IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Raju Adhikary & Ors

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellants : Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya,

Mr. Anirban Kumar Banerjee,

Mr. Subhasri Chatterjee.

For the State : Mr. Imran Ali,

Mr. Abhishek Verma.

Hearing concluded on : 28.08.2025 Judgment On : 24.09.2025

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

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

conviction dated 20.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Baruipur in connection with Sessions

Trial No. 10(1)06 arising out Sessions Case No. 4(9)05 at the behest of the appellants.

2. By passing the impugned judgment these appellants were found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for nine months. It is further directed by the learned Trial Court that if the fine amount is realized, then 15% of the realized amount will be paid to the parents of the victim.

3. The case set forth by the prosecution, in brief compass, may be summarized as follows:

“The instant case was started on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Nemai Chandra Dalui stating that his daughter Kalpana Dalui nee Adhikary was married to the appellant no. 1 Raju Adhikary according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 24^th Day of Falgun 1410 (BS). It is stated in the written complaint that after some days of marriage all the appellants who are the husband and parents in law of the deceased used to torture upon the victim both physically and mentally on demand of dowry. It is further revealed from the written complaint that the victim used to come to the house of the defacto complainant due to such torture allegedly inflicted by the appellants and used to narrate such fact before this defacto complainant. The defacto complaint could not fulfil the demand of the accused persons and on 13.10.2004 he got information that his daughter (victim) was burnt due to fire in her matrimonial house. On getting such information he rushed to the Calcutta National Medical and Hospital and found the victim was admitted in the said hospital in burnt condition and on that day in the evening at 6.30 P.M. this complainant saw his daughter in dead condition. Over the complainant lodged by the defacto complainant a case was started by the concerned police station being Canning P.S. Case No. 189 dated 15.10.2004 under Section 498A/304 Indian Penal Code.”

4. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against the accused persons under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed by the Trial Court against the accused persons under Section 498A/304 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In this case, twenty (20) witnesses were cited by the side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 8 on its behalf. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by the side of the defence.

6. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the appellant said that there are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of such statements of the witnesses cannot be sustained under the law. Mr. Bhattacharya further said that in this case prior to lodging of the complaint, there was no complaint of torture allegedly made by the appellants upon the victim. It is further said that it would be revealed from the evidences of PW2 to PW5 and PW9, PW11 and PW3 who are the neighbours of the appellants have stated in their evidences that the relationship between the victim and the appellant was good and cordial. It is further said by the learned Advocate that it