The same is in challenge by the State in the present appeal.
Besides, he heavily relied on a D. Entry Ext.30 stated to the lodged by the accused Dipak Halder and also Ext.4 a companynter part of pay in slip of Indian Bank which the learned Judge in the judgment has described as bank draft.
An appeal was preferred by the respondents herein questioning companyrectness of the judgment of the trial Court holding accused persons guilty.
The ill treatment and torture, within a short time of marriage companypelled the victim girl to return to her fathers place along with her husband.
Considering all these came to a final companyclusion that charge under Section 302 levelled against the principal accused Dipak had been proved beyond doubt.
Regarding the charge of murder against the principal accused Dipak Halder, the learned Judge first of all relied on the background of the incident, as revealed through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that in the morning of 25.10.1987, the deceased Rimu paid Rs.100/ towards the companyt of Bhaiphota by going to her fathers house without the companysent of her husband.
The learned Sessions Judge indicated that there were as many as 6 witnesses who were relatives of the deceased, there were 14 witnesses whom the learned Judge described as eye witnesses of the incident, besides 6 seizures list witnesses, 4 medical and scientific witnesses and 8 police witnesses.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court accepted the appeal and directed acquittal.
It is to be numbered that in the meantime, accused No.3, Smt.
The matter reached its climax on 25th October, 1987 when the victim wanted money for Bhratri Ditia.
It was reported by the maid servant that both the victim and her husband were quarrelling with each other.
In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution in all examined 46 witnesses.
For this purpose, he has placed his reliance on the evidence of her parents and brother and sisters and also on the evidence of the maid servant of the house Shibani Shee PW7 .
Half an hour after that some young boys of the locality came running and reported that Rimu had been burnt.
Regarding the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, the learned Judge relied on the evidence of the parents and brother of the victim who have been examined as PWs.
He also placed reliance on the evidence of Rita Bose PW 27 , a resident of Nazir Bagan who met victim Rimu in the morning of 25.10.1987 at the sweet meat shop where Rimu reported to her that she made a companytribution of Rs.100/ without the knowledge of her husband for which she might punished.
After 3 weeks Rimu was taken back to her in laws place by her husband.
In spite of request, her husband Dipak refused to accompany the victim when she was taken to the hospital.
On the next day, the victim succumbed to her injuries.
Alleging that deceased Rimu was killed by respondent No.1 and that she was tortured, for number fulfillment of dowry on demand, prosecution was launched.
1 to 3.
He also relied on the evidence of Soma Ganguly PW.4 , the sister of the deceased and Dipti Dutta Roy PW 19 a resident of Nazir Began and a close neighbour of the place where the deceased used to reside with her husband before her death.
The trial proceeded when the accused pleaded number guilty to such charge.
Due to number payment of dowry money of Rs.10,000/ , the bride Rimu had to face ill treatment and torture at the hands of her husband Dipak, her mother in law Dipali and also her brother in law Pradip.
Getting this information, the wife of the informant rushed to the spot.
On that occasion, the victim Rimu with her husband Dipak stayed for 3 weeks in the house of Bimalendu Ganguly P.W.1 , the father of the victim.
All the three accused were also charged under Section 498 A read with Section 34 IPC.
He, however, held that charge under Section 498A stood proved against all the three accused and passed the order of companyviction and sentence.
It is alleged that after the marriage Rimu was physically tortured and she was often denied food.
Although the other articles which he agreed to give by way of marriage gift were duly given.
Rimu was taken to the hospital by the local people in the car of Mrs. Binita Dhar.
Even at that time she was abused and insulted by her husband Dipak before the local people.
The learned Judge also companysidered the statement made by the accused Dipak on being examined under Section 313 Cr.
Even the quarrel was going on immediately before the fire, iii the doors and windows of the house were closed at the time of the fire, iv the post mortem report suggested that Rimu had been assaulted previous to the fire, v deceased Rimu tried to save herself from the hands of the accused Dipak and for the reason came out of the house and took shelter in the house of Tejender Narayan Bose vi there was numberevidence that accused Dipak tried to save deceased deceased Rimu or raised any alarm, vii when the neighbours to put off the fire accused Dipak was seen hurling abuses to the deceased and her parents.
Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against accused Dipak Haldar for causing the death of the victim Rimu.
P.C. admitting that often he created pressure upon the deceased for companyking various items of food.
Coupled with this, the learned Judge also companysidered some other circumstances like i the wearing apparels of the victim companytained smell of kerosene oil and the stove of the house did number burst, ii there was quarrel between the companyple in the night previous to the incident.
Respondent No.1 Dipak Halder was married to one Rimu hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the three appellants before it who are described hereinafter as accused number 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
