SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 7th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Hooghly in S.T. no. 09 of 2010 wherein the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ - each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the appellants, learned Trial Court wrongly held that there was torture upon the victim. He also categorically submitted that soon before her death, she was never tortured nor there was any iota of evidence to that effect. Learned Trial Court, according to him, failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives. Ventilating his such grievance he has prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
(2.) As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there are enough ingredients of Section 498A and the judgment of the learned Trial Court is quite unimpeachable. In the interest of effective adjudication, prosecution case has to be revisited. The prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that victim's marriage was held with Satyajit Bakshi and that was a love marriage. Soon after the marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her in -laws. The victim herself has lodged complaint against the appellants in Chinsurah Police Station under the Protection of Women Act. Thereafter the victim as well as her husband were forced to leave that place and they began to reside at their maternal aunt's house at Bhatshala Police Station Haringhata. On 19/6/2006 at or about 8 pm. The de -facto complainant got an information over telephone from his son -in -law that victim breathed her last by way of hanging. First Information Report was lodged and in this way the law was set into motion.
(3.) The defence case as appears from the trend of examination and cross -examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is their innocence and that they have been falsely implicated. It is the specific case of the defence that for the last seven to eight months there was no torture because they were in separate mess. However, pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. the learned Trial Court has framed the charges under Section 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Since the witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice, so we should scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses very meticulously. ;