GOUR PALMAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.6.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fifth Court, South 24-Parganas, Alipore, in Sessions Trial No.3(1) of 1992 convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Sec. 304B and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for the commission of offence under Sec. 498A of the I.P.C., both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant, namely, Gour Palmal, is that the deceased Karuna Palmal, daughter of the informant Mina Ghosh (P.W.3) was married to the appellant in May, 1984 corresponding to 28th Baisakh, 1391 B.S. From the wedlock a female child who was aged about 5/6 years at the time of incident, was born in Nov., 1985. The appellant was an employee of Calcutta Metro Railway. The couple resided at the native village of the appellant, namely, Abas in the district of Midnapore along with his other family members who were also accused in the instant case. As the appellant was working in the Metro Railway, Calcutta, the couple also temporarily resided at Dumdum, thereafter at Sakher Bazar, Behala and lastly at Belgachia. It was alleged that few months after their marriage the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh for construction of his house and as the said amount was not paid, victim was subjected to mental and physical torture. Due to such torture she was compelled to reside at her parental home at Nayagram in the district of Midnapore. After she was sent to the matrimonial home on the expectation that she would resume a happy marital life, she was again tortured and in May, 1988 the victim came to the house of the informant at Nayagram alleging that she had been assaulted by the appellant and the other accused persons. She also apprehended that she may be murdered as they had not paid the dowry amount of Rs.1 lakh. As the local members of the club at Behala objected to the mental and physical torture on the victim, the appellant changed his residence to Belgachia Metro Railway quarter in April, 1989. It was also alleged that in order to torture the victim, her minor daughter was kept by the appellant at Laketown in the house of her sister-in-law, Gita Basak who was also a co-accused along with the appellant. The victim further informed her mother that the appellant and other accused persons would kill her for realizing the life insurance money to the tune of Rs.60,000.00 and that the accused persons would burn her alive and they were giving electric shock to her on the false accusation of being insane and had threatened that they would compel her to commit suicide after making her write nobody would be responsible for her death. In spite of such torture, the informant sent the victim to the house of the appellant. Finally, on 26.6.1989 while the informant was lying ill at Midnapore she received information from her neighbour that her daughter was unwell. Getting such information, her minor son Sisir Kumar Ghosh (P.W.5) along with brother of the informant, Sukumar Roy (P.W.4) and one Kalipada Chowdhury (P.W.6), uncle of the deceased went to Calcutta and met the P.A. to the General Manager, Metro Railway Office, Tollygunge where they were informed that the victim had died due to burn injuries. They were told on 25.6.1989 the victim was burnt to death by the appellant by pouring kerosene oil on her body in the railway quarter at Belgachia. They went to official quarter of the appellant at Belgachia and found the door locked. On 27.6.1989 Sisir (P.W.5) identified the dead-body of his sister at N.R.S. Medical College Hospital and Morgue and on the request of the appellant they permitted the dead-body to be handed over to him. Initially, the informant was under an impression the a criminal case has been started but when upon enquiry she found that no criminal proceeding has been initiated against the accused persons, on 21.7.1989 she lodged a written complaint at Chitpur Police Station and thereafter another written complaint dated 27.1989 to D.C.D.D., Lalbazar was lodged and finally, an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah against the appellant, Gour Palmal and eight in-laws, namely, Netail Palmal, Nepal Palmal, Bejoy Palmal, Krishna @ Kesto Palmal, Bimala Palmal, Arati Palmal, Sarathi Palmal and Gita Basak for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302/201/34 of I.P.C. Pursuant to direction of learned A.C.J.M. the instant criminal case being Chitpur P.S. Case No. 273 dated 11.8.1989 under Sec. 302/201/34 of I.P.C. was registered for investigation. In the course of the investigation, police seized various articles including letters written by the victim and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and eight other accused persons. As the case was a sessions triable one it was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fifth Court, South 24-Parganas, Alipore for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 304B/306/498A/34 of I.P.C. The appellant and other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, prosecution examined thirty-one witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of the innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellant and other accused persons that the victim had been suffering from mental ailments and was under treatment and had committed suicide on such score. The impugned prosecution case was falsely instituted by the informant in order to prevent the appellant for taking custody of his minor daughter from the informant. To probabilise their defence, the appellant and other accused persons examined D.W.1, namely, Dr. Shyama Prosad Mukherjee who had treated the victim to establish her mental illness and unstable mental state. In conclusion of trial, the trial Court by judgment and order dated 15.6.1992 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. The trial Court, however, acquitted the other accused persons of the charges levelled against them.

(3.) Initially, nobody appeared for the appellant and Ms. Meenal Sinha, learned advocate was requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Subsequently Dr. Adhikari appeared for the appellant and both the learned counsel were requested to assist the court.