In cases of domestic violence, the lack of independent witnesses does not necessarily discredit the testimony of other witnesses, especially when the testimony is consistent and reliable.

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 21st January, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. XIII of 1986 convicting the appellant and one Charubala Maity (since deceased) for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that one Indrani, daughter of Chapala Rani Kar was married to the appellant no.1 in the month of Jaistha 1391 B.S. The appellants demanded dowry and as their demands were not met, the victim Indrani was subjected to mental and physical torture. Indrani reported of such torture to her mother and other relations whenever she visited her parental home. The mother of the victim, Chapala Rani Kar pleaded with the appellants not to torture her daughter but to no avail. Bhabani Kar (PW2), sister of the victim went to the matrimonial home of the victim two days prior to the incident. Bhabani returned to her parental home on 30th April, 1986 at about 8:00 A.M. and told her mother that the appellant no.1 had mercilessly assaulted the victim on 29th April, 1986 and as a result she has lost her senses. On 30th April, 1986 at about 12 noon, one Sukumar Maity, a close neighbour of the appellants informed the mother of the victim that Indrani was suffering from cholera. The mother of the victim and other relations rushed to the matrimonial home of Indrani and found that she had already died. They suspected that the victim committed suicide by taking poison due to the torture meted out by the appellants. On the written complaint of Chapala Rani Kar, the mother of the victim, FIR was registered at Bhupati Nagar Police Station being Bhupati Nagar Police Station Case No. 3 dated 30th April, 1986 under Sections 498A/306 against the appellant no.1 and Charubala Maity, the mother-in-law of the victim. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the instant case and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellants that the victim suffered a natural death due to acute attack of cholera and diarrhoea. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgement and order dated 21st January, 1989 acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 306 IPC. However, the appellants were convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. During the pendency of appeal I am informed that the appellant no.2 has expired. Hence, the appeal stands abated so far as the appellant no.2 is concerned.

4. Mr. Arnab Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the appellant no.1 submitted that there is no direct evidence on record showing that the victim was subjected to mental and physical torture on account of demand of dowry. The version of the de-facto complainant is a hearsay one and does not inspire confidence. He criticised the evidence of PW2 on the ground that such evidence is highly improbable and ought not to be relied upon. He submitted that the autopsy doctor could not unequivocally state that the bruise marks found on the victim were ante-mortem in nature. Accordingly, he prayed for acquittal of the appellant no.1.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Saryati Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the State, submitted that there is consistent evidence on record