Mr. Himangsu De, learned senior counsel drawing my attention to the testimony of prosecution witnesses stated that there is no evidence sufficient to record an order of conviction under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The parents of the victim and other witnesses who are related to them made some general and omnibus allegation regarding torture. It is alleged that Sakuntala was not provided with proper food and she was assaulted. Even if the same can be termed as cruelty, such cruelty does not bring the case of prosecution within the ambit of Section 498A of the I.P.C. According to Mr. De there is no evidence to show that victim was instigated or abetted to commit suicide within a proximate time. On the contrary the evidence of P.W. 8 would show that victim was unwilling to stay with Harekrishna and she used to live at her matrimonial home of and on, as a result of which Harekrishna took initiative to settle their dispute with the intervention of local people and P.W. 8 was one of them who attended the salish and came to know that sakuntala was a psychiatric patient. That Sakuntala was treated by Dr. S. P. Mukherjee, Midnapore and Ashim Mallick of Contai stands admitted the father of the victim. P.W. 1 admitted the said fact during cross-examination but did not produce the prescription to prove P.W. 8 wrong. On the contrary P.W. 8 was not examined within the meaning of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. Mr. De, learned senior counsel submits that there is no evidence to hold that cruelty and harassment as alleged by the prosecution was meted out to the victim that had left the victim with no other option but to put her end to her life. Refuting such contention Ms. Debjani Sahu, learned counsel for the State vehemently
