Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) APPEAL is directed against the judgment and order dated 20/21.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, convicting appellants and one Bankim Ghosh @ Mondal @ Banka for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing Bankim Ghosh rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for committing offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant nos. 1 and 3 simple imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant no. 2 rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants is as follows: One Sanatan Ghosh, P.W. 1, lodged a complaint with the Pandaveswar Police Station alleging that on 26th Magh, 1402 B.S. victim Jaba, his daughter, was married to one Bankim Ghosh as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, Jaba was subjected to mental and physical torture for not bringing money from her father's house as dowry. On 19.09.1997 Bankim Ghosh brought his daughter from her parental home and on the next date, i.e., on 20.09.1997, P.W. 1 received the information of death of Jaba. Having arrived at the place of occurrence, he found that the dead body of Jaba was lying on the verandah. He was suspicious that Jaba was murdered or had been forced to commit suicide due to torture meted out by the appellant. Pursuant to such information, Pandaveswar Police Station Case No. 72/1997 dated 20.09.1997 under Sections 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Burdwan and transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, Burdwan for trial and disposal. Charge was framed against the appellants and Bankim Ghosh. They pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed for trial. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In conclusion of trial, the learned judge by the judgment and order dated 20/21.06.2006 convicted the appellants and Bankim Ghosh for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them, as aforesaid. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and order instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein. No appeal has been preferred by Bankim Ghosh, who appears to be served out the sentence. P.W. 1, the father of the victim, stated in his evidence that marriage of the victim took place on 26th Magh, 1402 B.S. Within two years of her marriage the victim died at her matrimonial home. The appellants demanded money from him and used to create pressure for bringing further money. As he was poor, he was unable to fulfil the demands of the appellants. As a result, the appellants subjected the victim to mental and physical torture. The victim came to his residence at the time of puja and stayed there for two days. Thereafter, Bankim took away the victim on 19.09.1997 from his home. On the next date, i.e., on 20.09.1997, P.W. 1 was informed that the victim had died. He went to the matrimonial home of the victim and found dead body of the victim way lying on the varandah. He, however, denied having lodged any complaint with the police and, as a result, was declared hostile. In cross -examination he admitted that he had put his L.T.I. on the written complaint. He further deposed in cross -examination that his daughter was good looking. He denied that during lifetime of the victim, he filed any complaint with the police with regard to torture meted out to her. He however denied the suggestion that his daughter did not disclose incident of torture over dowry to him during her lifetime.
(3.) P .W. 2, the brother of the victim, corroborated the evidence of torture upon the victim over demands of dowry. He proved his signature on the inquest report, which was exhibited as Exbt. 1/1. He stated to the police that his sister was subjected to torture for bringing further dowry. In cross -examination he stated that his sister died at as the time when she had a six months old child.;