The main legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of evidence to determine the guilt of the accused person in administering poison or corrosive substance to the victim, leading to the conviction under Section 324 of the IPC.

S. TALAPATRA, J.

1. This is an appeal by the State under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.4.2009 delivered in ST 72 (WT/A) of 2007 acquitting the respondent from the liability of charge framed under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The investigation commenced based on a written ejahar filed on 29.4.2005 by Sri Sukumar Das (PW-1) disclosing that the marriage of his daughter namely, Sikha Das was solemnized on 2.3.2005 with the respondent-accused person namely, Sri Jhutan Das. After 810 days of the marriage, the accused person started mental and physical torture by calling her evil. Even the accused person complained to PW-1 that his daughter was unable to do any household work. It has been further revealed that his daughter was forced to sleep on the floor. On 19.4.2005, his daughter felt stomach pain at about 10-10.30 at night. The accused person gave some medicine to his daughter advising that the medicine had to be taken in the darkness. His daughter, now deceased consumed half bottle of the medicine and she started having burning sensation in her throat. She told her husband that she would not be able to take the rest of the medicine. On the following morning, his daughter started vomiting after short intervals. The accused person in the next afternoon informed a neighbour of the informant over telephone that the victim, the deceased daughter of PW-1 was vomiting continuously. On the next day, the informant’s younger son, Sudip went to see his daughter and requested the victim’s father-in-law and mother-in-law to take her to a Doctor. On the following day, the informant and his daughter, Rikha went to see his daughter and on going there, they saw that her condition was critical. Again they requested the victim’s in laws to take her to a Doctor. The victim was taken to a Doctor and finally, she was admitted in the Narsingarh hospital. After remaining admitted for 3 days there, the victim’s condition improved slightly and she was discharged and brought to the informant’s house. But on the next day, her condition started deteriorating. She was taken to Dr. Pramatesh Roy at Agartala as she could not eat anything and some pieces of flash from the throat were flushing out. She became almost speechless. On 28.4.2005, the accused person also visited his daughter. At the intervention of one Dilip Bardhan of the village of the informant, the accused person stated that he had given medicine that is used to destroy weeds in the tea garden. The moment Dilip informed it, the informant rushed to the GBP hospital with the victim and informed the Doctor about that incident. When the written ejahar was filed, the victim was being treated in the GBP hospital in a critical condition.

3. Based on the said written ejahar (Exbt.1), Lefunga Police Station Case No. 10 of 2005 under Sections 498A & 326 of the I.P.C. was registered and taken up for investigation. On 13.5.2005 the victim succumbed in the GBP hospital. With the leave of the Magistrate, the investigation started under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The charge-sheet was filed by the police against the accused person under Sections 498A, 326 and 302 of the I.P.C. The charge was framed however, under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 302 of the I.P.C. but the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial.

4. In order to substantiate the charge as many as 28 (twenty eight) witnesses were examined and 23 documentary evidence (Exbts.1 to 23) including the forensic examination report, injury report, bed head ticket and the postmortem examination report were introduced in the evidence. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the accused person was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C.

5. Thereafter, on appreciation of the evidence the accused person has been acquitted from the charge by the impugned judgment and order 27.4.2009 on observing that:

“16. The alleged extra judicial confession given