Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th June, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, in Sessions Trial No. 1 (9) of 1992 arising out of Sessions Case No. 15(2) of 1991, acquitting the accused Abhijit Mukherjee and his mother Usha Rani Mukhejee, since deceased, of the charges under sections 498A/304B/306 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that Pinki, a young woman aged about twenty -one years, was given in marriage to the accused Abhijit Mukherjee according to Hindu rites and customs on 20th April, 1987. She committed suicide in her matrimonial house on 1st January, 1988. She had shut herself in her bedroom and hanged by the ceiling fan. The accused Abhijit Mukherjee finding no response banged the door for sometime. Ultimately, the door was broke open. The police was informed and thereafter information was given to the parents of the deceased. All of them rushed to the place of occurrence. A written complaint was instantaneously lodged alleging that "Badhu Hatya" was suspected by the parents. The allegations were against the husband and his mother. They were, after investigation, charged under sections 498A/304B and alternatively under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Twenty -six witnesses were examined. The P.W.2, Sudhindra Nath Chatterjee, is the father of the deceased. The P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee, is the mother of the deceased. The P.W.25 Saranyu Nath Chatterjee, is the brother of the deceased. The P.W.3. Debnath Banerjee, the P.W.4, Jonaki Chatterjee, the P.W.6, Monaja Banerjee, the P.W.8, Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee, the P.W.11, Alokenath Mukhopadhyay, and the P.W.24. Smt. Madhuja Chatterjee, are the other relations of the deceased. The P.W.1, Molla Safiul Alain, is a photographer. The P.W.5, Somnath Bhattacharyya, is the priest who had solemnized the marriage. The P.W.7, Ashoke Jana, is a peon in the employment of the father -in -law of the deceased. It is he who was sent to the police station for the purpose of giving information. The P.W.9, Chaitanya Shaw, is a jeweler. The P.W.10, Dr. Major Indrajit Sinha, had the opportunity to examine the deceased in her matrimonial house after the incident. The P.W.12, Adhip Banerjee, is a constable who prepared the map. The P.W.13, Haridas Maitra, is the officer -in -charge of the Regional Forensic Laboratory at Jalpaiguri. The P.W.15, Subodh Kumar Chowdhury, is a constable who escorted the dead body. P.W.16, Prasanta Kumar Bhattacharyya, carried the objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The P.W.17, Dhruba Marjit, proved the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The P.W.18, Indrajit Kanjilal, is a seizure list witness. The P.W.19, Dr. Narayan Chandra Dutta, held the inquest. The P.W.20, Dr. Dhurjati Sengupta, examined the viscera of the deceased and found no poison therein. The P.W.21. Dilip Kumar Basu, is the autopsy surgeon and the P.W.26, Tapas Kumar Basu, is the investigating officer. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned counsel, appearing in support of the appeal, has advanced the following submissions: (a) The deceased died at her matrimonial house within less than nine months from her marriage; (b) There were demands for dowry; (c) The husband and his mother not only were habituated to abusing the deceased but also indulged in assaulting the victim which the incident dated 1st January, 1988. On the day of incident the deceased, as a matter of fact, had telephonically informed her mother that she was not likely to survive and the torture was unbearable. The incident dated 1st January, 1988, as a matter of fact, was culmination of the incident dated 24th December, 1987, when the deceased gave some gold to the P.W.9 for conversion which was not liked by the husband and his mother and that was the bone of contention for which the deceased was assaulted and she informed her mother that she was not likely to survive which has been proved by the evidence of the P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee; (d) Mr. Dutta Gupta submitted that in these facts, a presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act, should be drawn and the judgment and order under challenge should be reversed and the accused persons should be adequately punished. The mother -in -law of the deceased, however, died during the pendency of this appeal.
(3.) MR . Dastoor, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, has disputed the submissions made by Mr. Dutta Gupta. He has taken us through the evidence which, according to him, nullifies each and every submissions advanced on behalf of the State -appellant.;