The importance of cogent evidence and the lack of support from independent witnesses in cases involving allegations of mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. XI (February), 2011, thereby convicting the present appellant on a charge under Section 498A of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. It is germane to mention that by the same order, the three other accused in this case were acquitted of all charges and the present appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

2. On 07.03.2010, PW 1, the elder sister of the victim deceased, lodged a First Information Report against the present appellant and four others under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that the appellant and the victim were both teachers in the same school. They fell in love and got married. After marriage the couple started residing in the house of PW 4. The accused started inflicting mental cruelty on the victim. They wanted the victim to leave the job of teaching at Santipur and to join at Karimpur. On 07.03.2010 at about 1 p.m. information came that there was a dispute in the matrimonial home of the victim. After going there, the defacto complainant found the victim dead.

3. Pw 13 held inquest on the dead body of the victim in the presence of PWs 1, 3, 10 and another. A magisterial inquest was subsequently conducted by PW 8 in the presence of PW 10. On 08.03.2010, PW 7 conducted the post mortem examination on the victim deceased. He cited asphyxia following ante-mortem hanging, which was suicidal in nature, as the cause of death. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

4. On 03.03.2011, charges were framed against the appellant and the other co-accused, namely, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, the sister-in-law and the husband of the sister-in-law of the victim under Section 498A, Section 306 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to establish its case. The defence of the accused was a denial of the prosecution case as would be evident from the trend of the cross-examination and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code.

6. During trial, the elder sister of the victim/deceased deposed as PW 1. She stated regarding the marriage of the couple. On the date of the incident the victim's father-in-law called up the victim's mother (PW 9) stating that some disputes were going on between the couple and that they should come. After reaching the victim's matrimonial home, she was found dead. Several persons assembled. The quarrels had started between the couple within a year of the marriage. The in-laws primarily wanted the petitioner/the victim to leave her job. The husband even physically assaulted the victim. The victim narrated about such torture to her relatives. In fact, the in-laws had come for a settlement. PW 1 was also a witness to the inquest by the police. In her cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that the purported Salish was not put down in writing. She did not narrate about the quarrels to anyone outside. The other accused instigated the husband to commit the crimes. She further admitted that they rarely visited the victim's house and that they came to victim's place a few days before the incident and took away the victim's bank passbook with them. She denied the suggestion that she had demanded money from the victim. PW 2 was the uncle of the victim lady. He gave out only a hearsay account. PW 3 was the landlady of the couple. She stated that the relation between the two was generally goo