GUNOSINDHU PANDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the Appellants against the judgement and order of conviction dated May 2, 2008 passed by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track, 2nd court at Basirhat 24 Parganas North in Sessions Trial case number S.T 5 (3) 2005 arising out of Sessions case No. 2 (9) 2004 under Sec. 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The sister of the de facto complainant Smt. Sandhya Rani Panda got married with Gunno Sindhu Panda (Bipod Panda) about 10 to 11 years ago, from the date of lodging of the FIR. After 4/5 years of their marriage, she became subject to torture by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle in law, namely Geeta, Ajit & Chhidam Panda on the pretext of bringing dowry as sufficient amount of dowry was not given to the in-laws at the time of her marriage. Gunno Sindhu panda during subsistence of his marriage lived with one lady as husband and wife for about six months and thereafter he returned to his father's place but continue to visit the said lady. On January 7, 1991, the sister of the complainant was assaulted by her husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, and uncle in law, namely Gunasindhu, Geeta, Ajit and Chhidam. On January 8, 1991, the younger brother of Bipad informed the complainant that his sister is very ill, and after being informed, his mother went to her son-in-law's house at number 4 CHAITAL and found her daughter dead. She came to know about the reason of death as of poison and it is believed by the complainant that his sister committed, suicide by consuming poison, being unable to bear the severe torture inflicted upon her. Accordingly filed the written complaint before the officer in charge MinaKhan police station, 24parganas North on January 11, 1991. On the basis of which Minakhan PS case No. 2 dated 11 .1 .91 under sec. 498A/306 I.P.C started and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Sec. . The charges being exclusively triable by the sessions court, the case was committed to the court of learned District Judge, 24 Parganas North, and from there, it was transferred to the learned court of additional sessions judge, Fastrack, second court, Bashirhat North 24 Parganas.

(3.) Argument advanced on behalf of the learned Defence Council is primarily on the quality of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses who have miserably failed to support the prosecution case. The attention of this court is drawn to the evidence of PW3 who is a family member of the de facto complainant. Who heard that, because of assault by the accused Bipod, Sondhyarani committed suicide by taking pesticide. He denied to be examined by the police. It is argued that the said witness was not declared as hostile by the prosecution. In his cross examination, also, he failed to assign any reason why the accused assaulted Sandhya. He came to learn that Sandhyarani was subjected to torture and cruelty by the accused persons.