JOYMALYA BAGCHI,J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 10th and 11th day of March, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur convicting all the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and appellant no.1 under Section 307 IPC and sentencing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and appellant no.1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that the victim, Gayatri Rana was married to the appellant no.1 as per Hindu rites and customs on 23rd Baisakh 1410 B.S. Few days after the marriage she was subjected to mental and physical torture on the allegation that the dowry gifts were of low quality and pressure was created to bring Rs.20,000/ - as further dowry from her father. From the said marriage a female child was born to the couple. After the birth of female child, the torture upon the housewife increased. On 16th January, 2012 around 9:00 A.M. while the appellant no.1 was going to the medicine shop, he demanded money from the victim and when she refused he threatened that he would remarry and assaulted her with fists and blows. The other appellants instigated him to kill her and appellant no.1 wrapped a nylon rope around the neck of the de -facto complainant and tried to kill her and kicked her on the lower part of the abdomen. Thereafter, they drove the victim along with her minor child out of the house. The victim was medically treated at Sub -Divisional Hospital, Contai and took shelter at her father's house. Thereafter, her father again brought back the victim to her matrimonial home and a compromise was arrived at. On 11th March, 2012, the appellant no.1 again tried to kill the victim by pressing her neck and the other appellants also assaulted her by fists and blows and drove her out of the matrimonial home. The victim was again treated at Sub -Divisional Hospital, Contai and on 18th March, 2012 she lodged a F.I.R. with Officer -in -charge, Contai Women Police Station resulting in the registration of Contai P.S. Case No. 01 of 2012 dated 18th March, 2012 under Sections 498A/323/307/34 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In conclusion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed in the instant case. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur for trial and disposal. Charge was framed under Sections 498A/323/307/34 IPC against the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and clamed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. The appellants, however, did not examine any witness in support of their defence. In conclusion of trial, trial court by the impugned judgement and order convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Lower court records have been received. By consent of parties, appeal was taken up for hearing dispensing with preparation of Paper book and other formalities.
(3.) Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, learned advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidence of the victim (PW2) suffers from embellishments and contradictions. While in her deposition she did not indicate appellant nos. 2 to 4 in the assault on 11th March, 2012, she named the said appellants in the injury report (Exhibit -3). He further submitted that the incident on 16th January, 2012 has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further argued that the allegation of assault on the housewife due to demands of dowry is patently absurd as the husband and other family members had made all arrangements for her child birth at Kolkata and paid the expenses in that regard. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of PW3 is not supported by any other independent witness. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal ought to be allowed and the conviction be set aside.;