The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of dowry demand under the Dowry Prohibition Act and its application to establish guilt in cases of cruelty and unnatural death.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2013 and 26.02.2013 passed by learned additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No. 5th November, 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No.122/2011 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 498a/304B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition act sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act; all the sentences shall run concurrently. Fine amount, if paid, fifty percent of the same be handed over to the de-facto complainant as compensation.

Prosecution case as levelled against the appellants is to the effect that Farhad Sk (appellant No.1) was married to Rejina Bibi on 15.03.2011. after marriage Farhad Sk (appellant No.1), Sekandar Sk. (appellant No.2 and uncle-in-law of the deceased), Manu Sk. (appellant No.3 and stepfather-in-law of the deceased), Doli Bibi (appellant No.4 and mother-in-law of the deceased), Sabana Bibi (appellant No.5 and sister-in-law of the deceased) and the brothers-in-law of the deceased being Milan Sk. (appellant no.6) and one Firoz demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Rejina. as her father Gaffar Sk. (P.W.1) was poor and unable to pay, she was subjected to torture. Gaffar consoled his daughter and told her to bear the torture promising things to become settled in the future. Unfortunately nothing changed, and on 20.04.2011 at 6 a.M. he received a telephonic message, that his daughter had died. He went to her matrimonial home and found his daughter lying on the ground. He informed Rampurhat police station and his daughter was taken to the Rampurhat Sub-divisional Hospital. He lodged a written complaint at the Rampurhat Police Station resulting in Rampurhat P.S. Case no. 55/11 dated 21.04.2011 under Sections 498a/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered against the appellants and one Firoz Sk.

In the course of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed under Section 498a/304B/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act against the appellants and Firoz Sk. appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, Firoz Sk. expired. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case.

Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2013 and 26.02.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 Sekandar Sk. expired. Hence, the appeal abates so far as the appellant No.2 is concerned.

Mr. arnab Saha, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that prosecution evidence with regard to torture upon the housewife over dowry demands is not proved. P.W.1 embellished his version with regard to torture, in Court. P.W.2, during cross-examination, stated money was demanded in order to enable her husband to divorce his wife. P.Ws.5 and 7 made general and omnibus allegations of torture agains