The prosecution bore the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to meet, leading to the appellants' conviction being set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The judgment and order of conviction dated 06.07.2019 and 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Lalbagh in connection with Sessions Trial No. 02/June/2014 (Sessions Serial No. 29 of 2013) is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction the learned Trial Court found these appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced accordingly.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of these appellants.

4. In short campus the story of the prosecution is that:

“The de-facto complainant being the father of the victim lodged a written complaint before the Raninagar Police Station alleging, interalia, that about two years back his daughter Santana Mondal got married to Ranjit Mondal (appellant no.1) and they were blessed with a baby girl who was aged about nine months at the time of alleged incident. It is stated in the written complaint that since after marriage the appellant no. 1 and his parents used to ill-treat and beat the victim almost regularly on demand of dowry. These appellants used to treat the victim to kill and on 04.05.2013 she was beaten up by the appellants and as such, the victim sustained injuries on her person. On the next date i.e. on 05.05.2013 at about 7.20 A.M. morning all the accused persons killed the daughter of the de-facto complainant by throttling and hanged her with a towel. On the same day at about 8 A.M. morning the de-facto complainant came to know about the incident over phone and then he rushed to her in law’s house and found her dead body there. Over the complaint a case being Raninagar P.S. Case No. 307/13 dated 05.05.2013 under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code was started against all the three FIR named accused persons.”

5. After completion of investigation police submitted charge- sheet under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Charge was framed by the trial court under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons on 10.06.2014. Thereafter, one of the accused persons namely Arun Mondal, father-in-law of the victim died and his name was expunged from the charge. Alternative charge under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was added and framed by the Trial Court against these appellants namely, Ranjit Mondal (husband) and Sabitri Mondal (mother-in-law).

6. In this case, prosecution examined as many as 22 (twenty- two) witnesses. Documentary and material evidences marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidences were adduced by the side of the defence.

7. Mr. Soumajit Das Mahapatra, learned Advocate for the appellants said that there is no clear and convincing evidences in the record regarding torture upon the victim by the appellants for demand of dowry. It is said that there were no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and certainly such demand for any dowry does not make any sense whatsoever. As per submission of the learned Advocate the prosecution failed to establish any kind of cruelty either mentally or physically upon the victim. No clear evidence has come in the record about the nature and substance of such demand, dates of such demands and consequent failure to meet such demand. It is said by the lea