JOYMALYA BAGCHI,J. - (1.) Rimpa, the unfortunate housewife who had given up ties with her own family to seek love with Paritosh, her husband (appellant no.1) met an unfortunate end even before the first anniversary of marriage. The fact in a nutshell is the substratum of the prosecution case. Rimpa and Paritosh were students of Bidyabhawan High School. They fell in love and married each other on 20.9.2010 against the wishes of parents of the victim housewife. About two months later her parents P.W 1 and 2 accepted the marriage and it is alleged on the demand of husband and in laws four bhories of gold ornaments, one cot, almirah, dressing table, showcase, utensils and beddings etc. were given as per demand of the appellants. One month later, Paritosh, husband of the housewife demanded Rs. 50,000/- to start a business. Malay, father of the victim (P.W.1) was unable to meet such demand immediately. As a result, the deceased was physically assaulted by Paritosh at the instigation of other in laws who did not provide adequate food to her. Victim housewife went her parental home and narrated about the torture to her parents and others. On the fateful day i.e. 18.9.2010 , younger sister of the victim housewife and her cousin Jhutan Dey went to her matrimonial home. Upon returning, Jhutan informed P.W 1 that Rimpa was unhappy at the matrimonial home. Around 10 p.m. Jogesh Barman, father in law of the victim housewife informed P.W.1 that victim was unwell. As they were preparing to go to her matrimonial home, P.W.1 received another phone call and was informed she had been admitted at MJN hospital. He rushed to the hospital and found the victim lying in a senseless condition and frothing from her mouth. Attending doctor declared her dead. None of the appellants were present at the hospital. On the written complaint P.W.1, Kotwali Police Station Case No. 732 of 2010 dated 20.9.2010 was registered under Sections 498A / 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 498A / 304B IPC against the appellants. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was the specific defence of the appellants that the victim had fallen ill and had suffered a natural death. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. On an analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 19th/20th July, 2017 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A / 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, both the sentences shall run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) Dr. Adhikari, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the evidence on record with regard to cruelty on demand of dowry is most sketchy and does not satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences. It is submitted the best evidence was withheld as cousin Jhutan Dey and younger sister of the deceased were not examined and the circumstance prevailing on the day which led to the unfortunate end of the victim remained undisclosed. Medical records of her treatment at MJN hospital have also not been produced. In the absence of chemical examiner's report, opinion of the doctor that the victim died due to poisoning is inconclusive. Hence, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.
(3.) Mr. Maiti along with Ms. Mitra appearing on behalf of the State argued that the evidence on record particularly that the parents of the victim housewife (P.W.s 1 and 2) show that her short matrimonial life was punctuated with repeated demands of dowry. Lastly, Rs. 50,000-/- was demanded by the husband for starting a business and as such amount was not paid, she was subjected to cruelty which resulted in her unnatural death. Materials on record particularly that evidence of post mortem doctor (P.W.6) clearly rules out a case of natural death of the deceased. Prosecution case has been fully established and the order of conviction and sentence calls for no interference. P.W 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.W 1, Malay Dey deposed Rimpa married Paritosh out of a love affair. Marriage was solemnized at the house of Paritosh as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, Jogesh Barman, father in law of Rimpa, called him to his residence. He demanded four bhories of gold ornaments and other articles as dowry. P.W.1 gifted the articles within a month and his daughter continued her conjugal life. After two months of delivery of the articles, his son-in-law raised a demand of Rs. 50,000/- to start a business. As he was unable to pay, his son-in- law assaulted his daughter. Sometimes she was not given food. On 18.9.2010 his younger daughter and nephew went to the house of Rimpa. His nephew told him that there was trouble at her matrimonial home. Later in the night Jogesh Barman, father-in-law of the victim, informed him that his daughter was in serious condition. Subsequently, he was informed that she had been admitted to Cooch Behar MJN hospital. Reaching hospital he found her daughter lying in an unconscious condition and froth was oozing from her mouth. Within ten minutes she was declared dead. He lodged complaint at the police station scribed by P.W 7, Bikash Pal. P.W 2, Molina Dey deposed Rimpa married Paritosh out of a love affair. One day from her private tuition class she went to the residence of Paritosh and the marriage was solemnized. The accused persons exerted pressure on Rimpa to bring dowry. Her daughter informed that her son in law created pressure on her to bring Rs. 50,000/- so that he could start a business. Upon demand, they gave gold ornaments and other articles as dowry but could not pay Rs. 50,000/-. As a result her daughter died within 8/9 months from the marriage. On the day of the incident her younger daughter along with nephew of her husband visited the matrimonial home of her daughter on the occasion of Viswakarma puja. Upon return, her nephew stated that her daughter was not happy. In the night around 10 p.m., father-in-law of her daughter informed them she was unwell and requested them to come immediately. Subsequently they were informed that their daughter was admitted at MJN hospital. On reaching the hospital they found their daughter in senseless condition and froth was oozing from her mouth. Subsequently, she was declared to be dead. In cross examination, she stated gold ornaments, wooden cot and other furniture were given to her son in law after one month of marriage. P.W 3 has corroborated the evidence of P.W 1 and 2. He claimed that he heard about the torture on the housewife from his maternal uncle, P.W 1. P.W 4 deposed the parents of Rimpa did not attend the marriage. After marriage Rimpa came to her parents house and stated that her in laws were demanding dowry. Thereafter he went with PW 1, his uncle for a talk with her in laws. His uncle P.W 1 gave dowry. Thereafter, Rimpa was leading her conjugal life smoothly. After a lapse of two months, Rs. 50,000/- was demanded to enable Paritosh to commence his business. P.W 1 failed to pay the money. As a result, Rimpa was tortured. He went with P.W 1 to the hospital. He signed on the inquest report. He also signed on the inquest report prepared by the magistrate. P.W 7 is the scribe of the FIR. P.W.s 8, 9 and 10 are the neighbours of the appellants. P.W 9 was declared hostile and was extensively cross-examined with regard to his previous statement to police. All these witnesses admitted that the victim housewife was residing at the matrimonial home when she died. P.W 6 is the post-mortem doctor. He found no external injury on the dead body of the victim. On dissection he found the stomach with congested turbid fluid. In his opinion, death was due to poisoning which was ante mortem in nature. He however, kept his final opinion reserved till receipt of chemical analysis report of the viscera. In cross examination, he admitted that chemical analysis of viscera had not been placed before him. P.W.s 11 and 12 are the investigating officers of the case. ;