MADHUSUDAN SARKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/accused of this case are challenging the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kalna in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1989 convicting the appellants/accused under Section 498a/306 I. P. C. and the order dated 19. 08. 1989 sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each i. d. to suffer an imprisonment for another six months for the offence under Section 306 I. P. C. and no separate sentence need be passed for the other charge under Section 498a I. P. C. The prosecution story as unfolded during trial in nutshell is as follows:-One Panchanan Das, the brother of deceased Banalata Sarkar lodged the written information dated 25. 03. 1986 before the O. C. Purbasthali P. S. stating inter alia that his sister Banalata was married accused Prangopal Sarkar about five years ago and soon after the marriage she was subjected to mental and physical torture by the husband and his family members. She sometimes reported to him as to her sorrow and unhappy married life and was pressed to demand dowry for her matrimonial home. On the next morning the informant came to see his sister banalata in the matrimonial home after being informed about the incident dated 24. 03. 1986 and found her dead and learnt that she had committed suicide by taking poison as she was compelled to commit suicide on account of torture by her parentsin-law and brother-in-law and husband. Purbasthali P. S. Case No. 14 under Section 306 I. P. C. was started and the investigation was started by the I. O. who held the inquest of the dead body of banalata and sent the dead body to Kalna Hospital for post-mortem. The I. O. after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet under Sectioin 498a/306 i. P. C. against the appellants and the husband Prangopal Sarkar. Charges were framed against all accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses including the informant, Medical officers and the I. O. None was examined on behalf of the defence. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment dated 19. 08. 1989 was passed. It appears that the state has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment whereby the accused Prangopal Sarkar, the husband of Banalata came to be acquitted for the commission of offences under Section 306/498a I. P. C.

(2.) IT is better to give a brief resume of the evidence of the prosecution hereunder. P. W. 1, Panchanan Das, the brother of the deceased as well as the informant of this case stated that the marriage of Prangopal and Banalata took place and Banalata committed suicide by taking poison and she was taken to hospital by the accused. He also stated that Banalata was subjected to maltreatment and torture by all accused and pressed upon her to fetch cash from her father and she reported the torture to him and others. He also stated that the poison bottle was detected in the house of the accused. P. W. 2, Sankar Das, son of P. W. 1 stated that Banalata committed suicide due to torture upon her by all accused. He also stated that Banalata disclosed to him about the further demand of more cash by the accused. P. W. 3, Nimai Datta, the nephew of P. W. 1, stated the same fact as stated by p. W. 2. P. W. 5, Doly Sarkar stated that Banalata committed suicide by taking poison due to family trouble. She stated that on the date of occurrence she went to the house of the accused and found Banalata to suffer pain due to poison reaction and she was removed to local health centre. She (P. W. 5) also stated that there was frequent quarrel between accused Tulsi Sundari, Prankrishna and Banalata and abused in filthy language. She (P. W. 5) also stated that she asked Madhusudan and Tulsi sunduri to behave properly with Banalata and on the date of occurrence she was abused in filthy language which she could not tolerate and ultimately committed suicide by taking poison. P. W. 4, Satyaranjan Mistri, P. W. 6, Amal Kumar Roy, P. W. 7, Kalindra Mitra, p. W. 8, Smt. Malati Mitra, P. W. 9, Smt. Swapna Mistri stated the factum of the death of Banalata and they were declared hostile. P. W. 10, Smt. Purnima Acharya was only tendered by the prosecution. P. W. 11, Dr. C. Sengupta held the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Banalata and he reserved his opinion as to cause of death pending receipt of F. S. L. report in respect of viscera of the deceased. P. W. 12, Dr. S. Chatterjee stated that he found her in gasping condition and applied some medicine and had stomach wash of the said patient and referred to kalna Hospital for better treatment. P. W. 13, the I. O. of this case held the inquest of the dead body and sent the dead body to Kalna Hospital for P. M. examination and after completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet. The appellants have challenged the impugned order of conviction.

(3.) MRS. S. Biswas, the Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants contended that there was no cogent proof regarding the cruelty, ill treatment or harassment to deceased Banalata. The Learned Advocate Mrs. Biswas contended that there was no proof to have abetted deceased Banalata for committing suicide. Mrs. Biswas urged that there was no proof to show that the death of Banalata was caused by way of poisoning.