SURESH MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband of deceased Dipsikha Mondal. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the offence punishable under Ss. 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court at Lalbagh vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 29/3/2016. The Learned Trial Judge handed down sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for seven years for committing offence punishable under Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the deceased had met with an unnatural death after approximately four years of marriage at her matrimonial home on 5/3/2010. A Police Case was registered on 6/3/2010 against the present appellant, his parents and brother under Ss. 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the de facto complainant being the mother of the deceased that deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture during her lifetime on demand of dowry. Failing to bear such torture either she committed suicide by consuming poison or she was murdered. The allegation in the FIR led the Learned Judge in Trial Court to frame charge against the accused persons under Ss. 498A/304B and alternatively under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence adduced by 21 witnesses convicted the appellant, while other accused persons were acquitted from the charge.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Advocate for the appellant being ably assisted by Mr. Nag and Mr. Roy, Learned Advocates submits at the outset that the Learned Trial Judge failed to consider serious infirmities in the record and had such infirmities and contradictions being considered in their true perspective the Learned Trial Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant. In order to substantiate his contention, Mr. Chatterjee first takes me to the inquest report prepared by P.W. 21, Sub-Inspector, Chandan Kumar Das. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held by Chandan Kumar Das, Sub-Inspector of Police in presence of the father, uncle, aunt and two neighbours of the maternal home of the deceased. The father of the deceased stated before the Inquest Officer that the deceased failed to bear any child even after four years of marriage. The appellant, his parents and the brother of the appellant used to quarrel with her frequently. She was rebuked by her in-laws over family matters on 3/3/2010. She was rebuked by her parentsin-law because she went to her parents house on 27/2/2010 without informing anything to any of the members of her maternal home and her husband brought her back to her matrimonial home on 3 rd March, 2010. On 5/3/2010 at about 9.00 A.M. she consumed unknown poison. She was taken to Islampur Gramin Hospital in the early morning on 6/3/2010 when the Doctor examined and declared her dead. Thus, at the time of inquest, the father of the deceased did not make any allegation regarding torture upon his daughter on demand of dowry or cash money. Nothing was also said to the Magistrate who held parallel inquest alleging demand of dowry by the appellant or any other accused persons from the deceased during her life time. In the written complaint which was submitted subsequent to the holding of inquest, the de facto complainant for the first time incorporated the story of demand of dowry. The learned trial Judge failed to consider such aspect of the matter. Secondly, it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee showing the charge framed against the accused persons that in respect of the charge under Sec. 304 B of the Indian Penal Code it has not been stated that the appellant or other accused persons used to treat the deceased with cruelty on illegal demand of dowry.