Shivakant Prasad, J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.02.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Contai, District- Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. X of June, 1990 convicting the appellant under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months inter-alia, on the grounds that the order of conviction is bad in law and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and the prosecution evidence is wholly bereft of any proof that the accused persons either by express words or conduct, instigated Arati to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in convicting the appellant for charge under Section 498A of IPC, when he was acquitted of charge under Section 306 IPC.
(2.) Short question which falls for consideration is whether the charges under Sections 498/306 IPC are independent of each other and acquittal of one would lead to acquittal of the other as well. It is submitted Mr. Kushal Kr. Mukherjee, Amicus Curiae that the learned Judge has acted illegally in treating the statements of P.W.s. 3, 4, 5 and 6 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence and also submitted that when the prosecution declares a witness hostile it exhibits an intention to require the court not to accept the version of the hostile witness as given in the court on oath. It was wrong to hold that the presence of Sandhya in the house of the appellant resulted in torture to Arati but there was no evidence to show that the appellant was living with Sandhya illicitly.
(3.) Now the point for decision is as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge leveled against the appellant and whether the judgment impugned is tenable in law. To speak precisely, the prosecution case leading to the instant appeal is that Arati Mandal was married to the appellant Ananta Mandal in 1384 B.S. After marriage, they lived happily and begot a daughter and a son, aged about 5/6 years and 2 years respectively in the year of occurrence. The lady accused Sandhya alias Bishnupriya Pal was the elder widowed sister of the deceased Arati and P.W.-4 Kalipada was their brother. They lost their parents in their early childhood and were brought up by the maternal uncle, the de facto complainant.;