TARUN KANTI CHINA Vs. THE STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1996-5-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 06,1996

Tarun Kanti China Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.K. Batabyal, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 12, 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, convicting the Appellant for an offence under Sec. 306 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 i.d. to suffer R.I. for six months more and also for an offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 i.d. to suffer for six months more.
(2.)The prosecution case, in short, is that the victim -girl, Papia was married with the Appellant on December 10, 1982 according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage she went to reside at her matrimonial home at Howrah where the Appellant lived with his parents. Dowry as demanded by the Appellant and his family was paid by Papia's father at the time of marriage. A few months after the marriage, the Appellant and his parents began to put pressure upon Papia for more dowry in various forms. When the pressure be came unbearable , Papia reported it to her mother and sister. Her father was unable to meet the further demand. Due to the torture and negligence of the Appellant and his parents, Papia lost her first child. As the torture went on unabated, Papia committed suicide by hanging on February 23, 1986 at the residence of the Appellant. On getting the information, father of Papia (informant of the case) rushed to the place of occurrence with other members of the family and found Papia lying dead on a cot in her room. A local doctor was called. He found her dead. Police was informed and an unnatural death case was started.
(3.)But as the police did not take any step regarding the unnatural death case, father of Papiya filed a petition of complaint before the Sub -Divisional Juditial Magistrate, Howrah on March 3, 1986 and the learned Magistrate directed the Officer -in -Charge, Bantra P.S. to treat the same as F.I.R. under Sec. 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, Bentra P.S. case No. 2 dated March 8, 1986 was started and investigation taken up. On completion of investigation charge -sheet was submitted on May 20, 1986 under Ss. 306/34 and 398A of the Indian Penal Code. After commitment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah, framed charge under Sec. 306/34 and Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant and two others. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Trial Judge has been pleased to find, on trial, accused Tarapada Chine and Gita China (parents of the Appellant) not guilty of the offence charged and acquitted him. But the learned Trial Judge has found the Appellant guilty of the offence under Sec. 306 and under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 i.d., to suffer R.I. for 6 months more for the offence under Sec. 306 Indian Penal Code, and to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 i.d., to suffer R.I. for 6 months more for the offence under Sec. 498A Indian Penal Code.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below the Appellant has come before this Court alleging inter alia that the learned Judge failed to consider the various infirmities in the prosecution evidence, that the judgment is vitiated by reason of non -consideration of materials which have been recited in cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses that the ingredients of the offences charged have not been established and therefore, the conviction thereunder is not maintainable in law.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.