AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) BY Court This appeal arises against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.11.1998 and 12.11.1998 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1992/26 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec.304 -B and Sec. 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Sec.304 -B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Sec. 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same Judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted the other two accused namely Ezna Khatoon and Nawera @ Maveera Bibi from the charges holding that the prosecution failed to .establish the charges against them.
(2.) IN short the prosecution case is that the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.07.1991 by Aklesh Seikh, the father of the deceased Amna Khatoon alleging therein that his daughter Amna Khatoon (since deceased) was married to Naushad Sk. (the appellant) about 10 -11 months ago. After the marriage, his daughter lived at her in -laws place with her husband for about one month. In the mean time, his daughter Amna Khatoon informed him that her mother -in -law, the first wife of her husband and the appellant as well as the father -in -law of his daughter were ill treating her in various ways and therefore, she did not want to live there and requested him to take her back. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that when the informant went to in -laws place of her daughter, she narrated the story to him and ten finding no way, he brought her daughter to his house. After about a month thereafter, the informant requested the appellant and his father to take his daughter back to her matrimonial place but, it is said that the appellant stated that unless wrist watch, ring and bicycle was given to him in dowry, he would not take his wife with him. The informant showed his inability to meet the said demand because of his poverty but the appellant did not accede to the requests of the informant. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that when the informant returned to his house at about 12:00 noon then he was informed by his wife that in the morning, his son -in -law Nausad Sk. (appellant) had come near his house and at that time, his daughter Amna Khatoon requested him to take her to the matrimonial house but the appellant Naushak Sk. refused to take her back and thereafter, his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself. The Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant as well as other accused persons and thereafter, the charges were framed against them and they were put on trial.
(3.) IN order to establish the charges, altogether eight prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. -1 is Saukat Seikh. In his examination in chief, has stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 7:00 A.M., while he was in his 'Bail ', he heard that Mazer Bibi was shouting as to why her house was closed from inside and then, this witness who was next door neighbour, entered into the house of Mazer Bibi by scaling boundary wall and then opened the door. Thereafter, Mazer Bibi started searching for her daughter Amna Khatoon and then in that course, they found that Amna Khatoon had hang herself. This witness helped Mazer Bibi in bringing down the deceased from the rope but they found that after sometime, Amna Khatoon died.;