- (1.) THIS appeal was directed against the judgement and order dated 15.07.2003 and 16.07.2003 passed by H.P. Chattopadhyay, Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, 24-Parganas (North) in Sessions Trial No. 12(4) 2001 convicting the appellant Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee for a period of 6 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of S.I. for one month and so far Lakshmi Cahtterjee is concerned. She has to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of S.I. for a month for an offence punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of S.I. for two months respectively. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement accused i.e. Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee preferred this appeal.
(2.) SHORTLY put the prosecution case in brief is as follows : - Manju Chatterjee, the sister of the defacto complainant, Biswajit Bhattacharya was married with Prasanta Chatterjee as per Hindu rites and customs nearly four years ago from the date of occurrence. It is alleged in the First Information Report as well as in the evidence that after few days after the date of marriage as and when Manju visited the house of her parent she narrated to her mother and brothers her miseries only in her in-laws family as it was further revealed that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law Khuku and Baby and brother-in-law Mantu used to quarrel with her over family matters. Whenever Manju requested her husband to take steps against them for such torture her husband remain silent. On hearing all these Manju's mother advice her to somehow adjust with them and try to settle the dispute. In the meantime Manju gave a birth to a baby. Seven or eight days prior to her death Manju came to her parent's house and reported that incident of torture on her by her in-laws increased day by day and she was abused in filthy languages when Manju protested against such behaviour she asked to commit suicide by setting her on fire. On 05.10.1993 at about 4-15 A.M. Manju's brother-in-law and his two friends came to the house of the defacto complainant and informed them that Manju set her ablaze and they were asked to go there. Defacto complainant rushed to the house of the accused along with neighbour and found Manju inside the toilet with burn injury on her person. Defacto complainant asked the family to shift Manju to a hospital but they did not pay any heed to his request. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Biswajit Bhattacharya, the elder brother of Manju Khardah Police took up the investigation of this case and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 498A/304B I.P.C. against Prasanta Chatterjee, Lakshmi Chatterjee and three others. In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused person out of the 23 charge sheet witnesses 10 charge sheet witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution. In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused person. Whereas no witness was forthcoming from the side of the defence. As I pointed out earlier out of the 10 charge sheet witnesses P.W. 1 is the defacto complainant, happens to be brother of the deceased Manju. P.W. 2 Prafulla Ranjan Guha was the local witness, P.W. 3 Dr. Nemai Charan Pratihar was the autopsy surgeon who perform the P.M. examination over the dead body of the Manju and can be easily categorized as independent witness. P.W. 4 Ratna Ghosh, P.W. 5 Mihir Kumar Chakraborty, P.W. 6 Ranjjit Bhattacharya, P.W. 7 Madhuri Lata Bhattacharya all are local independent witnesses. P.W. 8 Ashit Dutta witness of the inquest when police examined the dead body of Manju Chatterjee in her matrimonial home and answered he has no knowledge about the occurrence. P.W. 9 Makhanlal Roy is a retired police constable happens to be the neighbour of the accused person and is a formal witness. P.W. 10 Jyotiprasad Paramanick is the I.O. of this case. So from the above classification it is crystal clear that entire prosecution story hangs on the ocular version of P.W. 1 � 10 save and except P.W. 8. Admittedly charge was framed under Section 498A/306 I.P.C. not only against Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee but also against Panab Chatterjee, Kakali Chatterjee and Krishna Chatterjee. P.W. 1 Biswajit Bhattacharya who happens to be elder brother of Manju lodged a petition of complaint before the local P.S. and on the fateful night he lodged a written complaint to the Khardah P.S. According to him in the year 1990 Manju was married to Prasanta Chatterjee. According to him on the fateful morning Mantu Chatterjee happens to be the 'Debar' of Manju and along with his friends came to the house of P.W. 1 in the early morning and disclosed that Manju caught fire. P.W. 1 along with his mother and his two neighbour Pradip Roy and Amal Sarkar had been to the matrimonial home of Manju and found the burn body of Manju inside the latrine of the said house. According to him i.e. P.W. 1 Manju after marriage occasionally visited her father's house and P.W. 1 came to know from his mother that Manju complained that she was abused by her husband and her in-laws. Thereafter he stated that when Lakshmi Chatterjee who happens to be the mother-in-law of Manju told that Manju died by burning then P.W. 1 disclosed that two days before the incident Manju went to her father's house and asked for money for purchase of land and P.W. 1 paid the money. Before the death of Manju as stated by P.W. 1, that the marriage of her sister-in-law Baby was settled and Manju's husband was in need of money for the marriage expenses of Baby. P.W. 1 spent whole day in the morgue and in the night he lodged a written complaint to the police.
(3.) AS I pointed earlier that P.W. 1 Biswajit Bhattacharya the brother of the victim was the F.I.R. maker. P.W. 2 Prafula Ranjan Guha was a neighbour of the victim family. P.W. 3 Dr. N.C. Pratihar conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Manju, the victim on 06.10.1993. According to him death was due to the effect of shock resulting from burn injury as noted in the P.M. report. P.W. 4 is a neighbour has been declined hostile by the prosecution and remain unshaken during the course of the cross-examination as a result his ocular version will not help the prosecution case in any way. P.W. 5 is a neighbour of the victim family. P.W. 6, Ranjit Bhattacharya happens to be the brother of the victim. P.W. 7 is the mother of the victim and according to the F.I.R. maker i.e. P.W. 1 Manju used to narrate her sufferings and miseries to her mother whenever she visited her parental home. P.W. 8 is a formal witness. P.W. 9 is a retired Police Constable and what he has stated has neither helped the prosecution nor the defence and P.W. 10 is the I.O. So, in view of aforesaid discussion entire prosecution case raised upon the ocular version of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and the doctor, to some extent, because he performed the P.M. examination on the dead body of Manju. P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 out of these witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are the near relation of the victim Manju and before scrutinizing their evidence let me confined my attention to the other witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution. P.W. 2 Prafulla Ranjan Guha is a Secretary of the local club and according to him Manju's husband used to demand Rs. 20,000/- from Ranjit Bhattacharya (P.W. 6). Though he is a member of the local club and active member of a particular political party and according to him Manju along with his brother told him about the sufferings and miseries of Manju in her father-in-laws house. Yet he has not taken any active part to help either side. Moreover, according to him Manju's husband demanded Rs. 20,000/- from P.W. 6 whereas P.W. 6 has not stated such thing during his examination before the Court below. According to F.I.R. maker Biswajit Bhattacharya he was not an eye witness to an occurrence. So I do not want to place any reliance upon the ocular version of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 is the doctor. P.W. 4 Ratna Ghosh was staying along with her family consists of her husband and daughter in a house adjacent to the house of Manju's matrimonial home. She contended that she heard that accused persons used to ask Manju to bring money from her father's shop. Though during her cross examination she categorically admitted that she cannot remember what she has stated to I.O. Moreover, according to her Manju committed suicide by burning in the dead of night. The smoke coming out from the house but to my utter surprise it appears that according to P.W. 4 her husband and daughter were sleeping on that fateful night at the time of incident. These raised a doubt about the truthfulness of the ocular version of P.W. 4 and it is not wise to convict a person only on the basis of ocular version of P.W. 4. P.W. 5 Mihir Kumar Chakraborty just like other stated that he heard that accused persons used to quarrel with Manju over the ornaments and money. Now let us confined my attention to the ocular version of Manju's mother Madhurilata Bhattacharya who is examined as P.W. 7. According to her whenever Manju visited her father's home she narrated the story of her sufferings and miseries to her mother even she has specifically stated to her mother that her husband demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as dowry. According to Madhurilata she has stated everything to her eldest son Ranjit Bhattacharya who was examined her as P.W. 6. During the course of cross- examination Madhurilata categorically admitted that she did not tell to the police about the demand of the money by the accused person's side. She also admitted that she did not tell to the I.O. about the payment of Rs. 5,000/-. These are in a nutshell the evidence adduced in an evidence to bring home the charge leveled against the accused person on the basis of this evidence learned Trial Court convicted Prasanta Chatterjee and Lakshmi Chatterjee. On careful scrutiny of the First Information Report or petition of complaint there is not a single whisper of demand of dowry during the marriage life of Manju with Prasanta Bhattacharya . On careful scrutiny of the First Information Report I find that First Information Report is limited to the extent of quarrel and altercation between the Manju and the appellants over some family disputes. All the witnesses including near relation of Manju Bhattacharya stated that whenever Manju visited her paternal home she narrated that her in-laws demanded money from her but that very fact is missing in the First Information Report. Admittedly First Information Report does not represent the entire picture of the case but it is the cardinal principle of law. That Broad/relevant fact of the prosecution must be in the First Information Report. There is a gulf of difference between what was stated in the First Information Report and what was deposed by the witnesses in their ocular versions. It is needless to mention that in view of close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that it was done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the accused persons. It is needless to mention that when there was no serious discrepancy between the testimony of eye witnesses and the story in the First Information report (F.I.R.) regarding the time, place and manner of the occurrence and the name of the assailant, the testimony of the eye witnesses was also corroborated by medical evidence, the evidence of the eye witnesses were held to be true and reliable and it was further held that some discrepancies, deviations and embellishments in minor details do not warrant rejection of the entire testimony. But in the instant case in the F.I.R. there is no whisper about the demand of dowry. The First Information Report only reflects the quarrel and trouble between the deceased or victim with the accused persons whereas in the evidence most of the witnesses including the near relation of the victim have stated that accused persons used to demand dowry from Manju's family. Even they rebuked Manju regarding the quality of the ornaments given to her at the time of marriage. No attempt was made to rectify this defect. Moreover, from the side of the defence a suicide note was produced. Though it was recovered from the house of the Manju yet same was not marked Exhibit from the side of the prosecution. As a result it was marked Exhibit from the side of the defence as Exhibit � A and according to the said Exhibit Manju did not blame anybody for commission of the offence.;