SUBHAS CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-1- 2008 and 31-1-2008 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Dakshin Dinajpur thereby convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The appellants were found not guilty to the charges under sections 498A/304B of the IPC and were acquitted accordingly of the said charges.

(2.) Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that Shibani Mondal was given in marriage with appellant Subhas Ch. Mondal on 18th day of Baisakh, 1407 B.S. corresponding to 1st May, 2000 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage she started living at her matrimonial home at village Lohaganj under P.S. Kusmundi , District-Dakshin Dinajpur. Six months after the marriage appellant Subhas Ch. Mondal took a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the father of the victim for starting a tailoring shop and he again took another sum of Rs. 5,000/- six months thereafter for improvement of the said shop. After expiry of another six months Subhas Ch. Mondal had been to his father-in-laws house and demanded a cash of Rs. 10,000/- as his tailoring shop was not running well. The informant, father of the victim refused to pay the said sum. Thereafter the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture. On 19-7-2002 appellant Subhas Ch. Mondal's uncle and his sister's husband came to the house of the de facto complainant and reported that the condition of Shibani was serious. The informant rushed to the house of the appellants and found his daughter hanging from the ceiling and according to him the death of his daughter was unnatural.

(3.) He submitted a written complaint at Kusmundi police station. On the basis of that complaint Kusmundi police station Case No. 53 of 2002 dated 19-7-2002 under Section 304 B of IPC was started against the appellants.