G.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 24th May 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2000 by which the Appellant Arati Dam was convicted of an offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 25th May, 2001 she was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years as also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment she was sentenced to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of two years. It was directed that in the event the fine is paid the same shall be made over to the father of the deceased Shri Nripendra Chandra Mallick who is the Respondent No. 2 in the appeal.
(2.) The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: The Appellant Arati Dam entertained a belief that her son Sanjoy was having an affair with Bimala, a young woman. Sanjoy used to visit the house of Bimala regularly for watching television. On 15th August 1989 the Appellant called at the house of Bimala and took strong exception to the said Bimala, her parents and the family members permitting her son Sanjoy to visit their house. The parents of Bimala appear to have told her that in future they would not permit Sanjoy to have access in their house. On 16th August 1989 the Appellant Arati abused the young woman Bimala in a most scurrilous and slanderous language calling her a whore and instigated her to die by hanging. She also offered to pay the price of a rope if her parents were unable to pay for the same. Shortly thereafter Bimala locked herself in one of the rooms of her house and committed suicide by hanging, applying her orna as a noose. Police was informed. Inquest was held. The dead body was cremated after postmortem examination. The FIR was, however, lodged by the father of the victim on 3rd September 1989 explaining therein that the shock had incapacitated him both physically and mentally to lodge the complaint promptly. The following questions of fact arise in this case. 1) Whether Sanjoy, son of the victim, was a regular visitor to the house of the victim for the purpose of watching television? 2) Whether the Appellant Arati viewed the visit of her son Sanjoy to the house of the victim with any amount of suspicion? 3) Whether the Appellant Arati had taken exception to the victim and her family members permitting Sanjoy to have access to their house? 4) Whether the Appellant Arati instigated the victim Bimala to commit suicide?
(3.) Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant principally confined his submissions to the fourth issue. But in order to satisfactorily deal with the fourth issue some analysis of the evidence in respect of the issues is necessary. We shall therefore analyse the evidence and answer the first, second and the third issue. The fourth issue shall be answered after considering the submissions of Mr. Basu. 1) Whether Sanjoy, son of the victim, was a regular visitor to the house of the victim for the purpose of watching television? P.W. 1 Nripendranath Mallick in that regard deposed as follows: I have a T.V. in my house. The neighbouring boys usually came to my house to watch T.V. Sanjoy Dam also used to come to my house to watch T.V. frequently. There is no cross -examination directed against the aforesaid deposition of the P.W. 1. P.W. 2 in that regard deposed as follows: Sanjoy Dam, the son of the accused used to come to our house almost regularly to watch T.V. because there was/is no T.V. in the house of the accused. No cross -examination is directed against this part of the evidence of the P.W. 2. P.W. 3, a neighbour of the deceased, deposed in this regard as follows: Sanjoy Dam, the son of the accused used to visit the house of P.W. 1 almost regularly to watch T.V. programme. P.W. 4, another neighbor of the deceased, deposed in that regard as follows: Sanjoy used to visit the house of P.W. 1 everyday to watch T.V. No cross -examination is directed against this part of the evidence of the P.W. 4. P.W. 5, a hostile witness, deposed in that regard as follows: Sanjoy used to visit the house of P.W. 1 regularly for the purpose of watching T.V. P.W. 6, another neighbour, deposed in that regard as follows: I know Sanjoy Dam, the son of the accused. Sanjoy used to visit the house of P.W. 1 regularly to watch T.V. I am a next door neighbour of P.W. 1. P.W. 7, a friend of the deceased as also a neighbor, deposed in that regard as follows: I know Sanjoy Dam, the son of the accused. I am a next door neighbor of P.W. 1 Sanjoy used to go to the house of P.W. 1 to watch T.V. Considering the consistent evidence of the host of witnesses the first point is answered in the affirmative. 2) Whether the Appellant Arati viewed the visit of her son Sanjoy to the house of the victim with any amount of suspicion? P.W. 2, the victim's elder brother's wife, deposed in that regard as follows: As he used to visit our house almost regularly the accused thought Bimala was having an illicit affair with her son Sanjoy. There is no cross -examination on this point. On the contrary the P.W. 2 was suggested on behalf of the defense that the victim Bimala was of unsound mind and/or was mentally disbalanced. P.W. 3 deposed in that regard as follows: The accused, therefore, thought that her Sanjoy was having an affair with Bimala Mallik. No cross -examination was directed against this part of the deposition. P.W. 4 deposed in that regard as follows: The accused did not like her son's going there. She thought that Bimala Mallik was having an illicit affair with her Sanjoy. No cross -examination was directed against this part of deposition of the P.W. 4. P.W. 5, a hostile witness, deposed in that regard as follows: The accused did not like her son's going to the house of Bimala and she suspected that an affair was going on between Bimala and her son Sanjoy. No cross -examination was directed against this part of deposition of the P.W. 5. However P.W. 5 was suggested that the victim used to visit all the houses of the village. P.W. 7 deposed in that regard as follows: The accused never liked her son's going to the house of P.W. 1. He was suggested that the victim was beaten up by her parents in the morning of the day. Thereafter she committed suicide. Considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses we have no doubt in our mind that the second issue has also been firmly established and therefore is answered in the affirmative. 3) Whether the Appellant Arati had taken exception to the victim and her family members permitting Sanjoy to have access to their house? P.W. 1, father of the victim, deposed in that regard as follows: One day before the date of incident the accused came to our house and threatened us with dire consequences because she thought that my daughter Bimala was having an illicit affairs with her son Sanjoy. There is no cross -examination except for suggestion that the accused never suspected anything between the deceased and her son Sanjoy. P.W. 3 corroborated the evidence of the P.W. 1. He deposed in that regard as follows: On the date of incident and one day before, the accused threatened Bimala with dire consequences. The accused directed Bimala not to have anything to do with his son Sanjoy. 3. No cross -examination was directed against this part of the evidence of the P.W. 3.;