PRASANTA CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was directed against the judgement and order dated 15.07.2003 and 16.07.2003 passed by H.P. Chattopadhyay, Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, 24-Parganas (North) in Sessions Trial No. 12(4) 2001 convicting the appellant Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee for a period of 6 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of S.I. for one month and so far Lakshmi Cahtterjee is concerned. She has to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of S.I. for a month for an offence punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of S.I. for two months respectively. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement accused i.e. Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee preferred this appeal.

(2.) SHORTLY put the prosecution case in brief is as follows : - Manju Chatterjee, the sister of the defacto complainant, Biswajit Bhattacharya was married with Prasanta Chatterjee as per Hindu rites and customs nearly four years ago from the date of occurrence. It is alleged in the First Information Report as well as in the evidence that after few days after the date of marriage as and when Manju visited the house of her parent she narrated to her mother and brothers her miseries only in her in-laws family as it was further revealed that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law Khuku and Baby and brother-in-law Mantu used to quarrel with her over family matters. Whenever Manju requested her husband to take steps against them for such torture her husband remain silent. On hearing all these Manju's mother advice her to somehow adjust with them and try to settle the dispute. In the meantime Manju gave a birth to a baby. Seven or eight days prior to her death Manju came to her parent's house and reported that incident of torture on her by her in-laws increased day by day and she was abused in filthy languages when Manju protested against such behaviour she asked to commit suicide by setting her on fire. On 05.10.1993 at about 4-15 A.M. Manju's brother-in-law and his two friends came to the house of the defacto complainant and informed them that Manju set her ablaze and they were asked to go there. Defacto complainant rushed to the house of the accused along with neighbour and found Manju inside the toilet with burn injury on her person. Defacto complainant asked the family to shift Manju to a hospital but they did not pay any heed to his request. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Biswajit Bhattacharya, the elder brother of Manju Khardah Police took up the investigation of this case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 498A/304B I.P.C. against Prasanta Chatterjee, Lakshmi Chatterjee and three others.

(3.) AS I pointed earlier that P.W. 1 Biswajit Bhattacharya the brother of the victim was the F.I.R. maker. P.W. 2 Prafula Ranjan Guha was a neighbour of the victim family. P.W. 3 Dr. N.C. Pratihar conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Manju, the victim on 06.10.1993. According to him death was due to the effect of shock resulting from burn injury as noted in the P.M. report. P.W. 4 is a neighbour has been declined hostile by the prosecution and remain unshaken during the course of the cross-examination as a result his ocular version will not help the prosecution case in any way. P.W. 5 is a neighbour of the victim family. P.W. 6, Ranjit Bhattacharya happens to be the brother of the victim. P.W. 7 is the mother of the victim and according to the F.I.R. maker i.e. P.W. 1 Manju used to narrate her sufferings and miseries to her mother whenever she visited her parental home. P.W. 8 is a formal witness. P.W. 9 is a retired Police Constable and what he has stated has neither helped the prosecution nor the defence and P.W. 10 is the I.O. So, in view of aforesaid discussion entire prosecution case raised upon the ocular version of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and the doctor, to some extent, because he performed the P.M. examination on the dead body of Manju. P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 out of these witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are the near relation of the victim Manju and before scrutinizing their evidence let me confined my attention to the other witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution. P.W. 2 Prafulla Ranjan Guha is a Secretary of the local club and according to him Manju's husband used to demand Rs. 20,000/- from Ranjit Bhattacharya (P.W. 6). Though he is a member of the local club and active member of a particular political party and according to him Manju along with his brother told him about the sufferings and miseries of Manju in her father-in-laws house. Yet he has not taken any active part to help either side. Moreover, according to him Manju's husband demanded Rs. 20,000/- from P.W. 6 whereas P.W. 6 has not stated such thing during his examination before the Court below. According to F.I.R. maker Biswajit Bhattacharya he was not an eye witness to an occurrence. So I do not want to place any reliance upon the ocular version of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 is the doctor. P.W. 4 Ratna Ghosh was staying along with her family consists of her husband and daughter in a house adjacent to the house of Manju's matrimonial home. She contended that she heard that accused persons used to ask Manju to bring money from her father's shop. Though during her cross examination she categorically admitted that she cannot remember what she has stated to I.O. Moreover, according to her Manju committed suicide by burning in the dead of night. The smoke coming out from the house but to my utter surprise it appears that according to P.W. 4 her husband and daughter were sleeping on that fateful night at the time of incident. These raised a doubt about the truthfulness of the ocular version of P.W. 4 and it is not wise to convict a person only on the basis of ocular version of P.W. 4. P.W. 5 Mihir Kumar Chakraborty just like other stated that he heard that accused persons used to quarrel with Manju over the ornaments and money. Now let us confined my attention to the ocular version of Manju's mother Madhurilata Bhattacharya who is examined as P.W. 7. According to her whenever Manju visited her father's home she narrated the story of her sufferings and miseries to her mother even she has specifically stated to her mother that her husband demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as dowry. According to Madhurilata she has stated everything to her eldest son Ranjit Bhattacharya who was examined her as P.W. 6. During the course of cross- examination Madhurilata categorically admitted that she did not tell to the police about the demand of the money by the accused person's side. She also admitted that she did not tell to the I.O. about the payment of Rs. 5,000/-. These are in a nutshell the evidence adduced in an evidence to bring home the charge leveled against the accused person on the basis of this evidence learned Trial Court convicted Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee.