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

C.R.A. 425 of 2014

Prasenjit Mondal @ Sonai & Ors.

Versus

The State of West Bengal.

For the Appellant : Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basu, ld. Sr. Adv.,

Mr. AvijitGanguly,

Mr. Siladitya Banerjee.

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury,

Ms. Sujata Das.

Hearing concluded on : 16

th

April, 2026.

.

Judgment on : 16

th

April, 2026.

RajasekharMantha, J.:

1. The subject appeal is directed against judgmentand order of conviction

dated 4

th

June 2014 and order of sentence dated 5

th

June 2014passed

by Additional Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial

Case No. VII/March/2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 50 of

2014. The appellantswere convicted under Sections498A and Section

2

302 r/w Section34of the IPC. Appellant No.3 Mridula Mondal, mother

of Appellant No.1, died during the pendency of this appeal.

2. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs 2000 for the offence under Sec. 302, IPC. In default, to further

undergo an imprisonment for 6 months. The appellants were sentenced

to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 for

the offence under Sec. 498A, IPC. In default, to further undergo an

imprisonment for 2 months. The period ofdetentionundergone during

investigation and trial was to be set off from aforesaid imprisonment.

THE PROSECUTION CASE, EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND ANALYSIS

OF THIS COURT

3. PW 1 was Madan Mohan Mahala . He was the complainant and father of

the victim. He stated in his complaint dated June 30

th, 2012 to the

Anandapur PS that his daughter was murdered by his son-in-law and

his parents, in her matrimonial home. MonimalaMondal @ Mampiwas

the victim. She was an Honours Graduate in Philosophy.

4. PW-1 was a cultivator having about 20 bighas of land and several tube-

wells. The victim was married to the appellant no.

1,PrasenjitMondal,@Sonai, son of LaxmikantaMondalAppellant No.2

and MridulaMondal, Appellant No.3 on 5

th

July, 2011. The marriage

was arranged and was held in the house of PW-10, Sandip Chowdhury .

A girl child was born from the wedlock, sometime in April 2012.The

victim was pretty and educated.

3

5. PW 1 further deposed that in course of such marriage negotiations, gifts

such as a large size of cot, bronze and brass utensils and gold ornaments

were presented to the newly wedded couple.They were gifted by PW-1.

The marriage was performed by PW-7, Sananda Chakraborty, the priest,

who performed the ceremony, confirmed the delivery of the wedding

gifts.A sum of Rs.50,000 was also promised to the appellants by PW-1

which was not paid.

6. The PWs 1-5 and the PWs 8, 9, 10 and 11 deposed that the appellants of

the victim used to torture her right from the inception of

hermarriage.The appellants regularlydemanded for dowry from the

victim. PW 1 has deposed that he promised at the time of marriage to

give a dowry of Rs 50,000 in cash,as was demanded by the appellants

but could not pay the said amount.

7. On the first ‘Jamaisasthi’(a Bengali ritual where the son-in-law and

daughter are ceremoniously fed and presented gifts by the girl’s family)

once a year after the wedding, the appellant Prasenjit Mondal @ Sonai

visited the house of his in-laws namely PW 1 and PW 3, Shikha Mahala,

the mother of the victim.

8. PW 1 has deposed that the appellant no. 1 demanded dowry of an ad-hoc

sum of Rs 20,000 during the said visit.He however could only give Rs.

4,500/- to the appellant no. 1either from a bank accountor from his own

funds.

4

9. While PW-1 and PW-3 have deposed that both their daughter (victim) and

son-in-law, the appellant no. 1, together came to their house for

‘jamaisasthi’, the appellant no. 1 has denied the same in his examination

under Section 313 of the CRPC. He stated that he went alone on his

motor-cycle. This appears to be unusual as on occasion of jamaisasthi’

normally the daughter and son-in-law,together visittheformer’s parental

house.

10. Be that as it may, on 29

th

June, 2012, the marriage of daughter of

DW-4, Abhijit Karan, was being solemnized.Usual invitations to friends

and families and neighbors were sent. The appellants lived in a village

called ‘Karangpota’. The parents of the victim lived in a place called

‘Shithli’, at a distance of about 80 kms.

11. The defense has run the case that the three appellants and other

members of their family went to attend the marriage in the house of DW-

4 around the time of occurrence of the crime. Four DWs, 3 of whom were

neighbors and co-villagers, were examined to establish the alibi of the

appellants.

12. The exact time when the appellants left the house of DW 4, which

is very crucial to the case of the defense as well as the prosecution, is,

however, not available on record. The alibi therefore has not come to the

aid of the appellants.The evidence of DW-1 to DW-4 only suggests that

the appellants left their house ataround 7-7.30 pm.

5

13. The said defense witnesses were engaged in the potato farming and

meat business. They were holding a meeting of a political party near to

the place of occurrence, i.e., the house of the appellants. They heard a

sound from the house of the appellants and particularly the sound of a

child crying. They arrived at the place of occurrence along with other

persons and found the door of the two-storied house closed by a grill

without lock, behind the collapsible grill was a door.

1. They immediately summoned one Panchanan Babu, grandfather

of the appellant no. 1. He opened the main door when PW -1 to PW 4

and others entered the house. They thereafter went to the first floor of

the house and found the door locked from inside.

2. Panchanan Babu peeping through a window on the bedroom

located in the first floor found the victim Monimala hanging from the

ceiling hook, tied with a saree around her neck. They brought the body

down and removed the saree from the neck of the victim. A local doctor

was summoned, who declared the victim dead.

3. Upon being informed, the appellants left the marriage ceremony at

the house of DW-4 and came back home. One of the brothers of the

appellant no. 1 informed the parents of the victim that the victimis ill.

The family of the victim and relatives arrived at the P.O. later in the night

in three vehicles.

6

4. PW-1 has deposed that he found several injuries on the body of the

victim and a light ligature mark on her neck. He also found ligature

markson the wrist of the victim, which indicated that the wrists of the

victim were tied. The PWs have deposed that upon arrival of the

appellants and finding the victim had died, the latterhad a brief

conversion with their family members and the family of the victim.

5. PW-1 and PW-2 and others went to the local police station.

Anandapur Police Station, later in the night, which refused to formally

record FIR until PW-2, brother of PW-1, formally wrote out a complaint.

The said complaint stated that the marriage of the victim was solemnized

a year ago and that there were regular torture inflicted by the appellants

on the victim for the failure of the latter to bring dowry from her paternal

home.

6. The dowry was probably agreed at the amount of Rs. 50,000/-.

This waspromised by PW-1 to the appellants at the time of negotiating

the marriage. The appellants were named as the accused persons in the

said complaint for ending the life of the victim.

7. The police arrived at the PO the next morning. In course of inquest

conducted by a Magistrate around 10-10:30 AM, on the next day i.e. 30

th

of June, 2012, several black bruises were found on the victim’s body and

two injuries were found on the left arm. Another bruise was found with a

blood clot on the back of the victim and an injury on the vertebral

column. PW 1 attended the inquest along with the appellant no. 1. PW 1

7

did not indicate to the police as to the reasons or circumstances under

which the victim died. The said silence of PW 1 may be attributed to

thepresence ofhis son-in-law at the time of inquest.

8. The body was sent later, for post mortem and PW 15 Dr. Samar

Sinha Das conducted it. Injuries on the body of the victim and the cause

of death recorded by the P. M. Doctor are as follows :

1) “Multiple abrasions of varying shape and sizes from ¼” x

¼” to ½” x ½” placed irregularly almost all over the body.

Abrasions were fresh and non scabbed.

2) Abrasion 7”x3” placed transversely over mid part of front

of neck equally on both sides.On dissection I found

extensive extravasation of blood 7”x4” placed transversely

over mid part of front of neck equally on both sides with

fracture of hyoid bone & thyroid cartilage.

3) Bruise 5” x 5” placed over right scapular region.

4) Bruise 6” x 5” placed over left scapular region.

5) Bruise 5” x 5” placed over left gluteal region.

6) Bruise 5” x 4” placed over right gluteal region.

7) Bruise 3” x 3” placed over right malar prominence.

8) Bruise 3” x 2” placed over left malar prominence.

9) Bruise 7” x 4” placed over postero-lateral aspect of left

arm.

10) Bruise 7” x 3” placed over postero-lateral aspect of

right arm.

11) Bruise 6” x 3” placed over back of right forearm.

12) Bruise 6” x 3” placed over back of left forearm.

13) Bruise 10” x 5” placed over postero-lateral aspect of

right thigh.

14) Bruise left eye measuring 3”x3”. Bruises were red in

colour. The injuries showed evidence of vital reactions. No

other injury could be detected even on careful dissection

& examination under a hand lens.

8

All the injuries showed evidences of vital reactions. I

found no other injuries, even on careful dissection and

examination under a hand lens.

Death was in my opinion due to the effect of strangulation

associated with injuries as noted in my report, ante

mortem and homicidal in nature.

This is the post mortem report consisting of all three

pages in computerized print and duly signed by me with

date and official seal, (exhibit-9). It is prepared as per my

instruction, direction and words.

By evidences of vital reaction it can be said that the

deceased was severely assaulted.

The ligature mark on the neck as detected is possible by

strangulation by a synthetic ‘saree’.”

9. In the meantime, Anandapur Police Station based on the written

complaint of the PW 1 dated 30.06.2012 recorded FIR being no. 42 of

2012 dated 30.06.2012 under Section 498A, 304B and 302 of the IPC

read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. FIR was

recorded at about 9 a.m. Inquest was conducted at about an hour later

i.e. 10 a.m.

10. Charges were framed against the three accused persons, Prasenjit

Mondal, Laksmikanta Mondal and Mridula Mondal under Section

498A/304B/302 read with Section 34 of the IPC on 02.04.2013 by the

trial court. The trial commenced.

11. Mr. SekharBasu, learned senior advocate, appearing for the

appellants has relied on paragraph 11 of the decision of a Co-ordinate

Bench in the case of Mobarak Sk. @ Mobarak Hossain and others Vs.

State of West Bengal reported in 2011(1) Calcutta Criminal L. R.(Cal)

9

687. The said casehowever on face of it becomes distinguishable on

facts.

12. In Mobarak decision (supra), FIR was recorded immediately after

the inquest. The FIR named the accused persons. The inquest report,

however, did not do so. Sincethe FIR was lodged just after the conduction

of the inquest, a coordinate Bench held that the inquest report ought to

have recorded the names of the accused persons. The naming of the

appellants in the FIR was thus found to be suspect and an afterthought.

13. In this case however,the FIR has been recorded much before the inquest

based on the complaint by PW 1. The FIR named the appellants as

accused. PW 1 did not name the appellants as accused in the inquest

since the latter were present during the inquest. The Mobarak Sk.

Decision(supra) is thus not applicable to this case.

14. PW 1 has deposed that after marriage,his daughter often called him

crying with regard to the regular demands of dowry made by the

appellants,the physical assault by the appellant no. 1 as well as the

taunting abuses of the appellant no. 2 and 3 on her.

15. PW 1 has deposed that on 26

th

June, 2012 i.e. on the day of

“JamaiSasthi”, the appellants and the victim came to their house when

the appellants once again demanded dowry and were willing to settle for

ananad-hoc amount of Rs.20,000/- for the time being.

10

16. On 29

th of June, 2012 the victim is stated to have called his cousin

sister, KakaliPahan, PW 4 and was groaning in pain. The victim asked

PW 4,to take care of the minor daughter of the victim if the latter did not

survive. The phone callgot disconnected. Admittedly, the phone or call

data record was not seized by the Police.

17. PW 1 has further deposed that he was initially informed by the other

prosecution witnesses that the victim may have consumed poison and is

taken to the Hospital. He was later informed bythe father of the appellant

no. 1 that the victim was ill.

18. PW 1 reached the PO accompanied by the fellow villagers, friends, PW-2

and other persons in three vehicles. They arrived at the place of

occurrence late in the night. He confirmed that the victim was found lying

on the floor of a mat with the table fan placed near her. He deposed on

the lines of the prosecution case as narrated hereinabove.

19. PW 1 was extensively cross-examined by the appellants. PW-1 has

withstoodthe cross-examination. PW-2 was Badal Mahala, brother of

PW-1 and PW-3 was Sikha Mahala, wife of PW-1. They deposed on the

same line as PW-1.

20. The star witnesses of the prosecution were PW-4, KakaliPahan and PW-

5,Naba Kumar Pahan, whose statements under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure were recorded before PW-16 a Judicial Magistrate.

11

PW-4 has confirmed that she was the cousin sister, with whom the victim

often spoke over phone.

21. PW 4 has deposed that she shared a mobile phone with her husband

Naba Kumar Pahan (PW-5) . On being called by the victim, PW-4 initially

did not pick up the phone. She called back the victim and heard her

crying andgroaning in pain.

22. PW 4 further confirmed torture and severe beating by the appellant no.1

and stated that in the absence or death of the victim, PW-4 would have to

take care of her little child. The phone was disconnected by the victim

immediately. Attempts by PW-4 and PW-5 to call back the victim failed.

PW-4 and PW-5 confirmed that the victim was groaning in pain.

23. PW-6, a Co-villager was declared hostile. He deposed that the victim

was happy in her matrimonial home. He denied the entire prosecution

case. PW-8 was also declared hostile along with PW-7, who deposed on

the same lines as PW-6.

24. The prosecution case was supported primarily by the evidence of PW-1,

PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-10 and PW-11. Each of them confirmed

that the victim had told themthat shewas tortured on a regular basis by

the appellants. Some of the witnesses also indicated that the appellant

no.1 was a habitual and compulsive drunkard.

12

25. PW-17, was the Investigating Officer of the case, S.I. Jiban Krishna

Das. Indeed as argued by Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel and his

learned Junior Mr. Ganguly that some of the prosecution witnesses did

not inform the Investigating Officer during investigation that the victim

was tortured. In fact PW-4 and PW-5 did not inform the I.O. about the

phone call with the victim on that fateful day. CDR and the mobile phone

of PW-4 and PW-5 were not seized by the I.O.

26. Learned counsels for the appellants have argued the story of prosecution

witnesses having received calls from the victim on the fateful day emerged

for the first time in course of the trial. This omission to the IO will not

ipso facto render the factum of calls being made by the victim to PW 4

unbelievable when the same is deposed in the trial and has withstood the

test of cross-examination.

27. In fact, PW 4 and 5 in their statement before the magistrate have related

the calls made by the victim to the former. PW 4 and 5 may have been in

a trauma when they were interrogated by the police. Thus, they could not

recall such calls made by the victim to them.

28. The consistency of the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 tendered in the

trialwith their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure makes up for the omission to inform the IO about the

said calls made by the victim. The evidence of assault and torture by the

appellant no.1, husband of the victim is clearly established from the

13

evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5,duly supported by the

evidence of PW-10.

29. While it is true that the prosecution evidence has not clearly indicated

that any of the appellants were present in the house at the place and time

of occurrence, what, however, stands out before this Court is the injuries

on the body of the victim indicated by the Post Mortem Doctor.

30. The said injuries could not have been inflicted by the victim on herself.

The said injuries further lend credence to the evidences of PW-1 to PW-5

and PW-9 to PW-11 that the victim was continuously harassed, severely

assaulted and tortured for dowry. The bruises inflicted on the victim were

anti mortem and severe. The injuries have established that the victim was

most likely strangulated to death or committed suicide unable to bear the

torture.

31. The victim was either hanged by PW-1 and the other appellant or

committed suicide by hanging herself. In either case, the offences under

Section 302 and/or Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are clearly and

completely attracted, and warranted the maximum punishment.

32. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel for

the appellants has argued the appellant no.1 visited the house of the

victim on Jamaisasthi. Thus, the victim cannot be murdered by the

appellant no. 1 just after two days.

14

33. The said argument pales when we take note of the events that took place

in the paternal house of the victim on the said Jamaisasthi. The appellant

asked for Rs 20,000 from PW 1 on the said day of Jamaisasthi. The

victim protested against the said demand. PW 1could only pay Rs 4,500.

Thus, the appellant no. 1 was not satisfied with the victim and PW 1. He

threatened the victim with dire consequences.

34. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has next argued that the

appellants took the victim to a Hospital during the birth of her first child.

They took care of the victim and child in her womb. The birth of a child is

not peculiar to the victim. The child wasablessing for everyone in the

family. Thus, the conduct of the appellants towards the victim should not

be assessed on their conduct towardsa child born from the wedlock of the

victim and appellant. The appellants wanted money from the victim’s

family, which they did not receive, and hence followed the torture.

35. PW 4 has deposed that in absence of the victim, she was to take care of

the girl child. The victim on that fateful day informed PW 4 over phone

that the minor child should be taken care of by the latter if the former

dies. The victim thus did not trust the appellants with the child.

36. Thus, the appellants were not concerned about the future of the child

after her birth. If they had so, they would not have persisted with their

illegal demand for dowry. The child was placed in State custody after the

death of the victim.

15

37. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants

arrived at the PO from the wedding and were in tears when they saw the

dead body of the victim. The same is an emotional argument.

38. The medical evidence and the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, particularly PW-

4 and PW-5 invariably indicate torture of the victim over a year and

physical assault from time to time and the brutal injuries inflicted on her

before she was forced to either end her life or being killed by the

appellants.

39. The alibi has not assisted the appellants. Thus, the injuries inflicted on

the victim and the dissatisfaction of the appellant no.1 arising from not

receiving Rs 20,000 indicates that the appellants have reason to kill the

victim.The injuries are such that could not have been inflicted by the

victim on herself.

40. The chain of circumstances discussed hereinabove have established the

following:-

a) The appellants used to torture the victim for being unable to

bring Rs 50,000 from her parental home. The said amount was

demanded at the time of marriage.

b) The appellants made the father of the victim undertake that he

shall pay the said amount of dowry after the marriage.

c) The father of the victim was not poor. He owned 20 Bighas of

land. Thus, the appellants aggressively insisted on dowry. PW 1

however could not pay the full dowry. He had 20 Bighas of land.

16

He, however, did not have liquid money. The victim was regularly

tortured at her matrimonial home. The PM Doctor has found

severe injuries on the dead body of the victim, which have been

suffered over a period of time. The appellant No.1 was an

alcoholic and the injuries on victim in such state is often more

severe than usual.

d) On the fateful day, the victim, after being severely assaulted

tried to call PW 4, her cousin sister. She wanted to inform that

her life is in danger. PW 4 has heard that the victim was asking

for help and crying in pain. Thereafter, the dead body of the

victim was found.

e) The appellants attempted to run the case that they were present

in the house of DW 4 to attend a marriage ceremony. They,

however, could not specify the time of their departure and arrival

at the home of DW 4. The alibi raised thus failed.

f) Appellant No. 1, 2 days before the fateful day visited his in-laws'

house. Theappellant no.1 did not get the dowry as demanded. He

thus returned home with the victim. The appellant no.1, was,

thus clearly present at the PO with the victim.

g) The medical evidence has established that the victim was

strangled to death after being severely injured. The victim thus

died by human intervention. The appellant no.1 who took the

17

victim from her parental home to the matrimonial home thus

cannot escape the burdento explain as to who killed the victim.

41. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant no.1,

namely, Prasenjit Mondal @ Sonai by the Trial Judge calls for no

interference whatsoever.

42. However, in so far as the surviving appellant, namely, Laxmikanta

Mondal, this Court finds no clear evidence implicating him or

demonstrating any specific role played by him in committing any offence

under Section 302 or Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the

victim.

43. Mridula Mondal, the appellant no.3 has died during the pendency of the

appeal. Except a murmur or two from same prosecution witnesses there

is no direct evidence linking any specific role that can be assigned to or

inferred against Mridula Mondal either. This Court, therefore, is of the

view that the role of Laxmikanta Mondal and Mridula Mondal has not

established beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution.

44. Thus, his Court is of the view that the surviving appellant, namely,

Laxmikanta Mondal must be acquitted.

45. In the facts and circumstances of the case, C.R.A. 425 of 2014 is

dismissed against the appellant no.1, Prosenjit Mondal @ Sonai. The

appeal is allowed in so far as the surviving second appellant Laxmikanta

Mondal is concerned.

18

46. C.R.A. 425 of 2014along with CRAN 4 of 2026is hereby disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

47. It is submitted that the appellant no.2, Laxmikanta Mondal is on bail, his

bail bond shall stand discharged and he shall be set at liberty.

48. Let the TCR along with a copy of this judgment be returned back to the

trial Court for necessary action.

49. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded

from the official website of this Court.

(RajasekharMantha, J.)

I agree.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)