Crl.A. 95/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard the Mr. H.A. Sarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The Stat e is represented by Mr. B.B. Gogoi, the Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. The appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 26.2.2004 in Sessions Case No. 132/2001 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, wh ereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 498(A) of IPC and was sente nce to undergo R.I. for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, R.I. for further 1 month. 3. The prosecution story as revealed from the FIR filed by one Sade sh Das (P.W.3) is that his niece Swapna Das was married 7 years earlier with the accused. In the preceding few years, the accused used to subject his wife to ph ysical and mental torture because of which village ’bichar’ had to be held. The n on the afternoon of 5.8.1998 at about 4 p.m., at the temporary farm shed of th e accused, Swapna Das was killed by burning and while preparation was being made for cremation, police were informed and dead body was recovered and was sent fo r Post Mortem examination. Thereafter on the next day the ejahar was lodged and Kaki Police Station Case no. 24/1998 was registered under Section 498(A)/302/34 of IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, the police framed charges und er Section 498(A)/302/34 of IPC against the accused and the case was committed f or trial to the Nagaon Sessions Court. 5. In the trial, 8 witnesses were presented by the prosecution whil e the defence didn’t adduce any evidence. The accused in his statement under Sec tion 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the charge. Smt. Bishnu Das who reached the site imme diately and rescued the burnt victim from the pond, was examined as the Court Wi tness (C.W.1). 6. From the testimony of the witnesses in the case, the learned Ses sions Judge found no evidence to implicate the accused with murder and found the death to be suicidal. But the learned Court found that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused and accordingly he was convicted under Section 498( A). 7.1 P.W.1 Rabindra Kr. Das is the father of the deceased. He testif ied that his daughter had informed him that she was beaten up by the accused an d was also denied her meals. But he admitted that he didn’t inform others about the sufferings of his daughter. 7.2 P.W.2 Pratap Das is the brother of the deceased . He stated that the accused had an affair with someone else and that is why he used to torture the deceased. The witness testified that once the deceased was beaten up by the accused in front of the witness himself. The deceased also complained to P.W.2 t hat the accused used to administer her regular beatings. In his cross-examinatio n, the witness stood by his testimony that he personally saw the deceased beaten up by the accused. 7.3 P.W.3 is Sadesh Das who is the uncle of the deceased and was als o the informant of the case. According to him, initially the relationship betwee n the accused and the deceased was all right but subsequently the deceased when visiting her parental home, used to talk about tortures such as denial of food a nd beatings by her husband. The family members including P.W.3 used to counsel t he deceased and take her back to the matrimonial home. On the day of the inciden t, after learning about the occurrence, the witness rushed to the appellant’s vi llage and saw that villagers had arranged to cremate the deceased. Then he went to the Lanka Police Station but as he was re-directed, the FIR was later lodged at the Kaki Police station. In his cross-examination, the witness denied the sug gestions that he had falsely stated about the deceased’s complaining against the accused of beatings and denial of food. He also stated that there was a village ’bichar’ about the torture given to the deceased. 7.4 The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 are not relevant. 7.5 P.W.6 T.K. Baruah as the second officer of the Kaki Police stati on received the FIR from PW.3. He visited the place of occurrence and examined s ome of the people present there. 7.6 P.W.7 H. Hazarika was the investigating officer who was subseque ntly entrusted with the investigation in the case. He arrested the accused on 23 .2.1999 and filed the charge sheet in the case on 24.5.1999. 7.7. P.W.8 is Dr. Krishna Prasad Goswami who was the S.D.M & H.O. at the B.P. Civil Hospital. He conducted the post mortem examination of the decease d at about 11:40 a.m. on 7.8.1998. He found that the deceased suffered 90% burn injuries and opined that the death was due to the result of the burn injuries su ffered by the victim. 8. Smt. Bishnu Das was examined as a Court Witness (C.W.1). At abou t 3 in the afternoon of the incident, the witness saw the deceased rushing out o f her house while on fire and jumping in the nearby pond. C.W.1 and another pers on rescued the victim from the pond while she was still alive. But the victim di dn’t say how she was burnt. The witness stated that the accused was not present in the house at the time of the incident. She stated that accused (Palash Das) i s a daily wage earner, who used to go out for work early morning and return in t he evening. 9. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly shows that the de ceased was physically tortured by the accused during her matrimonial life and th ey were informed by the deceased herself of torture suffered by her. P.W.2 was a n eyewitness to the beating administered on one occasion by the accused. The P.W .3 had stated that village ’bichar’ was held some time before the death, on the cruel treatment given by the accused to the deceased. Although these 3 witnesse s are closely related to the deceased, that by itself will not make their testim ony unbelievable unless there is any good reasons to doubt their veracity. 10. Although the accused hadn’t murdered his wife, the fact that the deceased suffered cruel treatment from the hand of her husband is clearly estab lished through the evidence. It is therefore, reasonable to sustain the conclusi on reached by the learned Trial Court that, the victim was driven to commit suic ide because of the cruel treatment meted out by the accused. Accordingly I find little reason to interfere with the conviction given under Section 498(A) of IPC to the accused appellant. 11. But in so far as the sentence is concerned, Mr. Sarkar submits t hat the accused is a daily wage earner and his 3 children born through the decea sed are dependent on him. Accordingly he prays for reduction of the sentence by pointing out that the accused was in custody during the trial for 3 months appro ximately. Mr. B.B. Gogoi, the Addl. P.P. on the basis of the Court records point out that the accused was in custody for about 87 days between 22.2.1999, till h e was released on bail on 18.5.1999. 12. Keeping in mind the above background of the accused and his fami ly circumstances, I feel that the demands of justice will be met by reducing the sentence to the period already spent in custody for the conviction under Sectio n 498(A) of the IPC. The appeal is accordingly allowed with this modification of sentence. The bail bond of the accused stands discharged. 13. LCR be returned forthwith.