Partha Sakha Datta, J. - (1.) The appeal at the instance of the two accused persons as appellants is directed against the judgment and order stated 22.6.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court at Howrah in S. T. Case No. XVIII (January) 1991 convicting the appellant Jayanta Guha and his mother Santa Guha under Section 498A read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and further convicting the appellant Jayanta Guha of the charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 I. P. C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
(2.) At 00.45 hours on the night between 1.11.89 and 2.11.89 the father of the victim Nirmalya Ghosh lodged a written complaint with the Jagacha Police Station leading thereby registration of Jagacha P. S. Case No. 111/89 dated 2.11.89 against the two appellants under Sections 498A/304B read with Section 34 I. P. C. wherein the following facts were alleged: - In January 1987 the victim Monalisa Guha was given in marriage with the appellant Jayanta Guha according to Hindu rites. Sometime after the marriage the son-in-law Jayanta and his mother Smt. Santa Guha started creating pressure upon her at different times for giving a sum of Rs.5,000/- and a tape deck as dowry. For a number of times the demand was placed through the victim. The de facto-complainant was not agreeable to the demand and before the marriage it was clearly communicated to them that no dowry would be given. But, over the demand the two appellants would perpetrate physical and mental torture upon the victim. On a number of occasions the second son of the de facto-complainant, Prabir Ghosh was sent to the matrimonial home of the victim so as to request the appellants to desist from such illegal work. One year two months before the victim had died she had delivered a female child, and she had to undergo various mental tortures owing to that. He had requested his son-in-law and mother to live peacefully keeping in mind the future of his daughter and her baby daughter, yet they had kept on exerting pressure for fulfilling their earlier demand of Rs. 5,000/- and a tape deck. In the evening of 30.10.89 the appellant Jayanta had brought his wife and daughter to his (de facto-complainant's) house on scooter on the occasion of 'Bhatridwitia' and returned to his house after having dropped them. The victim was of a subdued nature, yet in course of chatting with her mother over this and that she had expressed about her family trouble, while cautioning at the same time her mother against making any dispute over that. On 1.11.89 at about 6 p.m. the appellant Jayanta came to the house of the de facto-complainant by a scooter for the purpose of taking back the victim and her baby. In the house of the de facto-complainant there was hot exchange of words between the victim and the appellant Jayanta over domestic affairs. At that time the de facto-complainant heard Jayanta telling his wife, "I shall not take you on the scooter, I shall make you run behind the scooter". The de facto-complainant's elder daughter had protested against that. However, the de facto-complainant called a rickshaw whereby the victim with her baby proceeded to her matrimonial home, while Jayanta followed the rickshaw by scooter. At about 9.30 p.m. Gopal Chakraborty, the neighbour of the de facto-complainant had informed his sons in secret that his daughter had strangled herself to death with a rope noose around her neck in her matrimonial home at National Place. Immediately his sons left for the victim's father-in-law's house. Although the matter was kept secret to the de facto-complainant he had anticipated that something ill had taken place and he too had gone to his son-in-law's house almost instantly and found his daughter lying dead on bed in the first floor of her husband's room and a lot of local people had gathered there. On enquiry he came to know that his daughter and her baby daughter had returned to his father-in-law's house at about 7.30 p.m. and at that time her husband and mother-in-law physically and mentally tortured her over family matter and as a result of that his daughter died.
(3.) Before the learned trial Court 21 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while three witnesses were examined by the defence and upon examination of the witnesses learned trial Court recorded the conviction and sentence under Section 498A, I. P. C. against the two appellants and under Section 304B, I.P.C. against the appellant, Jayanta Guha in addition to the charge under Section 498A, I. P. C.;