ORDER :

1. This appeal is at the instance of four convicts and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2018, by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convicts (appellants herein) and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Katwa, Burdwan, West Bengal in the Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2014 holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). The Trial Court sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The appellant No. 1 (Buddhadeb Saha) is the son of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 resply. The appellant No. 4 is the younger brother of the appellant No. 1. The appellant No. 1 was married to the deceased, namely, Tuli Shah. The marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2011.

3. On 19th September, 2011, the de facto complainant-Uma Shankar Shah (PW-1) lodged an First Information Report at the Ketugram Police Station stating that his niece Tuli Shah was married to the appellant No. 1 past couple of months. He further stated that as the parents of Tuli Shah passed away while she was of a very young age, it is he who took care of Tuli Shah and brought her up. At the time of marriage, cash and gold ornaments were given to the family of the husband of Tuli Shah. However, within a short time, the appellants started harassing the deceased for want of more dowry.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16th September, 2011, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison on account of incessant harassment by the appellants at her matrimonial home.

5. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences enumerated above. The Trial Court framed charge for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and also led documentary evidence.

7. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly held them guilty.

8. The appellants herein being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court thought fit to affirm the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

9. In such circumstances, the appellants are here before this Court with the present appeal.

10. We take notice of the fact that the appellant No. 3 Pratima Saha (Mother-in-law) of the deceased passed away during the pendency of this appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the Trial Court as well as the High Court committed a serious error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence they were charged with. According to the learned counsel this is a case of no evidence. He laid much emphasis on the fact that the prosecution has not been able to establish the exact cause of death. He would argue that if it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide due to incessant harassment, then prosecution has to establish on the basis of evidence on record as to what was the exact cause of death.

12. The learned counsel laid much emphasis on the fact that the post-mortem report does not say anything about the exact cause of death.

13. He further submitted that even the h