- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction passed by Sri K.R. Ahmed thereby convict Tamal Sengupta under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentencing to suffer R.I. for three years and also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for three months. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction the appellant preferred this appeal.
(2.) A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that accused Tamal Sengupta was married to Mita, the niece of the defacto complainant on 01.03.1997. Since after marriage Mita was tortured in her in-laws house both physically and mentally. The husband and mother-in-law of Mita created pressure on her to bring money from her father s house and threatened her to divorce. On 18..09.1997 Mita s mother had been to the house of the accused for giving gift for Puja. In in-laws of Mita abused her in filthy languages and her husband Tamal severely assaulted Mita in her presence. On that date in the dead of night defacto complainant i.e. the uncle of Mita came to know that Mita caught fire and she was taken to Howrah District hospital by the local people where she succumbed to the injury. Hence the prosecution case.3. The defence case as it appears from the trend of the crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses, examination of defence witnesses and the answer given by the accused person to their respective examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of absolute innocence. It was the specific plea of the appellant / accused that Mita accidentally caught fire and the accused Tamal tried to rescue her and sustained burn injury.
(3.) On the basis of the plea of both sides and also on the available documents and the papers a charge under Section 498A/34 and 304B/34 I.P.C. was framed against Tamal Sengupta @ Raja and Archana Sengupta, since deceased. The accused pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Now only point for consideration is whether the sentence passed by the learned Trial court is sustainable in the eye of law or not.;