Form No. J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present : The Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha And The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay CRA 180 of 2015 Kartick Das @ Kangsabanik Vs. The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Surajit Basu Mr. Sougata Mitra Mr. Nikhil Gupta Ms. Soma Chakraborty Ms. Jasika Alam Mr. Subhadeep Maitra For the State : Dr. Pradip Banerjee, A.P.P. Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi Heard on : 14th July, 2026 Judgment on : 14th July, 2026 Rajasekhar Mantha, J.: 1. The subject appeal is directed against judgment and/or order of conviction dated 19th February, 2015 and 20th February, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Purulia in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No.291 of 2011. The sole appellant Kartick Das @ Kangsabanik was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine he has to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. 2 THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the victim, Sarita Das @ Kangsabanik, was married to the appellant on 18th February, 2011. On 28th August, 2011, within six months of the marriage, Sarita Das, the victim, died in her marital house. 3. It is alleged by the de facto complainant, P.W.-13 Rajesh Das, brother of the victim, that she was happy in her marital house for the first two months. However, thereafter the family of the appellant started torturing her demanding further dowry. The complainant further alleged that he visited his sister at Saridih village under Baghmundi Police Station several times when the victim is stated to have informed him that she was being regularly tortured and beaten in her marital house for not bringing more dowry. 4. On the fateful day i.e. on 28th August, 2011 the complainant was staying overnight at his sister’s marital house. The complainant himself was married to the appellant’s younger sister called Putul Kangsabonik @ Das. The complainant had arrived at the marital house of the victim to observe a Mansapuja at a neighbouring village. He had taken is wife, mother-in-law and sister-in-law with him to such Puja early in the morning on the said day and they came back in the afternoon around 4 p.m. At the house, however, some other female relatives including a sister of the mother-in-law of the victim were present. The complainant discovered that his sister had died upon returning to the place of occurrence. 3 5. Some persons i.e. P.W.-7 Jadugopal Kundu, P.W.-8 Chittaranjan Das, P.W.-9 Tulsi Das, P.W.-10 Manasa Pandey and P.W.-11 Tanu Das had also arrived the place of occurrence. The complainant was found crying in the courtyard of the ground floor. He did not utter a word to the aforesaid P.W.-7 to P.W.-11. Three of the said P.W.s had gone to the first floor and had discovered the victim lying covered in a cloth on a cot. The complainant and the said P.W.-7 to P.W.-11 thereafter proceeded to the Baghmundi Police Station to lodge a formal complaint. 6. The complaint was scribed by P.W.-16 Md. Aktar Hussain. Interestingly, the complainant did not speak or read or write Bengali. P.W.-16 Md. Aktar Hussain is stated to have narrated the written complaint to the complainant. 7. The body of the victim was brought to the Baghmundi Police Station where inquest was conducted by P.W.-6 Diptaraka Basu, a local Block Development Officer. Several marks of injuries were found on the body of the victim by the inquest officer. 8. P.W.-1 Gopal Kaibarta, an official of the Baghmundi Police Station carried the body of the victim for post mortem, which was performed by P.W.-14 Dr. Amal Nath. The opinion of the post mortem doctor was that the victim was throttled by another person given several nail mark injuries, found on her neck. The victim died of asphyxia. The death was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The post mortem doctor listed several other injuries on the body of the victim. 4 9. The appellant and his mother and sister were arrested. Investigation was conducted by P.W.-15 S.I. Sahadev Jana, the first investigating officer. The charge sheet was filed by P.W.-12 S.I. Abhijit Singha, the second investigating officer. THE TRIAL:- 10. Charges were framed against the appellant and his mother and sister under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court on 15th February, 2012. 11. P.W.-1 Gopal Kaibarta, an official of the Baghmundi Police Station, was a seizure witness to the wearing apparels of the victim. He carried the body of the victim after inquest from the police station to the post mortem doctor at Purulia Sadar Hospital. 12. P.W.-2 Naresh Kangsabanik was a cousin of the appellant and was declared hostile. He deposed that the victim was never tortured and was happy in her marital house. 13. P.W.-3 Anjali Kangsabanik was a local villager, who knew the appellant and his family. She deposed that the victim came to their house often but never disclosed anything about torture being inflicted on her by the family of the appellant. She was not declared hostile. 14. P.W.-4 Makhan Kangsabani, a local resident, also did not know how the victim died. In cross-examination, however, he deposed that the appellant left the house at 7 a.m. on his bicycle carrying several utensils 5 for sale as part of his occupation. He further deposed that the body of the victim was found on the banks of a local river called Subarnarakha on the side of the village. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 15. P.W.-5 Methar Kangsabani was also declared hostile. He denied that the victim was tortured or murdered by her in-laws. He also deposed that the victim’s body was found on the banks of the local river called Subarnarakha near the village. 16. P.W.-6 Diptaraka Basu was the Block Development Officer of Mathurapur Block-I, who conducted the inquest. The inquest report and his signature were marked as Exhibit-3 with objection. 17. P.W.-7, P.W.-8, P.W.-9, P.W.-10 and P.W.-11 were Jadugopal Kundu, Chittaranjan Das, Tulsi Das, Manasa Pandey and Tanu Das respectively. They had all together arrived at the place of occurrence after coming to know of the death of the victim from other persons. 18. They had all together arrived at the place of occurrence after coming to know of the death of the victim from other persons. PW-7 deposed that it is the complainant who was informed by the victim to take her away from the marital house. The victim is stated to have told the complainant that she was being regularly tortured in her in-law’s house and she feared for her life. 19. All the aforesaid witnesses, three of them deposed that they had gone to the first floor of the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence and had only seen the body of the victim lying on a cot. They deposed in the trial that the complainant did not utter a single word at the place of 6 occurrence against anyone and was continuously crying. They also deposed that they proceeded to the Bagmundi Police Station to lodge a complaint against the appellant and the other accused around 5.00 p.m. that evening. 20. PW-12, Abhijit Singha, was the second Investigating Officer. He detailed the completion of investigation as commenced by his predecessor PW-15. 21. PW-13, Rajesh Das, was the de facto complainant. It is most curious that the prosecution declared him hostile. It is in course of cross- examination that PW-13 confirmed that the appellant had left in the morning from the house on his bicycle to peddle utensils. He deposed that he had not instructed any scribe to draft any complaint. He did not know the scribe PW-16. The complainant confirmed that he had left in the morning to the neighbouring village along with his wife, mother-in- law and accused sister-in-law to witness a Monsa Puja in a neighbouring village. He further deposed that his sister, the victim, was tortured by the appellant and the family members. 22. PW-14, Dr. Amal Nath, was the Postmortem Doctor who detailed several injuries on the body of the victim. “On examination:- I. Congested face, neck and upper limbs. II. Eyes were closed but congested. III. Bleeing from mouth and nostrils was present. IV. Eight nails bite, left side on left side of neck, abrasion right upper neck, abrasion left palm on dorsal surface and base over left thumb and index finger on dorsal surface. 7 Transverse abrasion below right elbow. No ligature marks present. On dissection: Sucutaneous haemotoma both sides of neck and anteriorly. After dissection: 1. Brain was congested and intra-cerebral hemorrhage was present on the right side of the fron tal region. 2. Blood was present in trachea. 3. Internal organ lying lungs, liver, spleen, pancreas, kidneys were congested. So in my opinion the cause of death was due to asphyxia and due to strangulation (throttling) ante-mortem and homicidal in nature in nature. This is the original copy of P.M. Report Written by me containing my original seal and signature. P.M. report is marked as Exhibit-6. The nails marks found in 8 number were of marks of human being. From the finding I can say definitely that deceased was strangulated (throttling). 23. PW-15, Sahadev Jana, was the alleged scribe of the complaint. 24. The appellant and the other accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and all circumstances against them were duly confronted. 25. The Trial Judge based on the evidence as above and particularly the absence of any denial in the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. went on to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for life and imposed fine. The other accused, namely, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law were acquitted of all charges. 8 ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT: 26. This Court is surprised at the inferences and purported analysis by the Trial Judge. To say the least none of the findings of the Trial Judge are even remotely supported by any of the evidence on record. 27. Admittedly, the accused mother-in-law and sister-in-law had accompanied the de facto complainant to the neighbouring village from morning until afternoon and were with him observing the Monsa Puja thereat. The said two accused persons based on the evidence of the complainant himself were nowhere present in the place and time of occurrence. The victim was alive and hale and hearty when the complainant and the accused mother-in-law and sister-in-law were leaving the house, i.e., the place of occurrence, in the morning. The appellant himself, as admitted by the de facto complainant and PW-4, had left the house on a bicycle laden with utensils for sale, around 7.00 in the morning. 28. By no stretch of imagination can it be conceived that any of the accused persons were available at the place of occurrence when the victim may have died. There is no other person who is charged with the offence particularly, the lady members of the house who were, in fact, available at the place of occurrence. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. 29. The only evidence indicating foul play in the death of the victim is the report of the post mortem Doctor and to some extent the inquest report. There is no principle of participation of the appellant under 9 criminal jurisprudence that can be invoked against him or the other accused persons. Such principles could have been in the nature of a last seen theory or circumstantial evidence. Not even a single link in any chain of circumstances can be attributed to the appellant. The conviction of the appellant, based on his purported inability to explain his absence from the place of occurrence, in course of examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is wholly preposterous and against the fundamental canons of prosecution and conviction. 30. The prosecution or the investigating agency has not even attempted to include any other person, as culpable in the death of the victim. Indeed it is true that the medical evidence invariably points out to an unnatural death and murder of the victim. However, to implicate the appellant in the absence of any evidence whatsoever against him has resulted in the grave miscarriage of justice. The Trial Judge has, therefore, committed gross error in convicting the appellant. 31. While the evidence under Section 498A to some extent may be available from the deposition of PW-7 and the de facto complainant PW- 13, there is sufficient contrary evidence to indicate that the victim was happy in her marital house. 32. The prosecution has, therefore, miserably failed to establish the proof even to a limited extent the charge under Sections 498A, 304B much less under Section 302 of the IPC. 10 33. The acquittal of the accused mother-in-law and sister-in-law is just and correct. The conviction of the appellant is completely de hors the evidence on record, illegal and unsustainable in fact and law. 34. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 19th February, 2015 and 20th February, 2015 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. 35. CRA 180 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of. 36. The appellant Kartick Das @ Kangsabanik, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court shall be set at liberty and shall be discharged from his bail bonds. The appellant shall, however, execute a bond to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court, which shall remain in force for a period of six months under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. 37. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court’s Record be forthwith sent down to the trial Court. 38. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) I agree. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)