- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 21st September 2006, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dinhata in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2006 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 3 (May 2006) 2006 convicted the accused-appellant of an offence punishable under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and further sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to pay fine of a sum of Rs. 3000/- and 6000/- respectively, in default to undergo further imprisonment. Two of the accused persons namely Harish Ch. Barman and his wife Kalpana Barman were acquitted of the aforesaid charges.
(2.) The facts and circumstance of the case briefly stated are as follows: - The deceased Anita died of poisoning on 24th September, 1999. A written complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased on 28th September, 1999 alleging that the marriage took place before 7/8 years from the date of the alleged incident. During the period of 3/4 years after the marriage the couple lived peacefully. Thereafter the accused-appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of dowry which the de facto complainant was unable to pay. Consequently the victim was tortured both physically and mentally. The accused Harish Ch. Barman and Kalpana Barman aided and assisted the appellant in committing the torture. The de facto complainant had been able to ascertain that on 23rd September, 1999 during the night all the accused persons assaulted the deceased very severely and provoked her to commit suicide. It was alleged that there was an illicit relationship between the accused-appellant and the accused Kalpana Barman the wife of the accused Harish Ch. Barman. The case was investigated and all the three accused persons were charge sheeted and tried which ultimately culminated in conviction of the accused-appellant. The learned Trial Judge in convicting the appellant advanced the following reasoning:- " In the present case, the parents of the victim, who are very poor, have deposed that there had been no trouble in the life of the victim during the first seven years after her marriage, but, thereafter, trouble started with the demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the husband of the victim, who was treated with physical assaults by her husband, until and unless, she could bring the money, and she failed because of the poverty of her father, undeniably and she faced more assault and she found the only route of escape, i.e. by committing suicide, extinguishing her own life, because, she had no pleasure or attraction in living any more, because her own husband was using her to extort money from her poor father. This situation, requires to be perceived by a Court of law, in order to, comprehend the reasons of committing suicide by helpless women and deliver justice to the aggrieved and act as a deterrent forced preventing such crimes. The parents of the victim, did not falsely accuse their son-in-law, by exaggeration of torture and death within seven years of the marriage to attract section 304B of the I.P.C or, any imaginary story of torture, but, with only, what they experienced, either having seen personally, or, hearing from their daughter, the victim. So, I consider the evidence of the parents of the victim as reliable and trustworthy as recorded before me. I have found that, particularly, their allegation of torture by their son-in-law on the victim, on demand of Rs.10,000/- has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They have explained that because of their poverty they could not meet up the demand of their son-in-law (accused) and that, how their daughter(victim) suffered torture for their inability to pay that money to her husband. That situation, a compelling circumstances under which the victim suffered, has to be realized by this court, in order to render justice to the victim also along with, to the accused, as per law. It is the general strategy and tactics of offenders of crimes to take a defence, based on creating confusion as to the charge and evidence against them. Therefore, to establish the truth and deliver justice effectively, it is required that the Court of law should weigh the evidence in its entirety, and in the back ground of the prevalent circumstances at the time of the occurrence, as explained the discussed already. In the above stated context, firstly, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the victim committed suicide after seven years of her marriage, and so, Section 304B of the I.P.C. can not be attracted to this case, but, the principle of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, inviting presumption as to the offence committed by the accused, unless rebutted by them, is still applicable. Because, such a death occurred just a little beyond the statutory period of seven years after the marriage and that, prior to her suicide, she was physically assaulted, and that, she suffered torture, at the hands of her husband, who was the most interested person to inflict such torture and gain unlawfully, and from whose conduct, by way of her second marriage, after the suicidal death of his first wife (victim), the apathetic mentality of that husband, along with the allegation of torture compelling the victim to commit suicide, all are established. But, the necessary ingredients of bride torturing and abatement to suicide of the victim, in respect of the remaining accused are wanting, and therefore, considering the law of strict proof, and in the light of the previously mentioned teachings of the Honorable Apex Court, I hold the accused Husband Girish Ch. Barman as guilty under Section 498A and 306 I.P.C. respectively for inflicting cruelty and torture to his wife Anita Barman ( victim) and abetting the victim to commit suicide."
(3.) It would appear that the learned Trial Judge proceeded on the basis a) that the demand for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the allegations of torture against the son-in-law the appellant before us were proved beyond reasonable doubt; b) that prior to the suicide the victim was physically assaulted by the appellant and c) the fact, that the accused-appellant contacted a second marriage soon after the death of the victim, was a pointer illustrating the mental make up of the accused-appellant. Mr. Amalesh Roy, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence to show that the suicide was preceded by assault. He added that in any event mere harassment due to differences between the couple cannot amount to abetment for the purpose of conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission he relied on the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh, 2007 11 SCC 205.;