SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy and
GN. Ray, JJ.
State of West Bengal- Appellant
versus
Sri Orilal Jaiswal & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 734 of 1991
Decided on 23.9.1991

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of physical torture and abuses made by the husband and mother-in-law, depositions made by dose relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of the absence of corroboration by independent witness.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 306 - Death by hanging. Deceased was subjected to abuses, humiliation and mental torture from the very beginning of her married life. Her husband used to come home drunk and abuse her and also used to assault her on occasions - Bridal presents brought by her branded as goods of inferior quality. Case of mental and physical torture - Depositions of close relations reliable in such a case. Absence of any independent evidence given by the neighbours and co-tenants about physical assault or the abuses hurled on the deceased by her in laws, not fatal- Conviction of mother- in law and husband u/s. 498A of the Code.

       Held: The prosecution case was not properly investigated by the police for which the learned Sessions Judge has rightly commented on the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, Sri Bimal Chandra Biswas, Sub-Inspector of Police. As the Investigating Officer failed and neglected to examine the members of the family of the deceased at an early date, the learned Sessions Judge, in fairness, has not taken into consideration the evidences of the sister and other close relations of the deceased and has mainly relied on the evidence of the mother in basing his finding. Even if it is held that the deceased had complained to her mother only about the cruel treatment meted out to her, we think that for a newly married woman, her misfortune in the house of in-laws was not expected to be made public and confiding to the mother was only natural. Coming to the observation of the High Court that the neighbours or the tenants have not been examined, it appears to us that in the facts of the case, no adverse inference can be drawn for such non-examination. The abuse and insult hurled on the daughter in-law usually are not expected to be made public so that the neighbours may have occasions to criticize the improper conduct of the accused and hold them with disrespect and contempt. The High Court has expressed doubts about the genuineness of the case of physical torture and abuses made by the husband and the deceased for the absence of any independent evidence given by the neighbours and co-tenants about such physical assault or the abuses hurled on the wife by the accused. We have indicated that ordinarily it is not expected that physical torture or the abuses hurled on the wife by the husband and the mother in-law should be made in such a way as to be noticed by the tenants living in the adjoining portions of the house. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was physically assaulted so violently that the neighbours came to know about such assault. It is also not the case that abuses used to be hurled loudly so that the tenants had occasions to hear them. It was therefore not necessary to examine neighbour or tenant to prove the prosecution case. In the instant case, the evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother and the close relations. Such depositions by close relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of the absence of corroboration by independent witness. Whether the evidence of interested witness is worthy of credence is to be judged in the special facts of the case. In our view, the acts of cruelty by the accused were expected to be known by the very close relations like mother, brother, sister, etc. The evidence of the mother has been accepted by / the learned Sessions Judge as worthy of credence and we do not think that the same should be discarded, in the facts of the case. (para 14)

       Further held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no material worthy of credence to hold that Usha was hyper-sensitive and that for other reasons and not on account of cruelty she had lost normal frame of mind and being overcome by unusual psychic imbalance, decided to end her life by committing suicide. The evidence adduced in the case has clearly established that Usha was subjected to abuses, humiliation and mental torture from the very beginning of her married life. Within a few days after the marriage when a newly married bride would reasonably expects love and affection from the in-laws, she was abused by the mother-in-law, the accused No. 2 by saying that the deceased was a woman of evil luck only because an elderly member in the family had died after her marriage. According to the evidence given by the mother of the deceased, the accused No. 2 even suggested that being a woman of evil luck (alakshmi) the deceased, should not live and end her life. When Usha conceived for the first time she had the misfortune of abortion. When the unfortunate daughter-in-law would reasonably expect sympathy and consolation from the mother-in-law, the evidence in this case is that the mother-in-law abused the deceased in the hospital by telling that she was a woman of evil luck. The evidence in the case reveals an act of extreme form of cruelty by telling the unfortunate mother that she was vile enough to swallow her own baby and she should commit suicide. (para 16)

       (ii) Criminal Law - Requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt - No absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial. Question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case (Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113A)

       Held, that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. (para 15)

       (iii) Evidence - Suicide - Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.

       Result: Appeal allowed accordingly.