TAPAN BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OG TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18/4/2002 and sentence dated 20/4/2002 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. S.T. 101 (ST/U)2000. By the impugned judgment the learned trial Court convicted all the three accused appellants under Section 304 (B) and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 8 years and also convicted all the accused appellants under Section 498 (A) of the IPC with a sentence of R.I. for 2 years each.

(2.) The prosecution case leading to the conviction of the appellants could be summarised as below: Smt. Sangita Bhowmik, the daughter of Sri Bhanu Lal Bhowmik (P.W.3) was given in marriage with the accused appellant No. 1 (hereinafter called the appellant) Tapan Bhowmik S/O Sri Judhisthir Bhowmik of village Kushamara, Sub Division Udaipur, District South Tripura on 27th Vaishak 1405 (corresponding to 11th May, (Monday) 1998) according to the Hindu Religion, rites and customs. She lived few months happily in her in-laws house. But, thereafter she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband appellant Tapan, father-in-law appellant Judhisthir and sister-in-law appellant Jharna in order to compel her to fetch more money and belongings from her parents' house. Some time the parent of Sangita. fulfil the demands by paying some amount on different occasions. In the meantime, Sangita gave birth to a female child. She was badly beaten by her husband on 4.9.1999, as she made protest against the selling of her golden ornaments by hen husband appellant Tapan. Proceeding to the fateful night the appellant came to his in-laws house and requested the father of Sangita to come to his house. The father of the deceased Sangita went to the house of Dijesh Sarkar, who is his sister's son having his residence in the same village Kushamara on 6.9.90. On reaching there Dijesh Sarkar informed him that Sangita was being tortured and assaulted by the inmates of her in-laws house. Being accompanied with Dijesh Sarkar the father, Bhanu Lal Sarkar went to the house of the accused person, searched for his daughter but the appellant Judhisthir and Jharna behaved him roughly, he became puzzled and a-bit latter he found his daughter bed ridden in the northern viti hut of that house. He met Sangita who narrated that her husband Tapan, father-in-law and sister- in-law Jharna assaulted her on the last Sunday and Monday. He found injuries throughout her body. He marked bleeding injury in her hand and face. His nephew Dijesh also noticed the same. He wanted to take his daughter for treatment to a doctor but the appellant Judhisthir Bhowmik refused to allow Sangita to be examined by Doctor. Finding no alternative father Bhanu Lal Bhowmik returned to the house of Dijesh for the night. At the time of returning he assured Sangita of arranging for her treatment on the following morning. On the following morning Tuesday at about 7 a.m. this witness along with the father of Dijesh Sarkar proceeded to the house of her daughters-in-laws but found a big crowd infront of that house and also noticed that the appellant Tapan and Jharna pouring water on the head of Sangita. A big crowd attempted to attack the appellant Tapan. Some of the crowd stated that due to torture Sangita hanged herself to commit suicide. Member of the crowd arranged Rickshaw and Sangita was brought to Kakraban Hospital where from she was referred to Udaipur hospital and then referred to G.B. Hospital. They reached G.B. Hospital at 4 p.m. At 5 p.m. his son Indrajit Bhowmik also happened to be there. At mid night of that day (7.9.1990) Sangita expired in G.B. Hospital. On the basis of FIR lodged by the brother of Sangita, namely, Indrajit, the police registered R.K. Pur P.S. Case No. 175/99 under Section 498 A/306 IPC against the three (3) appellants and on completion of investigation filed the chargesheet under Section 498 A/306 IPC case being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed the same and the learned Session Judge, having framed charge against the three appellants under Section 498 A 304 B of the IPC transferred the case to the file of Assistant Session Judge who held the trial. Prosecution examined 5 P. W.s including the Medical Officer and Police personnel, while defence none. On conclusion, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants with sentences already mentioned in the beginning of the judgment.

(3.) Admittedly, the deceased Sangita was given in marriage with the appellant Tapan according to the Hindu religion, rites and customs on 27th Vaishak, 1405 B.S. (corresponding to 11th May, 1998) and she died in the mid night intervening 7th/8th September, 1999 and the death was admittedly not a normal death but as a consequence of attempted suicide and as such, it could be safely held that Sangita met unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. To bring the charge under Section 304 B IPC home to the appellants the following ingredients, in view of Penal provision of Section 304 B IPC are to be proved by the prosecution :