ARJUN GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 18th/19th/20th August, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 29 (5) of 2007 [Sessions Trial No. VIII (April) 2008] convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC; both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that the victim, Mousumi Ghosh was married to the appellant five years ago. She was subjected to mental and physical torture by the appellant and her in-laws at the matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the appellant had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and over such affair she was subjected to torture. Unable to bear such torture she set herself on fire. Over the issue brother of the victim lodged criminal case against the appellant and the other in-laws namely, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the victim. Charges were framed under Sections 498A/304B IPC against the accused persons. The appellant and other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 18th/19th/20th August, 2009 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Other accused persons were, however, acquitted.

(3.) Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the evidence does not establish the charges levelled against him. Ms. Minoti Gomes, learned Amicus Curiae, supports the submission made on behalf of the appellant.