Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. AppellantNo. 2, Dulal Mondal expired during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal was directed to have been abated as against him by order dated December 12, 2023.

6. The case was initiated on the basis of written complaint lodged by one Narayan Chandra Mondal on June 16, 1998. The de facto complainant stated that at the relevant point of time, he was residing at Jabbalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in connection with his job in theJabbalpurDiesel Factory. He further stated that his third daughter i.e. the victim was married to the appellant Tarak Chandra Mondal on April 17, 1998. The marriage was solemnized at the house of brother-in-law of the de facto complainant at Kanchan Nagar within Burdwan P.S. The de facto complainant returned to his place of work after the solemnization of marriage and his victim daughter went to her matrimonial house and started residing in matrimony with the appellants.

7. The de facto complainant also stated that he had written several letters to the father-in-law of his daughter but the said letters were never responded to by the father-in-law or the husband of the victim. Thereafter, the second son- in-law and one cousin of the de facto complainant visited the matrimonial house of the victim on the day of JamaiSasthi when they stayed there for three days. At that time, they came to know that the victim was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and parents-in-law since after her marriage. The victim also requested the aforesaid persons to inform the de facto complainant. The cousin of the de facto complainant namely Khokon Roy informed the de facto complainant that tortures were being inflicted upon the victim by her in-laws. Hearing this, the de facto complainant decided to visit the matrimonial house of the victim in the month of June.

8. The written complaint also disclosed that on June 14, at about 3.45 p.m., one SubhankarHalder informed him over telephone that the victim had suddenly died at her matrimonial house. The de facto complainant and his brother took a train from Jabalpur on June 14, 1998 at about 11.40 p.m. and after getting down at BardhamanstationonJune 16, 1998 at 7 a.m., they immediately rushed to the matrimonial house of the victim and met the saidSubhankarHaldar. He came to know that the victim consumed poison on June 14, at her matrimonial house. She was taken to hospital at about 8/8.30 hrs. and she died shortly thereafter. The dead body was then sent to Durgapur Sub-Divisional Hospital. The de facto complainant also stated in the written complaint that the marriage of the victim was solemnized two months prior to the incident. She was subjected to torture by her husband and parents-in-law and she was even abetted to commit suicide. According to the written complaint, magnitude of such torture was of such a nature that drove the victim to commit suicide.

33. The fact whether such poison was forcefully or otherwise administered to the victim by the appellants or the appellants subjected the victim to any kind of cruelty, harassment or produced such circumstances which drove the victim to consume poison, is to be ascertained from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

34. The case made out in the First Information Report discloses that the de facto complainant came to know from his cousin brother Khokan Roy and his son-in-law Dilip Roy that the victim was subjected to torture by her in-laws over minimal faults in the household works and was abetted to commit suicide. They had visited the matrimonial house of the victim when they were informed by the victim of such torture. Hearing this, the de facto complainant decided to visit the matrimonial house of his victim daughter in the month of June, 1998. However, before he could visit, as planned, the victim died.