IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is suffering from material irregularity based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.—The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated March 30, 2006 and order of sentence dated March 21, 2006 passed by learned Sessions judge, Burdwan in connection with Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2005 arising out of Sessions Case No. 206 of 2005. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. One Baidaya Nath Ganth lodged a written complaint before the Burdwan Sadar Police Station to the effect that his daughter i.e. victim was married to the convict Haradhan Mete, some nine years ago and she had two minor sons out of the aforesaid wedlock. He further stated that there were disputes in the matrimonial life of his daughter and his daughter used to come back to his house. He used to send his daughter back to her matrimonial house and tried to persuade his son-in-law. Even the party office and villagers from the matrimonial village were informed. The de-facto complainant also alleged that his daughter was admitted in Burdwan Medical College and Hospital on March 31, 2004 with burn injuries.

3. On the basis of such written complaint, Burdwan P. S. Case No.145/2004 dated April 2, 2004 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was started against the husband and other in-laws of the victim. Later on, Section 307/302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

4. The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, on the basis of materials in the case diary, charges under Section 498 A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against five accused persons on December 2, 2005. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. In addition, the prosecution also relied upon certain documentary evidences which were admitted in evidence.

6. One inspector of police deposed as PW1. He stated that on April 2, 2004, he was posted at Burdwan police station as sub-inspector of police and in such capacity, he received a written complaint. Upon receipt of such written complaint, he drew up the Formal First Information Report. He proved the formal First Information Report and his signature on the written complaint as well as on the formal First Information Report (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) respectively.

7. Another Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as PW2. He has stated that he was endorsed with the investigation of Burdwan PS Case No.145 dated April 02, 2004 and owing to his transfer, he handed over the case diary to the inspector-in-charge on October 31, 2004.

8. The de facto complainant himself deposed as PW3. He stated that amongst his two daughters, the victim was married to accused Haru Mete about 10 years ago. She died in the month of Baisakh. She was burnt to death by her husband and mother-in-law by pouring kerosene oil. PW3 further stated that after marriage, the victim used to reside at her matrimonial house. While so residing, she used to come to the house of PW3 occasionally complaining torture. The husband of the victim had an illicit relation with some lady in the neighborhood. He further stated that the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture at her matrimonial house.

9. PW3 also stated that about two years ago at about 1.30/2.00 in the afternoon, the husband of the victim informed him after admitting her in the hospital. Being so informed, PW3, his wife and wife of his brother went to the hospital. His victim daughter was in a position to talk but he was not allowed by the doctors, to talk to her. He was even removed from the ward. His wife only was allowed to remain there, others came out. He then lodged information at the police station on the following day against the husband and in-laws of the victim. Thereafter, he retur