RAJU GHOSH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the respondent State of Assam.

(2.) The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that Shri Manoranjan Ghosh, resident of Kokrajhar Town, lodged an F.I.R. before the O/C Goalpara, stating, inter-alia, that his daughter was married to appellant No. 1 on 17.03.2008 and, since after the marriage, they have been residing at their dwelling house at Goalpara. Out of wedlock, a child was born his daughter Mitali Ghosh ended her life due to suffering from frustration and depression as she was allegedly subjected to continuous and constant harassment for dowry articles after two months of the marriage. As he failed to meet his demand, the parents of the deceased, i.e. Mithali Ghosh tried to conciliate in this matter finally, on 21.09.09 at about 8 to 8.30 A.M., he received a call from his daughter, i.e., deceased Mitali Ghosh informing him that she is been kept starved for long 3 days. On getting the information, he had send his eldest son, Manoj Ghosh, to her matrimonial residence but as soon as the Manoj Ghosh , the brother came to the house of the appellants, he found the victim being badly burnt and she was lying on the floor of the house.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that PW-1 is the father of victim, PW-2 is the brother of the victim, PW-3 is the relative of the informant whereas PW-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are neighbours of the appellants. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer and PW- 12 is the Doctor who performed the post-mortem of the deceased body. Except the 3 witnesses i.e. PW-1, 2, 3, who are the relative of the deceased, no other witnesses stated in their deposition that they ever heard or seen any torture meted on the deceased by the appellants. They have also stated that the appellant No. 1 and the deceased, being the husband and wife, maintained a very cordial relation between themselves. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 are absolutely contradictory to each other inasmuch as in their cross-examination, they have stated that they did not get any demand relating to dowry and also the deceased i.e. their daughter also did not give any complaint regarding any torture or cruelty meted upon her. The learned trial Judge without appreciation of evidence in its proper perspective arrived in a final conclusion holding the guilty of the appellants u/ss. 304B/34 IPC and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with.