Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Challenging the legal pregnablility and valicity of the judgment and order of conviction dated 09/6/2013 and 10/3/2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakdwip in Sessions Trial no. 6(4) of 2011, the appellants came before this Court contending, inter alia, that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives.
(2.) According to the appellants, there is no evidence regarding abetment and in spite of that they have been convicted under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He has also pointed out that the recording of the trial Court which speaks that charges were framed under Section 304B of IPC, but actually charge was framed under Sections 498A/306 of IPC.
(3.) To come to a finding, we should revisit the prosecution story. If I unfurl the prosecution story, it will be seen that the marriage of the victim with the appellant no.1 was held just four months before the fateful day. Some demands were made at the time of marriage and that was given. According to the FIR, after the marriage they demanded a pitcher, but that has not been given and so she was subjected to torture. The victim committed suicide by hanging and has left a suicidal note by saying that nobody is responsible for her suicide.;