S.C. Das, J. - (1.)DOWRY is a serious social evil. An offence of dowry death is a most hated crime. The Legislature has made stringent laws to deal with the devilish acts of dowry by enacting the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and incorporating in the Penal Code too, Section 498A and Section 304B as well as Section 113B in the Evidence Act. The menace of dowry still survives. What needs to be borne in mind is that howsoever serious a charge may be against an accused, the offence alleged to have been committed by him must be proved in accordance with law. The Court of law should not be swayed simply by the gravity of the offence but should consider the case as a whole and should not draw assumption and presumption based on his common sense putting apart the facts brought in evidence by the parties. No doubt, in cases of offence relating to woman the role of the Courts assumes significant importance. The Supreme Court in the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in : (1993) 2 SCC 684 : 1993 Cri.L.J. 1635 has held that the role of courts, under the circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities or insignificant lacunae in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.
(2.)HERE is a case, the accused -appellant has been convicted for dowry death. The marriage of accused -appellant, Janardhan Debnath was solemnized with Sangita Debnath about four years before her death(death occurred on 10.10.2010). It is an undisputed rather an admitted fact that Sangita died an unnatural death on receipt of 96 percent burn injury all over her body. According to the prosecution, she was subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home on demand of dowry. On the other hand the accused persons contended that the deceased was accidentally caught with fire and as a result she died.
Sri Parimal Debnath (P.W. 2), father of deceased Sangita, set the law in motion by filing an FIR in writing before O/C Santirbazar P.S. on 11.10.2010 at about 2030 hrs. alleging that marriage of Sangita was solemnized with accused Janardhan about four years ago on a 21st of Vaishakha of the Bengali calendar year and thereafter Sangita went to her husband's house at Takmacherra under Santirbazar P.S. and started living there. In the marriage he had given Rs. 50,000/ - (rupees fifty thousand) in cash, one Pulsar motor bike, golden ornaments and other utensils, bed and beddings, etc. as dowry. After about six months of marriage Sandhya Rani Debnath (mother -in -law), Manika Debnath (sister -in -law) and Pradip Debnath (husband of sister -in -law), all inflicted physical and mental torture on her saying that they would sell away the Pulsar motor bike given at the time of marriage and that another costly motor bike costing Rs. 1.5 lakhs should be given and since the motor bike was not given as demanded by the husband, mother -in -law, sister -in -law and the husband of sister's -in -law, all inflicted physical and mental torture on Sangita. On different phase he gave Rs. 55,000/ - (rupees fifty five thousand) but the amount could not please the accused persons and they continued to inflict torture on Sangita. There were 2/3 Panchayat meetings and in spite of giving assurance in the Panchayat still Sangita was subjected to torture. He alleged that on 10.10.2010 at about 8.00 PM husband, mother -in -law, sister -in -law and the husband of the sister's -in -law of Sangita, together tied her hands and legs, poured kerosene on her body and thereafter set her to fire and as a result his daughter died in G.B. Hospital on that day, i.e. on the date of lodging the FIR.

(3.)BASED on the F.I.R. Santirbazar P.S. Case No. 73 of 2010 was registered under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and initially investigation was taken up by S.I. Dipu Deb Barma (P.W. 15) but subsequently investigation was done by SDPO Amitabha Pal (P.W. 16) and he laid the charge sheet against accused -appellant, Janardhan Debnath, his mother Sandhya Rani Debnath, sister Manika Debnath and husband of Manika, namely Pradip Debnath, arraying them as accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC.