IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Rekha Pramanick

-Versus-

Basudev Pramanick & Others.

Amicus Curiae for the Appellant : Mr. Soham Banerjee.

For the Respondent no(s) 1 & 3 : Mr. Arindam Sen,

Mr. Saurav Basu,

Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain,

Ms. Sayanwita Auddya,

Ms. Varsha Roy.

For the State : Mr. Debashish Roy, Ld. P.P.

Mrs. Faria Hossain, Ld. A.P.P.

Mrs Baisali Basu.

Hearing concluded on : 14.07.2025 Delivered on : 24.09.2025

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Alipore in T.R. No. 387/1988 at the behest of the appellant/complainant.

2. By passing the impugned judgment the accused persons were found not guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted from the charges framed against them.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal is filed on behalf of the accused/respondents no. 1 to 3 in this case.

4. The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore stating interalia that she was married with the accused no. 1 Sri. Basudev Pramanick on 01.07.1997 according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage it was registered under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, complainant went to her matrimonial home and started conjugal life therein. It is stated in the written complaint that at the time of marriage gold ornaments, clothings, utensils and furniture worth Rs. 39,000/- were given to the complainant as dowry.

5. It is stated in the complaint that on 03.07.1997 i.e. the date of ‘Fulsyya’ the husband of the complainant (accused no. 1) entered the ‘Fulsyya’ room along with this complainant but he suddenly tried to leave the room at about 1:00 am. The complainant raised objection and wanted to know the reason for leaving the room of her husband but the accused (husband) started to assault this complainant and disclosed that he had sexual relation with a widow and would go to her residence. It is stated by the complainant that out of fear she did not disclose the matter to anybody and looking for better future. She controlled herself with the expectation that the good sense would prevail upon the accused. It is stated that on the following day of ‘Bouvat’ the accused put pressure upon this complainant to bring colour T.V., gold chain from her father when she expressed her inability to fulfill the demand of her husband, the accused husband assaulted the complainant physically and mentally and such type of torture was continued on regular basis. After 7 days from marriage the complainant came to her parent’s house and disclosed the facts of torture on demand of dowry before her parents and other relations. Thereafter, the parents of the complainant went to the matrimonial home of their daughter and finding no other way took the complainant back of their house. It is stated in the complaint that several correspondences were made thereafter between the parties which yielded no results and the accused and appellant no. 1 did not turn up to take back the complainant from her parental house. Finding no other way this complaint was filed by the complaint before the Court and the case was started.

6. After taking evidence and after due consideration of the same the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 498A/406 of the IPC against all the accused persons.

7. In this case four witnesses were cited on behalf of the complainant.

8. Mr. Soham Banerjee, learned Amicus Curiae, has said that the learned Trial Court committed mistake and error in acquitting these respondent nos. 1 to 3 from this case. It is said that the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are consistent wi