IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

C.R.A. 554 of 2010

Mohidul Mallick & Ors.

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv.

Mr. Safdar Azam, Adv.

Mr. P.Dey, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, Adv.

Ms. Suchismita Dutta, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 10.06.2025 Judgment On : 28.08.2025

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of

conviction dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Kalna in connection with Sessions Trial No. 28/06 arising out of the Sessions Case No. 122/05 at the behest of the appellants.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order this appellants were found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment a fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants-convicts.

4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: “One Sukur Ali Sheikh lodged a complaint before Monteswar P.S. on 27.09.2004 stating, inter alia, that his daughter Sukruna Bibi (victim) was married to the accused Mahidul Mallick in the month of ‘Jaistha’ (B.S.) 1409 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. It is stated in the complaint that after their marriage the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture by these appellants on demand of money from this defacto complainant. It is said in the written complaint that the husband of the victim, namely Mahidul Mallick (one of the appellants/convicts) was addicted to gambling and lost the money therein. The matter was tried to be settled in the village ‘salish’ but there was no effect. On 26.09.2004 at about 6 P.M. the victim Sukruna Bibi consumed poisonous oil like Semidon and expired due to such unbelievable torture allegedly inflicted by these appellants.”

5. Over this complainant a case being Monteswar P.S. Case No. 19/04 dated

27.09.2004 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against these appellants under Sections

498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. On the basis of materials on record, charge was framed by the Trial Court against these appellants under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. In this case, 15 (fifteen) witnesses were cited by the side of the prosecution and documents and seized articles were marked as Exhibits 1 to 8 and MAT Exhibits I and I/I on its behalf. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

8. Mr. Satadru Lahiri, learned Advocate for the appellants said that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that the prosecution witnesses and failed to bring compact, cogent, believable and trustworthy evidence, although it is the settled principle of law that the onus of bringing charge against the accused in a criminal trial lies solely upon the prosecution. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was previous love affairs between the victim and her husband and there was no question of demand of dowry at the time of marriage. It is said by the learned Advocate that the Trial Court did not at all consider the evidence of PW1, wherein he has stated that the cash of Rs. 10,000/- was handed over during the marriage to the Moulana but no such document has been produced before the Court by the prosecution. It is further said that although the prosecution witnesses have stated in their evidences that 10 cottahs of land was given to the bride groom by the defacto complainant but no document has been produced before the Court i