IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CRA 202 of 2019 Sushil Kumar Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Amitava Karmakar, Adv.

Mr. Mahadeb Khan, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debabrata Chatterje, Adv.

Ms. Mausumi Sarkar, Adv.

For the Respondent Nos. : Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Adv.

2,4,5 & 6 Hearing Concluded on : September 26, 2025 Judgement on : November 11, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order of acquittal dated January 13, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 01 (08) of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 39(04) of 2013 acquitting the private respondents of charges under Section 498A/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the daughter of the appellant was married to the respondent No. 2. The daughter of the appellant subsequent to her marriage had lived in her matrimonial home along with other members of the family of the in-laws. The daughter of the appellant had been continuously abused at her matrimonial home. On June 19, 2012, the private respondents had assaulted the daughter of the appellant and set her on fire. Appellant had lodged a First Information Report on June 19, 2012 under Section 498A/302/34 of the India Penal Code 1860. Police had submitted chargesheet under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as against the Private respondents. Jurisdictional Court had framed charges against the private respondent under Section

498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, prosecution had examined 15 witnesses at the trial. Although, there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, prosecution had based its case on circumstantial evidence and child witness testimony.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of PWs 2, 5 and 11. He has contended that, from the evidence of PW 2, it would appear that, there were injury marks on the body of the victim. PW 5, the minor daughter had stated in her evidence that the victim was lying on the floor and the hands and legs of the victim were tied. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had told the grandmother in presence of PW 5 that respondent No.

2 had killed the victim.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of the doctor conducting the post mortem being PW 11. He has stated that, PW 11 opined that, the death was homicidal in nature.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, learned Trial Judge while recording the impugned judgment and order of acquittal relied upon the medical treatment sheet but did not consider the post mortem report. Learned Trial Judge has failed to evaluate the evidence of the doctor being PW 11. Learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW 5 and 6. Moreover, the incident had taken place within the four walls of the matrimonial house of the victim and the respondent No. 2 as the husband is to explain the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act which the respondent No. 2 has failed to discharge.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon 2025 INSC 261 (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh) on the issue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to 6 has contended that, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of PW 11, the post mortem doctor as well as the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 to claim that, the death was homicidal in nature. He has referred to the evidence of defence witness (DW 2) in support of the contention that, the opinion in the post mortem report was wrong and that there was no homicide.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the contes