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

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 957 of 2013 Mubarak Ansari & Anr.

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Mr. Shaharayar Alam.

For the State : Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Imran Ali.

Hearing concluded on : 07.05.2025 Judgment On : 25.06.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in connection with Sessions Case No. 137 of 2011 (Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2012) corresponding to G.R. Case No. 475 of 2010, whereby the appellants-A1 and A2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code; imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. further S.I. for six months for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that-

“On 26.05.2007 the father of the victim namely, Jafir Ansari lodged a complaint before the Chakulia Police Station against the four accused persons stating, interalia, that his younger daughter Rohimunnesa was married to the accused Mubarak Ansari as per Muslim Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage Mubarak was a student of high school and it was made clear that after the marriage of his daughter he would have to bear the cost of his son in law’s studies and his daughter would also work as labour and gift her earning to Mubarak to meet his cost of study. Father-in-law and mother-in-law of his daughter used to assault her and often said that she was not fit for their son. One year ago the father-in-law of the deceased assaulted her brutally causing injury on her head and body. This de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Kanki outpost and a ‘salish’ was held. This de-facto complainant had at that time given dowry for the sake of his daughter. On 26.05.2007 this complainant came to know that his daughter had died by hanging in her maternal house and when went there by seeing the attitude of his daughter’s in laws he believed that they were behind his daughter’s death.”

3. Over the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant, the aforesaid police case was started against four accused persons. Police took up investigation and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The charge was framed by the learned Trial Court against four accused persons under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove his case against the accused persons examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited the documents. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by the side of the defence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh mainly contended that the evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence that the appellants committed the alleged offences. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence so far as these appellants are concerned and as such, the Trial Court ought to have acquitted them for the charges framed against them. According to the learned counsel, the alleged offences do not satisfy the requirement of Section 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code in view of the evidence that the post mortem report and the surothal (inquest) report clearly indicated that it is a case of suicide and there is no other bodily injury in the person of the deceased. There is no such evidence brought by the prosecution that soon before her death, she was subjected to any physical torture to meet the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by the learned