AMRITA MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. SUBRATA MUKHOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by Sri S. Mondal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 1st Court, Howrah in case No. 1267C/1994 dated 13.04.2006 complainant / appellant Smt. Amrita Mukherjee preferred this appeal against her husband and member of her in-laws family.

(2.) SHORTLY put, the petitioner case is that Amrita Mukherjee was married with the accused Subrata Mukherjee on 26.09.1993 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage Smt. Mukherjee was subjected to torture both physically and mentally not only by her husband but also by the other family members of her in-laws house. Prior to marriage complainant father handed over Rs. 18,000.00 in cash to the father of Subrata Mukherjee for the purchase of his son 's bike. But the said bike was never purchased. On the other hand the said money was spent for preparation of 'Box Khat ' which was gifted to accused Sugata, third daughter-in-law of Amrita Mukherjee at the time of marriage. After Boubhat complainant Smt. Amrita Mukherjee was subjected to torture both physically and mentally not only by her husband but also by her parents-in-law, second, third and youngest sister-in-law for alleged inferior quality articles / gifts given by the father of the complainant. Admittedly the husband of the complainant was a lawyer by profession and he used to practice at Alipore Court and so many female personnel came to the husband of the complainant for legal advice. Complainant apprehended some relation between female clients with her husband and reported the matter to the member of her in-laws house but they paid no attention to that. Subsequently the domestic hands were released one by one and as a result the female member of her in-laws house directed the complainant for doing all sorts of jobs including cooking, cleaning etc. Subsequently complainant 's father on the request of complainants husband arranged a rented accommodation for complainant and her husband but complainant husband never stayed there with the complainant. Moreover, during that period the torture both physically and mentally were increasing and all the female members of the complainant 's in-laws house are taking active part in the said torture as a result finding no other alternative complainant filed this case before the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Hence the prosecution case.

(3.) THE defence case as it appears from the trend of the crossexamination of the complainant witnesses before and after charge and answer given by the accused person to their respective examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of absolute innocence.