IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of direct evidence of cruelty led to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.08.1987 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions 1st court Howrah in sessions trial case No. XVII/ October, 1985, convicting the accused/appellant u/s 306/34 IPC and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to further rigorous imprisonment for 06 months each, and also u/s 498A of IPC and also sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- each in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.

2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that, the police was started the case on the basis of a written complaint of one Gita Pal wife of Sri Bhadreswar Pal. The eldest daughter of de-facto complainant was given marriage with Madan Pal, the elder brother of present appellant. Accordingly, the present appellant being the relative had visiting farm at the house of the de-facto complainant, in such way the love relation cropped up between the second daughter of de-facto complainant namely Padma Pal with the appellant. By such intimacy between the appellant and Padma Pal, she secretly implicated herself with sexual intercourse with the appellant as man and wife consequent thereof Padma became pregnant by the appellant. On query, Bimal admitted the fact and agreed to marry Padma . However, he altered the dates of marriage on some occasions. On the other hand, Padma was carrying 06 months. Thus on 21Jaistha, 1390BS Padma was given marriage with the appellant at Klighat. After such Padma and appellant started living at the house of the appellant. In due course of time Padma given birth a female child. After three months the said baby could not survive. Thereafter the present appellant began to misbehave with Padma. Bimal also started to abuse and bit Padma. Latika Paul used to give her food once a day and abuse unspeakably. The present appellant also did not share bed with Padma. Padma had to slept at Dalan. The present de-facto complainant had requested the appellant not to inflict torture upon Padma. In stead of which torture could not be stopped and on 26.04.1985 the de-facto complainant came to know from the local people that her younger daughter, Padma committed suicide by setting herself fire after pouring kerosene oil. It is the complaint of the de-facto complainant that due to the torture inflicted by the appellant, Padma committed suicide.

3. The present appellants had sent up for trial before the Learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution has produced as many as 18 witnesses to prove the case. The Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the witnesses and after finding the materials on record, has passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence against the appellant.

4. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and the order of conviction passed by the Learned Sessions judge is illegal in the eye of law.

6. He submits that ingredients of offence u/s 306/498A/34 of IPC having not been proved by the prosecution, Learned Sessions Judge erred in law in passing the impugned judgment the Learned Sessions has failed to appreciate the materials contradiction in the case of the prosecution thus there is a failure on the part of prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable of doubt. The torture or the alleged torture or misbehaviour to the female married lady by the appellant has not been proved at all. So he submitted that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state submits that the Learned Sessions Judge has taken the note of every evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution. There is a direct evidence of torture upon the victim by the appellant. Thus the Learned Sessions Judge has successfully passed the orde