TAPAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 31st August, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Howrah, in Sessions Trial Case No. XXXI (January) of 1990 arising out of Uluberia P.S. Case No. 17 dated 28th April, 1998 convicting the accused Tapan Mondal of the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under section 498A. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years as also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: Satish Chandra Mondal, the de facto complainant had seven daughters. Jogomaya was one of them. She was given in marriage according to Hindu Rites and Customs to the accused Tapan. She died in a bus accident leaving a small male child. Within a month after her death Chandra, a younger sister of Jogomaya, was given in marriage to the accused Tapan much against her will. Within four years of her marriage, she committed suicide on 27th April, 1988.

(3.) Mr. Auddy, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal submitted that the judgement is perverse. According to him, there is no evidence to hold that the accused Tapan is guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to have driven his wife Chandra to commit suicide nor is there any evidence of harassment with a view to coercing the deceased or any person related to her to fulfil any unlawful demand. He submitted that the prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that the relationship between the couple was normal. The alleged demand for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- disclosed for the first time in Court is altogether unbelievable. He has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in recording the finding which he did. He, therefore, invited this Court to set aside the judgement and order under challenge.