The definition of 'soon before' in dowry death cases requires a broader interpretation, emphasizing proximity and cumulative effects of sustained abuse over immediate factors.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 29, 2010, of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court at Bichar Bhaban, Kolkata, in Sessions Trial No 2(1) of 2006. By dint of the said judgment and order the appellant has been found guilty of the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 and half years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000; in default of payment of fine as above he has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 6 months. The appellant has been exonerated from the charge under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, in the said judgment and order of the trial Court.

2. The appellant/convict has challenged the said judgment and order of the trial Court dated January 29, 2010 on the grounds inter alia that the Court failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper perspective and thereby has arrived at an erroneous conclusion against the appellant regarding proof of offence against him under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code; that the ingredients of offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not been proved to the standard of beyond all reasonable doubts as against the appellant by the prosecution and the Court has erred in appreciating such fact; that the fact that interested witnesses have deposed out of grudge and their evidence suffer from severe embellishments and improvements rendering that to be unbelievable – is also an aspect completely ignored by the Court while delivering judgment; that evidence of the neutral witnesses were ignored by the Court; that particularly in absence of any dying declaration, the allegation of torture meted out upon the deceased person by the appellant on demand of dowry as remained not proved in the trial – is also a vital aspect not taken into consideration by the trial Court while delivering the judgment. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict seeking redress that the said impugned judgment may be set aside, declaring the appellant as not guilty in the case.

3. However, at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant did not appear either personally or through any learned lawyer inspite of due service of administrative notice. Several opportunities were granted to the appellant without any response to the same. The administrative notice served upon the appellant was returned with the remark that the appellant was not available at the address known.

4. Hence the Court has taken up this appeal for hearing in absence of the appellant. The State is represented.

5. A First Information Report dated April 13, 2006 has set the investigation and trial in motion. The brother of the deceased person is the informant who has lodged the said FIR contending inter alia that his pregnant sister [name withheld], who was married with the appellant/convict on June 24, 2004 has committed suicide on December 8, 2004. In her married life the deceased was said to have suffered severe mental and physical tortur