The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal and as presented by the prosecution may be set out at this stage.
The defence produced two witnesses in support of its case.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of companyviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the High Court.
On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant and seven other accused persons to which all of them pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
On companyclusion of the arguments, the High Court passed a judgment and order upholding the order of companyviction and affirming the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court.
Upon receipt of the aforesaid information, PW 2 arrived at the house of the appellant where he learnt about the entire incident from the villagers who had assembled at the scene of occurrence.
On the morning of 27.09.1991, the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling of the house of the appellant.
During the trial, a number of prosecution witnesses were examined.
Thereafter, PW 2 proceeded to the Contai Police Station and got a companyplaint registered.
The sentences awarded to the appellant were directed to run companycurrently.
Anita was sporting a vermillion mark on her forehead and was wearing companych bangles on her wrist to indicate that she is married to the accused.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant and seven other accused persons.
Ashoka Kumar Maity PW 7 intimated Supriyo Das, brother of the deceased PW 2 about the death of the deceased.
The State, however, did number prefer any appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court with regard to the seven accused persons who were also charged with the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
The High Court entertained the said appeal and heard the companynsel appearing for the parties.
After a few days, the appellant again tried to take the companysent of the deceased for marrying said Anita and on refusal of the deceased, physical and mental torture was perpetrated on the deceased.
All the other seven accused persons were acquitted of the above stated charges framed against them.
On the strength of the companyplaint, First Information Report in short the FIR under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC was lodged on 28.09.1991 at 20.30 hrs.
It was also the case that three months prior to the date of death of the deceased, the appellant brought said Anita to his house.
The appellant was residing in Calcutta in companynection with his work and earning.
Consequently, the appellant started torturing the deceased both physically and mentally.
The appellant Amalendu Pal Jhantu and the deceased Dipika were married in the year 1977.
The appellant sought permission of the deceased to marry said Anita, which was also refused by the deceased.
It was also stated that in the evening prior to the date of the death of the deceased, the deceased was assaulted by Anita, the appellant and his family members.
The said order of companyviction upheld by the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
The relationship between the appellant and said Anita became known to the deceased and the deceased objected to such illegal relationship.
On companyclusion of the trial, the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 25.11.1997 companyvicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and for eight years together with a fine of Rs 1000/ respectively.
During his stay in Calcutta, the appellant developed an extra marital relationship with one Jyotsna Anita.
It was alleged that the deceased was provoked by the appellant to end her life by companysuming poison or by hanging herself.
Out of the said wedlock, two sons were born.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. Leave granted.
In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the Calcutta High Court.
The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order as by the said judgment, the High Court has upheld the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the trial Court whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code in short the IPC and for eight years together with a fine of Rs 1000/ for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC with a default stipulation.
