PANU ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No.4 (3) 2009 (Sessions Case No.24(1) 2009) thereby convicting the appellants Panu Roy, Kanai Roy and Smt. Arati Roy for committing offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and R.I. for seven years for committing offence under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. with fine.

(2.) On 16.5.2008 at about 17.25 hours, Ananda Roy (P.W.2) lodged one F.I.R. in Bankura Police Station alleging therein that his daughter Manju who was given marriage with the appellant Panu Roy, son of appellants Kanai Roy and Arati Roy in Baisakh 1414 B.S. upon payment of dowry, was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial house since marriage. She was pressurised to bring more money and as she failed to oblige her husband and in laws, she was physically tortured. Manju disclosed everything to her parents who, thinking of her welfare, told her to adjust with the situation. Manju could not bear torture any further and on 14.5.2008 she set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil and died in Bankura Medical College Hospital. Ananda Roy, being informed about that incident had been to Bankura Medical College Hospital and found her daughter Manju was fighting against death. He tried to meet the Doctor and arrange for medical treatment for Manju but found that her daughter expired by that time. The F.I.R so lodged (marked Ext.1) was written by Astik Das at the instruction of Ananda Roy (P.W.2). On the basis of the said F.I.R., Bankura Police Station Case No.96 of 2008 dated 16.5.2008 was registered against the appellants under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the I.P.C. The appellants were also arrayed to face the charges under the abovementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and as a consequence the trial commenced.

(3.) In course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.