The court held that the evidence on record which is held reliable to convict the appellants Jhantu Sardar and Urmila Sardar for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code clearly makes out a case for offence of abetting suicide under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 113A of the Evidence Act 1872.

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J

1. In or about 2000 Batasi Das (Sardar) got married with Jhantu Sardar, the appellant no.1 being the son of other two appellants. According to the prosecution, Batasi was subjected to torture by her in laws on the issue of insufficient dowry. Fact remains, both the families were poor; however, the financial condition of Batasi’s parents was little better than her in laws. Her father-in-law was a day labourer, mainly engaged in painting, her mother-in-law used to work as maid servant, her husband was a drunkard and gambler. Batasi’s father P.W.3 purchased a Rikshaw Van for his son-in-law, the appellant no.1. The appellant no.1 sold the vehicle and siphoned off the sale proceed by way of drinking and gambling.

2. On January 12, 2004 Batasi came to her parents and complained that she was beaten up. Her condition was worse. On the next date, i.e., on January 13, 2004, Batasi was persuaded by her parents to go back to her in laws. She went there. This time, however, her parents or her brother Tarak Das could not pay her any money. Batasi was subjected to torture both mentally and physically. Being not able to sustain such prolonged torture, Batasi committed suicide on January 15, 2004 by hanging herself from the ceiling of her room. Her brother lodged a written complaint with the police on January 18, 2004. However, prior thereto the police started an unnatural death case being U.D. case no. 12 dated January 16, 2004 under Diamond Harbour Police Station. Sri Subrata Pakhira, Assistant Sub-Inspector attached to the said Police Station held an inquest and submitted a report appearing at pages 6 to 8 of the paper book. The police arrested Manik Sardar, the father-in-law, Urmila Sardar, the mother-in-law and Jhantu Sardar, husband. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Diamond Harbour framed charges as against all three accused under sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code. All three accused pleaded innocence and faced trial.

3. P.W.1 Tarak was the brother of the victim whereas P.W.2 Durga Das was the mother and P.W. 3 Rabi Das was the father. All three, more or less, corroborated each other on the incident. According to them, their sister Usha gave a phone call at about 11 O’clock in the night on January 15, 2004 and informed them that Batasi was subjected to torture by her in-laws. Fact remains, Batasi died at 3 P.M. on the said date. Upon receipt of the phone call the witnesses rushed to the victim’s in-laws’ place on the next day morning. However, when they were approaching Netra railway station, they found that the body was being brought by her in laws by train for the purpose of taking it to the Diamond Harbour hospital. When they reached Diamond Harbour hospital, they found that the in laws left the dead body and fled away from the place.

4. On the issue of dowry Tarak deposed that Rs. 20,000/- in cash and ornaments were gifted to the couple at the time of wedding. In addition, a Van Rickshaw was purchased for Jhantu. A tea stall was arranged for him. Jhantu could not succeed in either of the businesses, as he was a habitual drunkard and gambler and spent all money for the said purpose. Tarak explained the delay in filing the complaint, as according to him, the police advised them to make complaint after receipt of the post mortem report.

5. The mother, Durga Das deposed that during her last visit Batasi complained that Jhantu demanded money from her, however, they could not arrange money and persuaded Batasi to go back to her husband. On 15th, they received the phone call from Usha as stated above. When Manik was given a specific suggestion that the accused were poor, he answered, “since they were poor I purchased a rickshaw van to them and also used to give money to my daughter, keeping in view her problem.”

6. P.W.4 Usha Mistry was the aunt of the victim. She was also the neighbour of the accused. During her examination in chief, she deposed that she would not be ab