RIAZUDDIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 29, 2010, of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court at Bichar Bhaban, Kolkata, in Sessions Trial No 2(1) of 2006. By dint of the said judgment and order the appellant has been found guilty of the offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 and half years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000; in default of payment of fine as above he has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 6 months. The appellant has been exonerated from the charge under Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code, in the said judgment and order of the trial Court.

(2.) The appellant/convict has challenged the said judgment and order of the trial Court dated January 29, 2010 on the grounds inter alia that the Court failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective and thereby has arrived at an erroneous conclusion against the appellant regarding proof of offence against him under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code; that the ingredients of offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not been proved to the standard of beyond all reasonable doubts as against the appellant by the prosecution and the Court has erred in appreciating such fact; that the fact that interested witnesses have deposed out of grudge and their evidence suffer from severe embellishments and improvements rendering that to be unbelievable - is also an aspect completely ignored by the Court while delivering judgment; that evidence of the neutral witnesses were ignored by the Court; that particularly in absence of any dying declaration, the allegation of torture meted out upon the deceased person by the appellant on demand of dowry as remained not proved in the trial - is also a vital aspect not taken into consideration by the trial Court while delivering the judgment. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict seeking redress that the said impugned judgment may be set aside, declaring the appellant as not guilty in the case.

(3.) However, at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant did not appear either personally or through any learned lawyer inspite of due service of administrative notice. Several opportunities were granted to the appellant without any response to the same. The administrative notice served upon the appellant was returned with the remark that the appellant was not available at the address known.