PRADIP DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.9.1994 passed by Sri R.N. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad in connection with Sessions Case No. 309 of 1992 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.1 of March, 1994 whereby the appellant accused Pradip Dey was convicted for committing offence under Section 304-B alternatively under Section 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that one Rina Dey (Kundu) was admitted into Berhampore General Hospital in the wee hours of 7.8.1990 with bum injury received at father-in-law's house and expired after sometime. She was married with the appellant Pradip on 28.1.1998. Soon after the marriage there were various tortures committed on her although Rina tried to continue to live there in her in-law's house despite such tortures. It is alleged that Pradip was an inebriated person having no moral character which the informant Ranendra Kumar Kundu, father of Rina came to learn immediately after the marriage. Rina stayed with her father since after she gave birth to a female child on 1.6.1990 and inspite of her unwillingness Pradip and his mother Sudharani Dey took her forcibly to their house and after a few days Rina died on 7.8.1990. It is also alleged that Sudharani also used to torture Rina. It was apprehended by the informant that fire was set on her and she did not commit suicide by setting fire on herself. After investigation charge- sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge. In course of time the case was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It appears from the record that the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against Pradip and his mother Sudharani under Section 304B/34 alternatively under Section 306/34 and also under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. when both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The record goes to show that as many as 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After the evidence of the prosecution was over the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and that of the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is that Rina was accustomed in a lavish life at her parent's house and she was not happy with the meagre income of her husband. It is the further case of the defence that Rina had a tendency for getting a service and sometimes there was breach of peace for the influx of relations in the house of the accused persons from the house of the informant. It is also the further case of the defence that Pradip tried to extinguish the gire by covering body of Rina with mattress and thereby he had also sustained injuries and both Rina and Pradip got admitted in the hospital.

(3.) After completion of trial the learned Judge was pleased to acquit Sudharani from all the charges but he convicted Pradip, the husband of Rina for committing offence under Section 340B I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned Judge convicted Pradip also for committing offence under Section 498A I.P.C. but eschewed himself from inflicting any separate punishment therefore in view of the substantive punishment given under Section 340 B I.P.C. The learned Judge framed alternative charge under Section 306 I.P.C. redundant in view of his finding in the judgment.