Judgment Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 7th June, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 12th Court, 24- Parganas (South), Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 6(6)97 (State v. Ashoke Singh and Anr.) by which both the accused persons were convicted for offences punishable under sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 8th June, 2001 both the convicts were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were however, directed to run concurrently. 2. THE facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: On 6th October, 1994 at 12 hours Tapasi was hospitalized, with burn injuries, by Bibhuti (P.W. 6) a relation of her husband. She died on 7th October, 1994. THE records of the hospital contained two stories as regards the cause of the injury. (a) There is a statement purporting to have been made by the, patient that she poured kerosene oil on her body and ignited herself by throwing a match stick. (b) There is another statement of the patient as regards the cause of injury, purporting to have been recorded by the attending doctor wherein it is stated that wife she was cooking food, her sari caught fire. The husband and the mother-in-law, the two accused persons in this case were found taking care of the victim. There was no attempt on their part to escape or run away. On 7th October, 1994, a written complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased alleging that soon after the marriage the victim used to be assaulted by the accused persons. It is also alleged that there was a demand for dowry which was allegedly met by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- by the elder sister of the deceased. But the torture allegedly continued unabated. Ultimately the victim ended her life by setting herself on fire. It is alleged that the victim was compelled to commit suicide due to continuous torture inflicted by the accused persons. 3. But the torture allegedly continued unabated. Ultimately the victim ended her life by setting herself on fire. It is alleged that the victim was compelled to commit suicide due to continuous torture inflicted by the accused persons. 3. THE learned trial Court appears to have been convinced with the case of the prosecution and recorded the following findings :- ".....This also leads us to the conclusion that burning of Tapasi was not accidental one but suicidal. Now from the facts and circumstances and materials on record and other surrounding circumstances it appears that Tapasi was subjected to inhuman physical and mental torture by the accused persons and she committed suicide by setting fire on herself to escape from that torture and both the accused persons abetted commission of suicide by Tapasi..........." 4. THE reasons advanced by the learned trial Court in support of the aforesaid finding, to be precise, are as follows :- ".............We also find that the P.W.s 1 and 2 who happen to be the father and brother of Tapasi only visited her matrimonial home once. They heard about the torture upon Tapasi from Arati. P.W. 4 also stated that he also heard about the torture upon Tapasi from his wife i.e. P.W. 3 and hence we find that P.W. 3 is the pivot of this case. P.W. 3 has categorically stated that Tapasi was subjected to torture by the accused persons: THE accused Ashoke Singh in his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. also stated inter alia his father-in-law and brother-in-law i.e. P.W.s 1 and 2 did not visit their house but P.W. 3 Arati Kundu at times used to visit them. So, I again say that Arati Kundu (P.W. 3) was found to be in touch with Tapasi all along. Her statement as to torture has almost remained unassailed. Again we find that inspite of such relation with Tapasi P.W. 3 was not informed at the time and place of delivery when Tapasi needed her assistance; more. It is to be stated that she was not only the sister but more than that who brought her (Tapasi) up since the age of 3 years and gave her in marriage and looked after her. THE learned defence Lawyer has stated that as a close relative she might be an interested witness. It is to be stated that she was not only the sister but more than that who brought her (Tapasi) up since the age of 3 years and gave her in marriage and looked after her. THE learned defence Lawyer has stated that as a close relative she might be an interested witness. But it is to be stated that being such a close relative she had the opportunity to know the life history of Tapasi. I would admit that there might be tendency of exaggeration and evidence of such a person is required to be scan with great caution but that does not mean that even the more truthful and honest versions are to be thrown aside. Again we find that she (P.W. 3) was not present at the first eating rice ceremony of Tapasi's daughter which is not accepted. Such situations go to show that the accused persons always did not maintain good relations even with Arati and her family. These circumstances also speak in favour of torture............" Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal submitted that there is practically no evidence to support the allegation that the alleged suicide was abetted by the accused persons or any one of them. He also contended, that there is no evidence to satisfactorily establish that any ill treatment was ever meted out by the husband or the mother-in-law to the deceased. According to him, the alleged demand for dowry is a myth which has been introduced with an ulterior purpose of procuring conviction for a wrong which was never committed by any of the accused persons. He invited up to consider the question in the light of the statement made by the victim herself to the attending physician which was recorded by the attending physician in the bed-head ticket itself in the usual course of his business which reads as follows :- As stated by the patient that while she was cooking her shari caught fire, cold water applied to extinguish the fire and she was taken immediately to S.S.K.M. Hospital...." 5. MR. Mitra invited us to view, this piece of evidence in the light of the deposition of the P.W. 7 Dr. Mondal who during his cross-examination deposed as follows: "... MR. Mitra invited us to view, this piece of evidence in the light of the deposition of the P.W. 7 Dr. Mondal who during his cross-examination deposed as follows: "... It appears from bed head ticket inter alia that the attending Doctor wrote the history of the case as follows :- "As stated by the patient that while she was cooking her shari caught fire, cold water applied to extinguish the fire and she was taken immediately to S.S.K.M. Hospital." All the entries in bed head ticket were made in course of discharge of official duty by on duty Doctor..... 6. MR. Mitra drew our attention to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act which provides as follows : "..........(2) or is made in course of business.-When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him...." He submitted that any statement recorded by the attending physician in the ordinary course of business in discharge of his official duty is a relevant fact which cannot be discarded without compelling reasons. The accused persons should have, been acquitted by the learned trial Court according to him. He has also taken us through the other circumstances/pieces/parts of the evidence in order to demonstrate that the conviction cannot be sustained which are tabulated herein-below :- a) Dr. P. B. Das (RW.8) who conducted the post-mortem Examination did not rule out the possibility of the death being accidental. He, as a matter of fact deposed as follows : "......This type of injuries as in the instant case may be accidental suicidal or homicidal in nature......."; b) Both the accused persons during their examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code stated about accidental fire; c) P.W. 6 as regards the relationship between the victim and the accused persons depose as follows :- Ashoke Singh and his wife had cordial relations. Their family was happy along with the in-laws i.e. the parents of Ashoke Singh..." P.W. 5 deposed as regards the everyday routine of the accused persons as follows :- "....My mother does work as female cook in several houses and as such, she goes out of home in the early morning and return back at evening. My brother Ashoke Singh is a service- holder at Calcutta Corporation and as such he is required to start from home at 8 a.m. for attending his place of work and return back at about 7 p.m. As such, on each day during the hours of noon, my father (while he was alive) and Tapasi used to stay in the home and nobody else........" The aforesaid daily routine of the accused persons go a long way to probabilise the statement made by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code; d) P.W. 4 is the husband of the RW.3. Learned trial Court evidently has relied upon the evidence of the P.W.s 3 and 4. P.W. 4, the husband of the P.W. 3 deposed inter alia, as follows :- i) ".......Tapasi had come to my home at 10/1/D, while she was only 3 years, for staying with my wife Aarati. Tapasi had read upto Class III....'' ii) Whenever, Tapasi used to come to my home, once or twice in every month, I had the opportunity in most of times of her such visit, to meet her, and I used to have talk with her...." iii) "....Tapasi did not make any such complaint against her husband to me directly. I heard about all such incidents of torture upon Tapasi by her husband from my wife...." P.W. 4, husband of the P.W. 3 appears to have reared up the victim from the time when she was a toddler. He was also instrumental in giving in her in marriage. The victim used to come to the house of the P.W. 4 every month if the evidence of P.W, 4 is to be believed. It is in such a case difficult to believe that the elder brother-in-law who had acted more like a father would not be told about the torture suffered by the victim at her matrimonial home. The victim used to come to the house of the P.W. 4 every month if the evidence of P.W, 4 is to be believed. It is in such a case difficult to believe that the elder brother-in-law who had acted more like a father would not be told about the torture suffered by the victim at her matrimonial home. It is equally improbable to believe that the P.W. 4 being aware of the torture being inflicted upon the victim, as informed by his wife, would not ask the victim any question as regards behaviour of the accused. He, therefore, contended that the alleged information which the P.W. 4 deposed to have received from his wife as regards the torture allegedly inflicted upon the victim was altogether a concocted story; e) The father of the victim who is also the de facto complainant and the first witness of the prosecution has deposed that:- ".... After marriage of Tapasi (deceased victim) with Ashoke Singh (accused) I had gone at the said house of Ashoke Singh (accd.) about two or three times during the entire period of their married life of about four years. I know that Ashoke Singh (accused) is a service holder at Calcutta Corporation. When I had so gone about 2 or 3 times (as aforesaid) at the house of Ashoke Singh I had talks with Tapasi (deceased victim) and her inlaws. The father of the accused Ashoke Singh was a good man. Whenever I had so gone at the house of Ashoke Singh, Arati used to accompany me. At the time of my said visits at the house of Ashoke Singh I used to have talks in joint sitting with Tapasi, her mother-in-law, husband Ashoke Singh and Arati also remained present there...." The story to be found in the written complaint is that shortly after the marriage, the accused persons started assaulting the victim. The evidence of the P.W. 1 quoted above belies that story. f) In the written complaint it is alleged that a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of dowry, after the marriage, was paid by the P.W. 3. But P.W. 3 herself did not utter a word about any such payment. 7. MR. Mitra contended that the victim belonged to a very poor family. She had lost her mother at an early age. She was reared up by the P.W.s 3 and 4. But P.W. 3 herself did not utter a word about any such payment. 7. MR. Mitra contended that the victim belonged to a very poor family. She had lost her mother at an early age. She was reared up by the P.W.s 3 and 4. The victim was given in marriage to the accused Ashoke who was a Majdoor working with the Calcutta Corporation. His mother Ruby was employed as a maid servant and cooking food at various houses which is evident from the evidence of P.W. 5. The victim had two brothers, one of them is said to have been well-off, but he did not keep any connection with the victim. The father (P.W. 1) was living a secluded life of loneliness at Bolpur. The incident took place at Ballygunge. 8. SO far as P.W. 3 is concerned, she hardly was bothered as regards the victim after her marriage which according to Mr. Mitra would be evident from what she admitted during her cross-examination which is tabulated hereinbelow: a. She knew nothing as regards the date and place where the victim was delivered of a female child; b. She did not attend the 'Annaprasan' ceremony of the child; c. She also admitted that even her brother and father did not attend the aforesaid ceremony; d. The victim and her husband were never invited by P.W. 3. P.W. 3 was like a mother of the victim because she had reared up the victim from the time when she was a toddler. Therefore, P.W. 3 was expected, if she was a caring elder sister of the victim, to invite the husband of the victim at least once In a year on the occasion which is a very common festival known as 'Jamaishasthi'. But she admitted that she never invited the victim and her husband. She tried to explain away by saying that there was no ceremony held at her house necessitating any invitation. But that occasion, it was pointed out by Mr. Mitra, is religiously followed in this part of the country known us 'Jamaishasthi'; e. P.W. 3 did not even see the victim in the hospital. She deposed that she was not permitted to enter into the hospital. We are told that the victim was in a female ward. But that occasion, it was pointed out by Mr. Mitra, is religiously followed in this part of the country known us 'Jamaishasthi'; e. P.W. 3 did not even see the victim in the hospital. She deposed that she was not permitted to enter into the hospital. We are told that the victim was in a female ward. Therefore, there was no earthly reason why a female would not be allowed to enter into the female ward; f. Most surprisingly she also admitted that she did not try to ascertain from the accused Ashoke as to the cause of the injury. These facts coupled with the following contradictions in her evidence deposed to by P.W. 9 the Investigating Officer would take away the value of whatever she deposed, P.W. 9 in his cross-examination admitted as follows:- P.W. 3 did not state to me that whenever Tapasi used to visit their house she would state about the torture upon her by the accused persons. P.W. 3 also did not state to me that Tapasi used to state that the mother of the accused Ashoke did not provide her adequate food. She also did not state to me that Tapasi would state to her that as per instigation of the mother Ashoke used to assault her. P.W. 3 did not name the mother of Ashoke but stated to me inter alia, that she came to know after going there that Tapasi pored kerosene oil on her body and set fire. P.W. 3 did not state to me that once again she went to S.S.K.M. Hospital to the Burn Ward but she was not permitted to enter there. P.W. 3 also did not state to me that when she along with her husband accompanied by police officer went to the matrimonial home of Tapasi and enquired about the wearing apparels of Tapasi. Ashoke stated that he had thrown away the garments of Tapasi on the street...." 9. FOR the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Mitra contended, it is not possible to believe the evidence of the P.W. 3. 10. MR. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the State was unable to pin point any dependable piece of evidence which would even remotely suggest that the accused persons were involved either with the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the one under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. MR. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the State was unable to pin point any dependable piece of evidence which would even remotely suggest that the accused persons were involved either with the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the one under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission advanced by MR. Mitra are backed by evidence and logical. We are inclined to think that the injury might have been contacted accidentally as would appear from the statement of the victim indicated above. No dependable reason was brought to our notice to disbelieve the entry, made by the attending physician of a Government hospital in the bed head ticket, as regards the cause of the injury disclosed by the victim. The learned trial Court was wrong in discarding that piece of evidence. We, therefore, have no option but to set aside the judgment and order under challenge. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. 11. THE appellants be discharged from bail bonds furnished by them. 12. LET the Lower Court Records together with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action.