- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by Sri P.S. Mukherjee, Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) whereby convicting the appellants namely Kartick Chandra Saha, Sukla Saha, Swapna Saha and Soma Saha under Section 498A of I.P.C.
(2.) A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that on 24.10.1992 a verbal complaint was lodged with Belghoria P.S. to that effect that in the year 1985 the marriage between daughter of the defacto complainant Gita Saha and Kartick Saha of Ramkrishna Pally was solemnized at Kalighat in presence of the some of the witnesses and son of the defacto complainant Madhu Das. At the time of marriage Kartick Saha demanded some golden ornaments and cash. The same was fulfilled. After 3 to 4 months of marriage Gita was subjected to torture both mentally and physically and also abused by her in mates in her in-laws house. Occasionally Gita could not bear the torture so she used to come to the house of the defacto complainant and disclosed before her mother that she was unable to bear the torture any more. In the morning of 23.10.1992 mother-in-law and sister-in-law began severe torture upon Gita and they also tried to drive her away from her maternal house and compel her to commit suicide. As a result on the same night at about 01.00 hrs. Gita set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her person. She was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to the burn injury. On the basis of verbal complaint police took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Section 498A/306/304B I.P.C. Hence the prosecution case. After hearing both side and after following the procedure for commitment and after hearing the submission made by the learned Counsel for the State as well as for the defence a charge under Section 498A/304B/306 I.P.C. have been framed against all above named accused persons. Charge was read over and explained to the accused persons each of them pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Now the prosecution has got altogether 21 witnesses have been examined from the side of the witness. So, the only point for determination consideration is whether the order of sentence and conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is sustainable in the eye of law or not.
(3.) OUT of the 21 witnesses examined in the instant case P.W. 1 Janaki Das happens to be defacto complainant of the case. P.W. 2 Madhu Das, was the son of the defacto complainant. P.W. 3 Kabita Karmakar, P.W. 4 Jayanta Roy, P.W. 5 Madhu Patra, P.W. 6 Sujit Halder, P.W. 7 Nilima Paul, P.W. 8 Anil Paul, P.W. 9 Chaitali Chakraborty, P.W. 11 Sneha Lata Jana, P.W. 12 Amal Manna. P.W. 13 Hari Pada Jana, P.W. 14 Jayanta Jana, P.W. 15 Sudhin Roy, P.W. 16 Dipak Chanda, P.W. 17 Anjana Biswas all are independent witnesses and resident of Ramkrishna Pally. P.W. 18 was S.I. of Police and he at the very outset I like to mention that is a very very formal witness. He has recorded First Information Report on the basis of the verbal complaint lodged by P.W. 1. During the course of the cross-examination P.W. 18 practically admitted that he has not mentioned in the F.I.R. that he procured L.T.I. of defacto complainant (P.W. 1) and also there is no endorsement in the F.I.R. that same was drafted as per the verbal statement of P.W. 1 i.e. mother of Gita. P.W. 19, a police Constable who took the dead body from the R.G. Kar Medical College to N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital for holding post-mortem examination and he has no personal knowledge of the occurrence. P.W. 20 who performed the inquest of the dead body of Gita Saha and according to him Gita sustained 100 per cent burn injury. Though during the course of the cross-examination he admitted that he did not know the method as to how the percentage of burn injury was calculated. P.W. 21 is the I.O. of this case. These are in a nutshell the examination of the 21 witnesses produced from the side of the State in order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused person. Before going into the merits and demerits of the witnesses I like to mention that P.W. 4 Jayanta Roy has no knowledge under what circumstances Gita sustained burn injury. P.W. 5 Madhu Patra who was a resident of Ramkrishna Pally like P.W. 4 has also stated the same. Though P.W. 7 contended that she heard that Gita met an unnatural death and about a year prior to the incident he told them the story of torture inflicted upon Gita by the member of her in-laws house but he has not made any attempt to solve the dispute or lodge any complaint to the appropriate forum for remedy. As a result I am not inclined to place any reliance upon ocular version of P.W. 7. Though P.W. 8 have stated that Gita prior to her death occasionally assaulted by her mother- in-law and other accused persons yet during the course of the examination P.W. 8 (Anil Paul) has categorically stated that Gita "personally never told me about the torture upon her" and though he claims that Anil Paul who happens to be the husband of Gita's childhood friend admitted that he never visited to Gita even after she was admitted to the hospital. I have gone through the ocular version of P.W. 9 and practically it was not wise to place any reliance upon her testimony. P.W. 12 Amal Manna and he has not stated anything just like P.W. 13 and P.W. 14. P.W. 15 has no personal knowledge about the occurrence and he is only a seizure witness of this case. P.W. 16 is also a seizure witness. P.W. 17 has not stated anything, P.W. 18 to 20 all are formal witnesses. So, out of these witnesses reliance may be placed upon the ocular version of P.W. 1, defacto complainant mother of Gita, P.W. 2 Madhu Das, elder brother of Gita, P.W. 3 Kabita Karmakar who was a local witness.;