JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.—The appellant calls in question the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.06.2015 and 24.06.2015 passed by the Judge, Special Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in connection with S.T. No. 12 of 2007 mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the learned Trial Court had taken care of all the material aspects and has passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant any interference.

3. In the interest of effective adjudication factual scenario is required to be revisited. The prosecution case, as unfurled herewith, is such that the marriage of the victim was held with the appellant on 08.05.1997 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Some ornaments and valuables including scooter were gifted at the time of said marriage. Initially the victim was quite happy in her matrimonial home but after one year she began to realise that her husband had illicit affairs with his sister-in-law (Boudi). It is also alleged that after the marriage the victim was tortured on demand of dowry. The victim disclosed her agonies to her parents. Her parents intervened and took steps for amicable settlement, yet the torture continued. On 07.11.2002 the accused allegedly declared that if the victim dies he would marry four women. When the de-facto complainant was coming back from the matrimonial house of the victim, he suddenly heard ‘save me’ ‘save me’ and he found her daughter was in burnt condition. He doused the flame but in the meantime the victim breathed her last. Disclosing this fact, the de-facto complainant lodged the F.I.R. and set the law into motion.

4. The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of cross-examination and examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated. On perusal of the chargesheet the learned Trial Court had framed the charges under Section 498A/304B of I.P.C. To come to a finding we should now listen to the prosecution witnesses.

5. P.W. 1 is the father of the victim. In his examination-in-chief he made some embellishment by saying that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from him but that was not reflected in the F.I.R. nor any other witnesses espoused the said statement. In his examination-in-chief he has disclosed some stereo-typed allegations and thereafter stated that the victim disclosed to him that the accused appellant had illicit relationship with his Boudi. In course of his cross-examination, he admitted by saying “My son-in-law used to come to my house and similarly we used to visit their home as usual after marriage”. It indicates that there was cordial relationship between the two families even after one year, when the victim told P.W. 1 about the illicit affairs of her husband. He also clarified the position by saying that before marriage the accused appellant and his brother were in joint mess but after the marriage there was an amicable partition of the business and immovable properties by and between them and the couple (victim and appellant) started living separately. Not only that he also candidly admitted that the parents-in-law of the victim used to reside with the accused appellant. In course of his cross examination he confirmed that the complainant, the victim and the accused were the disciples of ‘Radhashyam Ashram’ whose Head Office is at Dayalbag Ashram, Agra. On 25.10.2002 the complainant, son-in-law and the victim came back from Agra. This also indicates that soon before the death of the victim there was a very good relationship between the parties, otherwise the accused, victim and the de-facto complainant would not have visited Agra jointly. He also admitted that before lodging the F.I.R. he wrote a complaint before Dayalbag Ashram that Ramesh hit the victim with a Danda and the victim lost her sense. He al