MRINAL KANTI ROY BARMAN Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the husband and mother in law of the deceased Rumashree who received 100% burn injuries in the house of the appellants on 27. 11. 1992 and succumbed to her injuries on 30. 11. 1992 in the G. B. Hospital, Agartala. The learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, camp at Agartala, after a full dressed trial, convicted the appellant No. 1 Mrinal Roy Barman under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for two years and further convicted him under Section 498 A of IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for two years, and convicted the appellant No. 2 Swarnalata Roy Barman under Sections 498a and 306/34 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in both Sections, in default to suffer S. I. for three years vide judgment dated 27. 3. 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 (WT/a) of 1997 and Sessions Trial No. 100 (WT/a) of 1994. The sentences, so far appellant No. 1 is concerned, were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by, the appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 374 read with Section 382 Crpc against the aforesaid judgment for setting aside the order of sentence dated 27. 3. 1999 and for acquittal of the accused appellants. It is to be mentioned here that the accused Indu Bhushan Roy Barman, the father in law of the deceased expired during the trial. Accordingly, the case so far it related to Indu Bhushan was struck off. The other accused Mridul Roy Barman, the elder brother of the appellant No. 1 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him as the learned Sessions Judge recorded that the evidence put forward by the prosecution found to have not proved in a manner which requires to be proved in criminal case. No State appeal against the acquittal of Mridul Kumar Roy Barman is pending.

(2.) HEARD Mr. J. M. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Debnath, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

(3.) DURING trial, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited some documents in support of their case, but the defence none and advanced a case of total denial.