IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 147 of 1992 Ajit Mahara & Ors.

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Ms. Sneha Srivastava, Ms. Debolina Goswami.

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

Hearing concluded on : 24.04.2025 Judgment On : 07.05.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Suri, Birbhum, in connection with Sessions Case No. 168 of 1988 finding these appellants guilty for Commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. In short campus the story of the prosecution is delineated hereunder:

The de-facto complainant lodged a written complaint before Sainthia Police Station on 22/23.09.1985 and narrated that his eldest daughter Lilarani Mahara was given in marriage with this appellant/convict Ajit Mahara on 9th Baisak 1392 B.S. This de-facto complainant paid dowry as per agreement but could not deliver one gold ornament for ear and he took one year’s time. Hardly 2/3 months had passed away, her husband along with his family members started torture upon the victim on the plea of non-payment of balance dowry and the victim was not allowed to visit her father’s house, though several attempts were made for arranging her visit. It is further stated in the written complaint that after marriage the victim was once permitted i.e. on the day of ‘Jamaisasti’ to visit her father’s house. The victim was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband, bhasur (elder brother of the husband of the deceased) and mother-in-law. Wife of the de-facto complainant visited the house of her daughter to bring her but she was not allowed. This de-facto complainant received information from the father-in-law of his brother at Simuliahut that his daughter had taken poison, hearing this incident he rushed to the spot and on the way he found her daughter was being carried by a cot. Body was taken to Sainthia hospital and on the way the victim narrated to him that the torture was unbearable for non-payment of gold earring for which she took poison. In the late night, the daughter of the de-facto complainant expired in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint, case was started by the concerned police station. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against this appellant along with two others who expired during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code against these appellants.

4. In this case prosecution has examined eleven (11) witnesses and documents were marked exhibits in its favour.

5. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6. Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and came to an erroneous finding. He argued that there are major discrepancies in the prosecution case which was overlooked by the learned Trial Court. It is said by the learned Advocate that the oral evidence as adduced by the side of the prosecution is too weak to support the prosecution case inasmuch as the specific part played by each of the appellants/convicts in the death of Lilarani Mahara. The involvement of these accused persons with the alleged offence has not been established. The attention of this Court is drawn by the learned Advocate to the deposition of PW1 who happens to be the father of the victim deposed that during six months, his daughter visited his house only once in the day of ‘jamaisasti’, whereas PW2 mother of the victim stated that she ha