IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Badal Chandra Das

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Ms. Manisha Ghosh, Amicus Curiae

Mr. Jayanta Mukherjee.

For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Ld. APP.

Ms. Suchismita Dutta.

Hearing concluded on : 10.12.2025 Judgment On : 16.12.2025

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. This instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment

and order of conviction dated 04.02.98 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura, in Sessions Case No.17(9)94, Sessions Trial No. 5(4)97 at the instance of the

appellant.

2. By passing the impugned judgment the present appellant was

found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant.

4. In brief, the prosecution case may be summarised as follows:

“On 08.07.1990 at about 17:25 hours, one Dinabandu Das lodged a written complaint at the concerned police station alleging that his sister had met with an unnatural death. According to the complaint, the victim had been married to the present appellant, Badal Das, of village Mulamuli, and thereafter the couple began residing together as husband and wife. However, soon after the marriage, the appellant along with other members of his family allegedly subjected the victim to persistent physical and mental torture, including deprivation of proper food and clothing. It is further alleged that while residing at her matrimonial home, the victim had repeatedly narrated these incidents of cruelty to her mother.

The complainant asserted that the appellant and other family members murdered the victim on 04.07.1990, yet the news of her death was not immediately conveyed to her parental family. Instead, the intimation was given belatedly on 05.07.1990 by the victim’s father-in-law. It is also stated that the burial of the victim was completed hurriedly and without informing any member of her parental home. The accused persons thereafter allegedly wrongfully confined the complainant and his brother in an attempt to settle the matter amicably. The complainant, however, managed to escape and thereafter proceeded to the police station to lodge the present complaint.

Based on the said written complaint, Raipur P.S. Case No.

34/90 dated 08.07.1990 was registered under Sections 302/201/342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, the prosecuting agency submitted a charge-sheet on 07.09.1993 against the present appellant and the other accused persons (who have since been acquitted), for offences punishable under Sections 498A/302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.”

5. In this case, prosecution has examined in all thirteen (13)

witnesses and documents were marked on its behalf. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidences was adduced on behalf of the appellant.

6. Ms. Manisha Ghosh, learned Amicus Curiae, has forcefully contended that the allegations levelled against the present appellant are wholly vague, unsubstantiated and bereft of any concrete particulars. However, the learned Trial Court, without undertaking a sound and judicious appreciation of the evidences adduced by the prosecution, proceeded to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offences. It is urged that the prosecution evidence suffers from glaring contradictions, material omissions and inherent inconsistencies which strike at the very root of the prosecution case and render it wholly unreliable. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the conviction based on such infirm evidence cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

7. It