The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and material evidence is essential to establish abetment of suicide under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.06.2001 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, District – Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2000 arising out of Sessions Case No. 76 of 1999 under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 498A of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 306 of IPC and both sentence will run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case emanated on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Nazrul Islam, inter alia, stating that his eldest daughter was married to the appellant no. 1 about one and a half years ago and the married couple resided at the house of his son-in-law at Berhangaon. His daughter used to be physically and mentally tortured after her marriage and by virtue of such torture, the complainant was propelled to implore his son-in-law to desist himself from such torture. On 06.09.1996 at 11:00 am, the complainant was informed by one Akhtar, the resident of Berhangaon, that his daughter had been admitted at Islampur Hospital and the complainant, on reaching the said hospital, found the dead body of his daughter lying on the ground of the hospital morgue and he was suspicious of the fact that the accused persons had compelled his daughter to commit suicide by consuming poison and he sought for necessary legal steps to be taken against the accused persons.

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, Islampur Police Station Case No. 209/96 dated 06.09.1996 under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted.

4. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed subsequent to which charges were framed and the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited 11 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that –

i. The order of conviction and sentence is bad in law and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and materials on the record of the said Session Case No. 76 of 1999/ S.T. No. 31 of 2000.

ii. The Learned Court below acted illegally in not considering the evidence and materials available on record of the said Session Case.

iii. The Learned Court below failed to assess the evidence of the 11 witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-11 whereby the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

iv. The ingredients prescribed under the Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. would not be proved in evidence and/or materials on record.

7. Learned Advocate for the State submitted that the victim-wife committed suicide within one and a half years of her marriage raising strong presumption of abetment of suicide on demand of dowry through continuous mental and physical torture and the prosecution aptly proved its case and the appeal should be dismissed.

8. A circumspection of the prosecution witnesses revealed as follows:

i. PW-1 mentioned that the victim was his “bhagni”. He stated that the demise of the victim, which occurred approximately four years prior, was due to the ingestion of poison. PW-1 described encountering the deceased's body at the Islampur S.D. Hospital, where he observed froth emanating from the mouth of the victim’s dead body. He noted the presence of other villagers at the hospital at that time. PW-1 further mentioned that PW-6 had filed the complaint. PW-6 was a staff of B.L.R.O. office at Chopra. Furthermore, PW-1 imparted that the victim was married to the appellant. It was through hearsay that PW-1 became aware of the alleged physical and mental abuse the victim suffered at the hands of the appellant, purportedly due to her failure to provide additional dowry. This maltreatment culminated in the victim consuming poison at the appellant's house that transpired six months subsequent to her marriage.

ii. During the process of cross-examination, PW-1