The court held that the prosecution had proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 304B, including that the victim died within seven years of her marriage, that she suffered cruelty and harassment by her husband over demand of dowry, and that her death was unnatural.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Tapas Kr. Ghosh was convicted under section 498a as well as under Section 304b of the I. P. C. by the learned Sessions Judge, hooghly in connection with Sessions Trial no. 182 of 1992 and after conviction said appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304b of the I. P. C. and he was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for two months more for the offence under section 498a of the I. P. C.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence appellant preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that Smt. Putul Ghosh alias Ira was married to the present appellant on 26th November, 1993 following Hindu rituals and customs. It was alleged by the father of Putul that although during marriage sufficient dowry was given to the appellant, but, the appellant was not satisfied and for this reason putul was subjected to torture and cruelty ever since her marriage. It was specifically mentioned in the written complaint by durga Prasad Sarkar father of Putul that appellant created pressure on Putul for bringing a scooter from her father. Durga prasad Sarkar came to learn that on 27th january, 1994 dead body of Putul was found on the railway track between chandannagore Railway Station and mankundu Railway Station and on 28th january, 1994 Durga Prasad Sarkar lodged the complaint with Chandannagore P. S. alleging foul play on the part of the appellant behind the unnatural death of Putul Ghosh.

( 4 ) ON the basis of written complaint of durga Prasad Sarkar, Chandannagore P. S. started the case and on completion of investigation and mainly on the basis of post mortem report and opinion of doctors, charge sheet was submitted both against the present appellant and his brother for their trial under Sections 498a, 302, 304b and 201 of the I. P. C.

( 5 ) THE learned Trial Judge on the basis of papers placed before him and on hearing both prosecution and the appellant framed charges against the appellant under Section 498a/304b in the alternative under Section 302 of the I. P. C. along with Section 201 of the I. P. C. and the appellant pleaded innocence to those charges and claimed for trial.

( 6 ) DURING trial, the learned Court below recorded the statement of 17 witnesses including p. W. 1 Durga Prasad Sarkar, P. W. 2 Achintya Bose, P. W. 3 Smt. Anima Sarkar, p. W. 7 Smt. Juthika Bose, several doctors who conducted post mortem examination and the investigating officer.

( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge, on perusal of prosecution evidence namely the statement of P. W. 1 father of the victim housewife, P. W. 2 sister-in-law of the victim housewife. P. W. 3 mother of the victim housewife and P. W. 7 sister of the victim housewife came to the conclusion that Putul was the legally married wife of appellant and soon after marriage appellant started torturing Putul both physically and mentally for a scooter to be brought from the house of P. W. 1 and, that apart, appellant was also dissatisfied with the quality of the articles given by P. W. 1 during marriage.

( 8 ) THE learned Trial Judge, having regard to the post mortem report and opinion of several doctors who participated during post mortem examination of the victim housewife, came to the conclusion that Putul died in a most suspicious circumstances and her death was unnatural within the meaning of section 304b of the I. P. C. and when putul died within two months of her marriage and there was demand of dowry from the appellant immediately before her death and soon after the marriage, the learned judge was of the view that appellant was guilty for the offence under Section 304b and also under Section 498a of the I. P. C.

( 9 ) THE learned Judge, on perusal of medical evidence and after hearing both the sides, however, did not accept the alternative charge framed un