TAPAN KAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1999 (Sessions Case No. 82 of 1993) thereby sentencing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer further R.I. for 3 months each for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case arose out of written complaint/FIR (ext. 1) lodged by Krishnendu Palit (P.W. 1) before the Officer-in-Charge, Rampurhat P.S. on 25.6.90. The prosecution story depicted in the FIR, in short, is that Anjana Palit (since deceased), sister of P.W. 1 was given in marriage with Arup Kar on 7.5.90. After marriage her husband, her brother-in-law and sister- in-laws used to torture Anjana severely. On 24.6.90 at about 10.30 P.M. P.W. 1 received information through Durgapur P.S. about death of his sister Anjana Kar. On that day he received two letters of his sister Anjana sent by her through the husband of his elder sister. After going through the contents of the letters he and other inmates of his house learnt about deep rooted conspiracy and they apprehended that Anjana has either been murdered by her in-laws or she was instigated to commit suicide. In the said letters his sister revealed that as her father could not give the articles of dowry as per demand she was subjected to torture in her in-laws house. In the marriage of Anjana his father gave to the bridegroom party liquidated money of Rs. 10,000/-, gold ornaments of 10 bharies, 1 cot, dressing table, almirah and other articles as per demand of the bridegroom party. In the said letters his deceased sister informed that her husband, brother-in-law Tapan Kar and sister-in-laws used to torture her. His sister was not allowed to write any letter to him or to his father and if she wanted to write any letter such letters were opened by her husband and brother- in-law Tapan Kar to know the contents of the letters and if the letters were beyond their choice they used to torn the letters. She had to bear scolding for the cause of death of her mother-in-law soon after her marriage and over that matter she was called unlucky in her in-laws house, though in fact her mother- in-law died after her third heart attack. On the basis of such FIR Rampurhat P.S. Case No. 74/90 dated 24.6.90 under Section 304B of the I.P.C. was started against the husband and other in-laws. After completing investigation the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons under Sections 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. The trial that followed ended in conviction of the four appellants. During pendency of the appeal appellant No. 1 Tapan Kar expired on 17th January, 2005 and as such the appeal stands abated against him.

(3.) In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses namely, P.W. 1 Krishnendu Palit (the informant and brother of deceased Anjana), P.W. 2 Abdul Mahasin, P.W. 3 Sekhar Sinha, P.W. 4 Satyendra Nath Das, P.W. 5 Sandip Kumar Roy @ Gopal, P.W. 6 Subir Sengupta, P.W. 7 Mirza Zakin Beg (scribe of FIR), P.W. 8 Somnath Sinha, P.W. 9 Dr. Gopal Chandra Saha (post mortem surgeon), P.W. 10 Monohar Sk. (homeguard), P.W. 11 Ashok Kumar Sarkar (brother-in-law of P.W. 1), P.W. 12 Kakali Palit (sister of deceased), P.W. 13 Debasish Saha, P.W. 14Amar Kumar Sarkar, P.W. 15 Japan Kumar Roy (hand writing expert), P.W. 16 Anita Sarkar (elder sister of deceased), P.W. 17 Kazi Saimuddin, P.W. 18 S.I. of Police Abdul Zalil, P.W. 19 Rabindra Nath Chatterjee (retired police officer-cum-part I.O.), P.W. 20 Uttam Biswas and P.W. 21 Satyaban Mondal.