- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 27.06.2008 passed by G.C. Karmakar, C.J.M., Nadia, Krishnanagar in Sessions Case No. 288C/99 whereby acquitted the accused person namely Samir Bhanja Chowdhury, Shankar Bhanja Chowdhury and Kalpana Bhanja Chowdhury under Section 498A of I.P.C.
(2.) THE fact of the case is that the marriage between the complainant namely Mukti Biswas and Samir Bhanja Chowdhury was registered as per Hindu customs on 11.03.1992. After the marriage complainant i.e. Mukti Biswas stayed into the house of the in-laws families. The father of the complainant is financially weak and so he was not able to give anything at the time of marriage. Within a month from the date of marriage the husband wrote a letter to the complainant after asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as usual. The father of the complainant could not give him the money. As the money was not paid so mental torture was started above the complainant. On 08.02.1993 Mukti Biswas, wife of accused No. 1 who was staying with her husband at the quarter of the husband was taken to the house of accused father. All the accused persons started torturing the complainant physically and mentally. As a result the complainant agreed that she would get Rs. 50,000/- On 02.08.1993 complainant took a loan of Rs. 30,000/- and gave the same to the accused person on paying the bank and rest amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- was given from her salary. In the year 1993 when Keya Biswas and Sushovan Biswas went to the house of the accused person they were driven away. Even then accused person torture the complainant in presence of the witnesses as a result a settlement was reached in between the complainant and the accused person where the complainant agreed to give a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month from her salary to the accused person. Though the family of the complainant tried to solve the problem yet there was no result to that effect. On 15.10.1998 complainant was beaten mercilessly by the accused person and the later drove them out after her assault. As the police refused to accept the petition of complaint though the petition of complaint was lodged before the Court as a result there is a delay in filing the case. After examination of the complainant and his sister Keya Biswas on S.A. a summon was issued. On perusal to that summon all the accused persons attend before the Court below and released on bail. The defence case as it appears from the trend of the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses and the answer given by the accused person to their respective examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is all absolutely innocence.
(3.) IN this case from the side of the complainant herself, Gopinath Mondal, the husband of complainant's elder sister, mother of the complainant Kanak Prabha Biswas and youngest sister of the complainant Keya Biswas were examined from the side of the complainant in order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused person. So, in this case not a single eye witnesses were examined. Complainant herself, her mother, her sister and her Jamai Babu Gopinath Mondal were examined from the side of the complainant. It is alleged that the marriage was took place in the year 1992. There was no social marriage. There is a marriage by way of registration and after the marriage complainant Mukti Biswas who was a nurse by profession used to stay at her husband's quarter who was an employee of the hospital. It was stated that complainant took a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the Gramin bank and also paid necessary rest amount from her salary. But at the very outset I like to mention that complainant was subjected to torture there in her in-laws house but except her near relation namely her mother and sister none else came forward and depose in favour of the complainant. It was the evidence that complainant took a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the Co-operative Society and according to her she was filed a document but the said document was not marked exhibit in his case. So, this Court is quite reluctant to give any weight to the submission of the complainant on this point.;