Point of Law: Witnesses embellished their evidence before the Court by implicating the appellants no. 2 and 3 though in the initial complaint there is a specific allegation against only against the appellant No. 1 who is the husband of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. On the basis of the statement of one Sujit Roy, P.W.3, the police of P.S. Barasat registered F.I.R No. 1632/2011 dated 24.08.2011 under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against Mongal Mondal who is the husband of the deceased and father-in-law (Ajit Mondal, Appellat No.2) and mother-in-law (Smti Sasthi Mondal) of the deceased Sharmistha Roy (Mondal). After registration of the case the police of P.S. Barasat had started an investigation and the appellants were arrested. In the written report it is stated that the youngest daughter of P.W.3 namely Sharmistha Roy (Mondal) aged about 19 years got married to Mongal Mondal of Hemanta Basu Nagar, 1. No. Mathpara P.O. Kadambagachi, P.S. Barasat on 5th Asardh, 1417 (according to Bangali era) as per Hindu rites and custom. At the time of marriage the bride groom was provided with gold ornaments and cash as per their claim. After marriage, his daughter Sharmistha Roy (Mondal) and Son-in-law Mangal went to live their domestic life at Hemanta Basu Nagar at his Son-in-law’s house but as the dowry was not as per his choice, his son-in-law Mangal, on the very next day of their marriage, told his daughter to bring Rs. 20,000/-more. As he was late to give the amount, his son-in-law and the in-laws of his daughter used to abuse and beat her. His daughter would complaint to him at his residence. His daughter came to his house on last Friday. She told by crying that they would not let her lead her domestic life unless he provided the rest amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/-. He made her well comprehended the matter and sent her to her in-laws house. This morning he received phone call from my son-in-law’s house and came to know that his daughter was ill. On reaching her matrimonial house he heard that his daughter had strangled herself with a rope. It was his given belief that his daughter had committed suicide as she could not put up with the physical and mental tortures inflicted upon her by her in-laws and his son-in-law for the rest amount of Rs. 20,000/-as dowry.

2. During investigation inquest as well as post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the body of the deceased handed over to the complainant for cremation. On completion of investigation police has submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants for the aforesaid offences. The appellants faced trial before the Learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court Barasat, North 24-Parganas. During trial the prosecution has examined all together 14 witnesses including PW-3 Sujit Roy (Fathter of the Deceased), P.W.9 Nuton Maholder (Sister’s husband of the deceased), P.W.10 Sati Roy (Mother of the deceased) and P.W-13 Avijit Roy (Brother of the deceased). On completion of trial the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court Barasat, North 24-Parganas has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs. 10000/-each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 10 months each. The appellants were also convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/-in default to suffer further RI for two months.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement dated 27.03.2017, 28.03.2017 & 29.03.2017 the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

4. The Counsel for the appellant argued that the Ld. Judge has passed the judgement and conviction against the appellants only on the evidence of the relatives of the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim had a love affairs with one Jeet and the said defence had been proved but the Additional Sessions J