SAMIR SAMANTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4/12/1987 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kalna in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1987 (Sessions Case No. 108 of 1987) thereby convicting both the appellants/ accused under Ss. 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years 6 months and also to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months more.

(2.) The appellant No. 1 Samir Samanta is the son of the appellant No. 2 Sreemati Sabitri Bala Samanta. He married Shantana sometime in Jaistha 1388 B. S. While she was in her matrimonial home, Shantana sustained severe burn injury on 3/11/1985 at about 2-30 p.m. inside the kitchen the door of which was found closed from inside at that time and had therefore to be broken open by P.W. 1 Dilip Pal (who is a tenant of that house) in a bid to rescue her. The fire was extinguished with effort by Dilip and the injured Shantana was rushed to Kalna hospital where she expired at about 7-00 p.m. in that very evening. It is the prosecution case that both the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and also to harassment over outstanding demand of dowry as a result of which she committed suicide by setting fire to her body. Charge was accordingly framed against both the appellants/accused under Ss. 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under bath heads of the charge and sentenced them as stated above.

(3.) P.W. 1 Dilip Pal is a tenant under the appellants and resides in the same premises. The tenanted portion under his occupation is situated by the side of the kitchen of the appellants. On the date of the occurrence, his wife reported to him about some groaning sound coming from the kitchen of the appellants and he also smelt that something was burning in that kitchen. After coming out of his room he however found that the appellant Samir was strolling on the Verandah and on being asked by him Samir pointed at the kitchen. As it was bolted from inside, Dilip had to break open the door of the kitchen and he found that the entire body of the wife of Samir was ablaze. He then brought some beddings, as he says, and wrapped the body of the victim and extinguished the fire. According to the evidence of Dilip the victim was yet alive but unconscious. Being attracted by the alarms raised by Dilip and his wife, the neighbouring people came there and with their help Dilip removed the victim Shantana to Kalna hospital where she died at about 7.00 p.m. in that very evening. According to him the burn incident took place at about 2/2-30 p.m. The First Information Report was lodged by Dilip at about 8-05 p.m. In the FIR it is stated by Dilip that almost every day domestic troubles used to take place between the victim and the appellants/accused and occasionally the appellants even used to assault her. In his evidence he however says that as a tenant he came to know that the victim Shantana was subjected to ill-treatment by the two accused and she was not allowed to speak with others and was also subjected to physical torture. As regards the source of his knowledge he says that his wife reported to him all about such tortures. His evidence about perpetration of cruelty or torture upon the victim by the accused persons thus seems to be hearsay. P.W. 2 Shyamali Paul, the wife of P.W. 1 Dilip Paul says that both the accused subjected the victim to tortures. She further says that the victim Shantana was not allowed to talk with others and she was denied meals. She also says that the female accused prevailed over accused. Samir in respect of his marital obligation and the victim was practically denied conjugal life. She says that out of sorrow the victim disclosed everything to her. It is the defence suggestion that these two witnesses are deposing falsely out of grudge as they, being tenants under the appellants, had dispute or quarrel with the appellants over arrear of rents, which however is denied by the witnesses. From the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 14) we get that P.W. 2 Shyamali did not make any statement to the I.O. regarding denial of marital obligation by the accused Samir at the instance of his mother. It may be noted here that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 speak about general torture on the victim, but they do not speak anything about dowry demand.