The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC, as well as the reliance on eyewitness evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 31.03.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Case No. ST 49(NT/K) of 2011, whereunder learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer SI for two years and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for six months.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent.

3. Fact, leading to the prosecution and punishment of the appellants, in short, is that marriage between accused appellant, Md. Kudrat Ali and the victim deceased, Majlufa Khanam was solemnized as per Muslim customary rites and ceremonies about 10/13 years before the date of occurrence, i.e. on 11.04.2009. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.04.2009 at about 8.00 am the accused convicts Md. Kudrat Ali (husband of the deceased), Md. Kadar Ali, nephew of Kudrat Ali and Mst. Sirai/Chirai Begam, wife of Kadar Ali, all physically assaulted Majlufa in the matrimonial home, i.e. in the house of Kudrat Ali, and thereafter Majlufa consumed poison in front of the house of a neighbour, Ahamed Ali and while she was on way to hospital died due to poisoning.

3.1. Kailashahar PS U.D. Case No. 10/2009 under Section 174 of CrPC was registered and S.I., Madhabi Das(PW10) prepared inquest report over the dead body in the hospital and, thereafter forwarded the body for postmortem examination. While she was investigating the U.D. case, on 14.04.2009, on the basis of an FIR lodged by Mst. Ramsun Nehar(PW1), Kailashahar PS Case No. 83/2009 under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up. The records of U.D. case was tagged with the records of the FIR case.

3.2. The informant Ramsun Nehar, inter alia, alleged that her daughter Majlufa was given in marriage with accused, Kudrat Ali about 10 years ago and that Kudrat and Majlufa had three children. Before the birth of child, Kudrat, at the instance of other accused persons named in the FIR, started physical and mental torture on Majlufa demanding money. About a year before the date of occurrence once Kudrat dealt ’dao’ blow on the head of Majlufa and a case was lodged but subsequently it was mitigated at the instance of the village elders and Majlufa started living in the husband’s house. She has also alleged that about 3/4 months ago she gave ` 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to Kudrat to meet the demand of money but the total demand of ` 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) could not be fulfilled. She has also alleged that on 11.04.2009 at about 8.00 am in presence of the children of Majlufa, at the instance Kudrat, accused Kadar at first abused Majlufa with filthy words and thereafter accused Kudrat Ali and Chirai, both assaulted her and thrown her on the ground and, thereafter accused Kudrat poured poison in her mouth. She further alleged that Md. Raju Miah, minor son of Majlufa came to Iranibazar and informed the fire service to save her mother and while Majlufa was on way to hospital she died.

3.3. Based on that FIR, SI Firuj Miah(PW16), I.O. of the case, after investigation submitted charge sheet against accused appellant and others for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306read with Section 34 of IPC.

3.4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and on commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants and another Alima Begam for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also proved the FIR, seizure list, inquest report, postmortem examination report and