, the other co -accused had taken part or participated in such kind of torture alongwith the husband of the complainant. She had informed her parents about the torture, but the demanded money could not be provided for incapability of her parents. According to the complainant there was a village meeting in the house of one Ranjit Ghosh at Manik Bhander to amicably settle the dispute. In the said meeting the accused persons confessed their guilt and promised not to repeat such action in future. But, on 29.07.2006 at night, her mother -in -law and husband had started torture on her on demand of Rs. 50,000 and driven her out from the room. She fell down on her knees and earnestly begged to allow her to stay in the hut for the night, but without any avail. Then she had to sleep on the open varandah of the hut. On the following morning she had returned to her parents house. Her brothers got her medically treated and thereafter she had lodged the complaint. She has also explained in the complaint that "delay has been caused by me in lodging the case (FIR) as I was waiting for the Panchayat. As the accused side did not attend the Panchayat, the Panchayat advised (me) to take resort to law. So 4 days delay has been caused in lodging the case".

(3.) BASED on the said complaint, Amtali P.S. Case No. 39/2006 was registered under Section 498A of the IPC and was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed against both the accused persons, namely Arabinda Ghosh and Smt. Bimala Rani Ghosh under Section 498A of the IPC. Accordingly, the charge was framed against them under Section 498A of the IPC, to which both the accused persons pleaded total innocence and claimed to face the trial.