Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) Criminal Appeals being CRA 428 of 2013, 430 of 2013 and 431 of 2013 have been preferred by the convicts while criminal appeal being 719 of 2013 has been preferred by one Kamala Kundu, one of the sisters of the deceased claiming to be a victim under section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. All the appeals are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
(2.) Prosecution case as alleged against the appellants and other accused persons is to the effect that on 2.10.2005 at 9.30 p.m. local people saw the victim Sadhana Mukherjee in flames and shouting for help. One of the neighbors, namely Anil Chowdhury (P.W. 1) rushed to the spot and came to know from the minor daughter of Sadhana that her bhasur (elder brother-in-law), Ashim Mukherjee, in collusion with her elder sister-in-law, Tapati Banerjee, had set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her body. It was alleged that the victim was married to Swapan Mukherjee 7/8 years ago and was not treated well by her inlaws. The couple started residing at Khardah in a house purchased by the victim's father. The in-laws prevailed on Swapan to withdraw from the company of his wife and he started residing with them. Few days prior to the incident, Swapan left his wife and started residing at his parental home. On the fateful day in the evening the victim had come along with daughter Sudipa to take her husband back. Thereafter, around 9 in the night Anil Chowdhury, the de facto complainant and other local people saw her standing in front of the bathroom in flames and crying for help. Her minor daughter was beside her. Anil and others rushed to the spot and doused the fire. Over the incident Anil Chowdhury lodged written complaint against the appellants and other accused persons namely Karuna Mukherjee, mother in law (since deceased), Shipra Mukherjee, Mandira Mukherjee both sisters in law of the victim for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326/307/120B IPC. Victim was shifted to Barrackpore Cantonment hospital where she made a statement to the treating doctor Dr. Krishna Mukherjee (P.W 18) who recorded it as the history of assault (Ext. 11). Thereafter, the victim was transferred to R.G. Kar Hospital and was admitted by Dr. M.K. Hazra (not examined). Dr. Hazra also recorded the history of assault as per the patient (Ext 18). In course of her treatment it is alleged that the victim made another dying declaration (Ext. 14) on 05.10.2005 in presence of Dr. Amitava Majumder (P.W 21) which was recorded by I.O (P.W 19). Ultimately the victim died on 07.10.2005 due to burn injuries. Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code were added to the array of offences. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants, other FIR named accused persons, one Moloy Brahmachari alias Banerjee (husband of Tapati Banerjee) and one Sandhya Seal (alleged paramour of Swapan Mukherjee). Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Second Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas for trial and disposal. Charges were framed against the appellants and Karuna Rani Mukherjee, Mandira Mukherjee, Shipra Mukherjee and Moloy Brahmachari @ Banerjee under Sections 498A/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the Sandhya Seal. The appellants and other accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) In the course of trial prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants and other accused persons were one of innocence and false implication. Three defence witnesses were examined in order to probabilise that the appellant Ashim Mukherjee had suffered burn injuries in order to save the victim. In the course of trial accused Karuna Rani Mukherjee expired.;