- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 27 th September 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2 nd Court, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VI (February) 2002 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 34 (12) 2001 arising out Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 115 of 2000 dated 18 th October 2000 by which the learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted them of the offence punishable under Section 302. By an order dated 30 th September 2002 the learned Trial Court sentenced both the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:- On 17 th January, 2000 the victim Chaitali was married to the accused Swapan. She died on 18 th October 2000 at her matrimonial home an unnatural death. The accused Swapan was an Assistant-Sub- Inspector of Police. It is alleged that at the time of marriage various articles including gold ornaments, furniture were given but soon after the marriage demand for cash dowry for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was raised which the victim refused to revive with her parents. As a result on various pretext both the accused persons started inflicting mental torture upon her of which the party of the complainant was kept informed. The accused Shefali, it is alleged, had told the victim that in default of payment of the said sum of Rs.15,000/- she would be driven out. Sometime before the incident when the victim had called at her parental home, she had also narrated the misery to which she was subjected. On 18 th October 2000 at around 14 hours the party of the complainant came to know that the victim had died at her matrimonial home. They rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body lying in the floor of the bedroom whereas rest of the articles in the bedroom were intact. They entertained a belief or formed an opinion that the accused persons had killed her. 14 witnesses were examined. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and a brother of the deceased. P.W.6 is an uncle of the deceased. P.w.7 is a younger brother of the deceased. P.W.8 is a neighbour of the de facto complainant. P.W.9 is a sister of the deceased. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.w.7 are the co-villagers of the accused Swapan. P.w.5 is a photographer. P.W.11 is a constable who escorted the dead body. P.W.12 is the A.S.I of Police who received the written complaint, P.W.13 is the autopsy surgeon. P.W.14 is the I.O..
(3.) Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any case under Section 498A or any case Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have already been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, prayed for an outright acquittal. Elaborating his submission Mr. Basu contended that P.W.2, P.w.3 and P.W.4 were examined for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the charge Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has failed, the evidence adduced by the P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 has become useless.;