Point of Law: Criminal Trial - Offence of Demand of Dowry and Murder - Conviction set aside - case of cruelty on demand of dowry and dowry death, close relatives of deceased are best and natural witness because in a family dispute outsiders do not want to involve themselves and it is very difficult to find out neighbouring witnesses to depose in a case under S. 498A/304B of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The appellants being aggrieved against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, Nadia for offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code have preferred the instant appeal.

2. One Rasmita Ghosh, since deceased had love affair with one Rabi Sashi Pandit during their college days. In the month of May, 2008 Rasmita married Rabi Sashi against the consent and wish of her parents. After marriage both Rasmita and Rabi Sashi used to live at the paternal home of Rabi Sashi. On 27th September, 2009 one Hitendranath Ghosh, father of Rasmita lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge Chakdaha Police Station stating, inter alia, that after the marriage, Rasmita was mentally and physically tortured by her parents-in-law and sister-in-law on demand of dowry. Whenever she visited her paternal home she used to make such complain to her parents. On 26th September, 2009 at about 5.15 pm the defacto complainant received a phone call from one Pranab Banerjee and came to know that his daughter had met with an accident and was admitted to JNM Hospital at Kalyani. Immediately he rushed to the hospital and found his daughter severely burnt. On being asked, she told that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law poured kerosene oil on her body at about 2.30 pm from a lamp and set her in fire intending to kill her. It was also stated in the FIR that when she was taken to hospital, her matrimonial relations forced her to make a false statement before the Medical Officer that she caught fire accidentally when a kerosene lamp tumbled on a table. On 27th September, 2009 at about 1.30 am she succumbed to her injuries.

3. On the basis of the said complaint police recorded formal FIR being Chakdaha P.S Case No.534 of 2009 dated 27th September, 2009 under Section 498A/302/34 IPC and took up the case for investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Kalyani for trial. The learned trial judge framed charge against the appellants under Section 498A/34 and Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. At the time of trial, accused persons/appellants took specific defence that on 26th September, 2009, the husband of the deceased was repairing a C.D player with the help of an electric shouldering iron. At about 2.30pm, there was load shading and a kerosene lamp was lit. Suddenly the said lamp tumbled on a table and kerosene poured on hot shouldering iron causing flame. Rasmita caught fire accidentally. Her husband tried to save her and douse fire her body hugging her with clothes. He also received 60 percent burn injury. Both of them were taken to hospital and admitted. Rasmita died of burn injuries and her husband was discharged from the hospital after about three months.

7. Learned trial judge examined the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution as per the charge sheet and defence and on conclusion of trial, held the accused person guilty and convicted and sentenced them accordingly.

8. Challenging the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence instant appeal is preferred.

9. It is found from the lower court record that in order to establish the charge, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Amongst them PW1 and PW3 are the parents of the deceased. PW2, PW5 and PW4 are the paternal uncles and maternal uncle respectively of the deceased. PW6 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW7 is a constable of police. PW9 is the Investigating Officer. PW8 and PW10 are the Medical Officer and autopsy surgeon respectively.

10. In support of the defence the husband of the deceased, one Pranab Kanti Bane