JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated January 25, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Katwa in Sessions Trial no. 26 of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case no. 31 of 2015 acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned Trial Judge failed to take into consideration relevant facts and arrived at an incorrect finding of fact.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant refers to the written complaint lodged by the father of the victim, being the prosecution witness (P.W.) No. 1. He submits that the victim used to inform P.W. 1 as to the torture being meted out to her. He refers to the contents of the written compliant.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the investigation was carried out in a perfunctory and lackadaisical manner. There are serious doubts as to the transparency of the investigation.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the victim was, in fact, murdered. In support of such contention, he refers to the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 where they stated that a rope was lying next to the dead body and that the police seized it under seizure list. The rope was, however, not sent for forensic examination nor was the same produced before Court for identification.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that P.W. 2, P.W.3 and P.W. 4 were interrogated by the Investigating Officer.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, although, P.W. 5 stated in his testimony that he recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code but was tutored by the police, such statement corroborates the charge as against the respondents.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that P.W. 6 confirmed that the death was due to hanging ante mortem in nature and that it may be homicidal/suicidal in nature. He contends that, the fact that the victim was tortured which led her to kill herself was a factor which was required to be considered. Learned Trial Judge erred in not doing so.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant refers to the oral testimony of P.W. 5 and submits that, such testimony did not vitiate the fact that the victim was either compelled to commit suicide or was murdered.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent relies upon 2023 SCC Online SC 575 Kashibai & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka. In the facts of the present case, the post mortem report did not rule out the possibility of suicidal hanging. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish that, the victim was tortured in such a manner that she committed suicide. According to him, ingredients under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not satisfied. Moreover, there were no materials to establish any torture or dowry demand. Learned Judge, accordingly, correctly acquitted all the accused persons.

11. On May 8, 2014, P.W. 1, lodged a written complaint with the police with regard to torture and harassment of his daughter and the death of her daughter. Such police compliant was registered as a First Information Report being F.I. R No. 144 of 2014 dated May 8, 2014 by the police under Section 498A/302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1860. Police on the completion of the investigations submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons on July 31, 2014 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

12. Court framed charges as against the accused persons on May 3, 2016 under Sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused persons pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.

13. At the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses to bring home charges apart from relying upon various documentary evidences. On conclusion of the examination of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused pe