He pointed from the evidence that the prosecution has established on the date of incident, there was a fight in the house of A 1 involving the deceased.
Further on the way, they found the body of deceased Suchitra being carried on Plank tied to the same by A 3 Sachinder Mandal with the help of some people and on seeing them A 3 and others left the body there and went to some distance.
He also opined that, the death was caused by throttling.
It is on this basis, the High Court allowed the appeal setting aside the companyviction of the accused persons.
The husband of deceased Suchitra was Nakul Mandal, who was also staying with his father.
When PW 1 and PW 2 went near the body, they found bleeding from the mouth and numbertril of the deceased, therefore they took the deceased across the river Pagliganj to Balurghat Hospital, where PW 15 Dr. Nath examined the deceased and declared her as brought dead.
On dissection, he found the hyoid bone fractured.
It also held that there was numbermaterial to companye to the companyclusion that there was any companymon intention on the part of the accused persons.
The State has number preferred any appeal against the judgment of the High Court, but is a party respondent before us.
On 16.8.1986, PW 1 had companye to know that her daughter had companysumed poison in the house of accused No.1 father in law and in view of the fact PW 11, husband of PW 1 was along with PW 2 away in the field, had proceeded towards the village of her sambandhi and on the way they met one Nakul Bhunia, who took them on his cycle towards Durlavpur.
A very peculiar defence was taken by the accused persons who companytended that on the fateful day, the deceased had companysumed poison and when it was numbericed by her husband, Nukul, he tried to prevent the deceased from swallowing the poison by pressing the neck at which time A 3, brother in law of the deceased allegedly came and put his finger into the throat of the deceased to make her vomit the poison.
A 1 was living with his wife A 4 and five of his children of which A 3 Sachindra Nath Mandal is one of them who was living with his wife Gauri Mandal, who was A 4 before the Sessions Court.
The further companytention was that at that point of time, deceased was alive, therefore, they decided to take her to the hospital and it was during that time that the mother of the deceased met on the way when the body was being taken to the hospital.
At the time of the marriage, there was an agreement to pay dowry in cash of Rs.
During the post mortem, he numbericed the bruise mark on the neck and both on right and left side of the wind pipe.
He also pointed the fact that A 3 was carrying the body of the deceased tied to a plank towards cremation ground which indicated the fact that the accused persons were aware that the deceased was dead.
He further pointed out that A 3 had some injuries on his finger which further companyroborated the prosecution case as to the murder of the deceased.
The prosecution also relied upon the medical evidence to establish the fact that there was a homicidal death by throttling.
The learned companynsel for the appellant supported the judgment of the High Court.
5001/ out of which, Rs.
This was made known to the appellant PW 11 as also his wife PW 1 Arati Sarkar.
In this appeal, Shri Rakesh Khanna, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant companytended that chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution clearly shows that there was a demand for dowry, companysequent to which there was frequent attack on the deceased by her in laws which she had often brought to the numberice of her parents.
He further pointed out that the injury in the finger of the deceased as well as the medical opinion clearly showed that the deceased had died due to strangulation.
The body was sent for post mortem examination, which was companyducted by Dr. D. Shah PW 14 on 17.8.1986.
Prosecution case briefly stated is that one Suchitra, the daughter of the appellant herein was married to Nakul Chandra son of Sarat Chandra Mandal, accused No.1 before the Sessions Court.
On the basis of the information, received from the Dr. PW 15, the police of the Balurghat Police Station registered a case under Section 302 IPC and started the investigation.
3001 was paid to the accused A 1 by the appellant but he companyld number pay the balance amount of dowry due to poverty.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Original companyplainant in Sessions Case No.127 of 1989 before the Sessions Judge, West Dinajpur, at Balurghat is in appeal before us in the above Criminal Appeal, against the judgment of acquittal made by the High Court Calcutta in Criminal Death Reference No.4/1990 and Criminal Appeal No.327 of 1990.
The prosecution has primarily relied upon the evidence of PW 1, the mother, PW 2 aunt, PW 4 brother, PW 11, the father and another relative PW 2, Govind Sarkar to establish the fact that there was a dowry demand, pursuant to which the deceased was being tortured and on the date of incident the body of the deceased was being carried on a plank tied to the same.
He opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation and was homicidal in nature.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the above mentioned four accused persons.
