Back
2009(7) Supreme 289
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and R.M. Lodha,JJ.
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu — Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2091 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9483 of 2008)
Decided on : 11-11-2009
Facts of the Case :
Present appeal has been filed by appellant against his conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 306 of IPC.Prosecution case that deceased was provoked by appellant to end her life by consuming poison or by hanging herself.Allegation that three months prior to the date of death of deceased appellant had brought A to his house with whom he was having extra marital affair. Allegation that appellant tried to take consent of the deceased for marrying said A and on refusal of the deceased, physical and mental torture was perpetrated on the deceased.
Findings of the Court :
Evidence on record that appellant had brought A to stay with him at his house three months prior to the date of the death of the deceased. If the deceased had been so perturbed by the act of the appellant in marrying said A and in bringing her to his house that she felt impelled to commit suicide then she could have done so on the very day when A had come to stay with the appellant in his house as naturally at that point of time her annoyance or dismay with life would have been at its pinnacle. From the period of three months which elapsed in between the incidents of the appellant bringing A to his house and the deceased committing suicide, it could be clearly inferred that it was not the act of the appellant which instigated or provoked deceased to commit suicide. Prosecution witnesses in their testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant for the first time after his marriage with the deceased when he was refused permission for marriage with said A by the deceased. On having been refused permission for his second marriage with A cruelty was meted out to her by the accused which fact was sufficiently proved from the evidence on record. No reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court and the High Court as far as Section 498A IPC was concerned. Conviction of appellant under Section 306 was set aside but was upheld under section 498A.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the Calcutta High Court. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order as by the said judgment, the High Court has upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) and for eight years together with a fine of Rs 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC with a default stipulation. The sentences awarded to the appellant were directed to run concurrently.
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal and as presented by the prosecution may be set out at this stage. The appellant - Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu and the deceased - Dipika were married in the year 1977. Out of the said wedlock, two sons were born. The appellant was residing in Calcutta in connection with his work and earning. During his stay in Calcutta, the appellant developed an extra-marital relationship with one Jyotsna @ Anita. The relationship between the appellant and said Anita became known to the deceased and the deceased objected to such illegal relationship. The appellant sought permission of the deceased to marry said Anita, which was also refused by the deceased. Consequently, the appellant started torturing the deceased both physically and mentally.
4. After a few days, the appellant again tried to take the consent of the deceased for marrying said Anita and on refusal of the deceased, physical and mental torture was perpetrated on the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased was provoked by the appellant to end her life by consuming poison or by hanging herself. It was also the case that three months prior to the date of death of the deceased, the appellant brought said Anita to his house. Anita was sporting a vermillion mark on her forehead and was wearing conch bangles on her wrist to indicate that she is married to the accused. It was also stated that in the evening prior to the date of the death of the deceased, the deceased was assaulted by Anita, the appellant and his family members. On the morning of 27.09.1991, the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling of the house of the appellant.
5. Ashoka Kumar Maity (PW-7) intimated Supriyo Das, brother of the deceased (PW-2) about the death of the deceased. Upon receipt of the aforesaid information, PW-2 arrived at the house of the appellant where he learnt about the entire incident from the villagers who had assembled at the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, PW-2 proceeded to the Contai Police Station and got a complaint registered. On the strength of the complaint, First Information Report (in short “the FIR”) under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC was lodged on 28.09.1991 at 20.30 hrs.
6. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant and seven other accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant and seven other accused persons to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. During the trial, a number of prosecution witnesses were examined. The defence produced two witnesses in support of its case. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 25.11.1997 convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and for eight years together with a fine of Rs 1000/- respectively. All the other seven accused persons were acquitted of the above stated charges framed against them.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
