Ananda Mohan Sen & Anr vs State Of West Bengal

3. The prosecution case is as under :

A First Information Report was lodged on the same day at about 2105 hrs. before the officer in charge of Khandaghosh Police Station, alleging physical and mental torture upon her by all the accused. PW-1 opined that the deceased committed suicide being unable to bear such torture.

4. The officer in charge of the police station upon receipt of the said First Information Report arrived at the place of occurrence at about 10.30 p.m. The inquest report of the dead body, however, was conducted on the next day, which, inter alia, reads as under :

6. The statements of Smt. Kanan Bala Dey (PW-5), mother of the deceased, Haradhan Halder (PW-8), a neighbour and relative of PW-1 and Himadri Sekhar Dey (PW-10), brother of the deceased, were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statements of Smt. Madhavi Halder (PW-6) and Smt. Bithika Paul (PW-9), aunt and friend respectively of the deceased were recorded on 12.02.1994. Investigation was carried out in a slip-shod manner. Viscera was also sent for chemical examination only on 14.03.1994. It is difficult to appreciate that the investigating officer took such a long time in sending the article for chemical examination after such a long time.

7. Before the learned Trial Judge, 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of the said witnesses, Shib Shankar Ghosh (PW-2) and Biswanath Mallick (PW-3), who were the residents of the same village as that of the accused, were declared hostile. Another co-villager of the appellants, Bhutnath Pal (PW-4) was only tendered for cross-examination. The investigation was carried out principally by Sub Inspector S.D. Saha (PW-12). Charge-sheet, however, was submitted by another Investigating Officer, namely, Sub Inspector M.M. Das (PW-13). Dr. S. Charaborty, who conducted the post-mortem examination examined himself as PW-11.

8. Appellants herein along with Smt. Shakti Sundari Sen, mother-in-law of the deceased and Nityananda Sen (brother-in-law of the deceased) were charged for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Smt. Shakti Sundari Sen died on 14.10.1998. Examination of the witnesses before the learned Trial Judge also took a long time i.e. between 09.07.2001 and 06.06.2003. The learned Trial Judge found the appellants guilty of commission of the said offences and sentenced Appellant No. 1 to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 498A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; and to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years under Section 306 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one and two months under Sections 498A and 306 IPC respectively; and sentenced Appellant No. 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 498A and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 years under Section 306 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fines to undergo simple imprisonment for one and two months under Sections 498A and 306 IPC respectively.

25. The learned Trial Judge in arriving at the conclusion had , inter alia, taken note of the fact that despite the deceased suffering from the skin disease, she had never been taken to the doctor, nor any paper was filed as to whether any treatment was given. It may be that there are certain contradictions and omissions but in a case of this nature the conclusion must be drawn from the totality of the circumstances. Bakulbala admittedly died an unnatural death. The prosecution evidences brought on records clearly suggest that she had been subjected to cruelty both physical and mental. Existence of discord between the parties in regard to torture at least at one point of time is not in dispute. She had been driven out of her house. She had to come back to her parents house again and again. Her husband did not even make any enquiry about her, when she was staying with her parents. A settlement had been arrived at wherfor intervention of the members of the panchayat had been sought for. Only upon the said settlement, the deceased came back to her matrimonial home. Unnatural death of the deceased, in our opinion, must be considered from that point of view.

41. In the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where interference with the impugned judgment is called for. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.