Back
High Court Of Calcutta
GORACHAND DE, NARAYAN CHANDRA SIL
SURADHANI DARBAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 512 Of 1990
Decided On : 05/23/2003
DOWRY DEATH - CONVICTION - SECTION 304B IPC - SET ASIDE - SECTION 498A IPC - UPHELD - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - DELAY IN RECORDING STATEMENTS - NO FAULT OF COMPLAINANT - WITNESSES' STATEMENTS - RELIABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code for dowry death and torture of the deceased, respectively. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was tortured by the appellants for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry and that she died as a result of poisoning. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed that the deceased died a natural death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the deceased died an unnatural death and, therefore, set aside the conviction under section 304B IPC. However, the court upheld the conviction under section 498A IPC, finding that the evidence established that the appellants had tortured the deceased for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the deceased died an unnatural death. 2. Whether the evidence established that the appellants had tortured the deceased for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the deceased died an unnatural death because: * The post-mortem examination report did not provide a definitive cause of death. * The expert witnesses could not come to a definite finding as to the cause of death. * The surrounding circumstances did not conclusively point to an unnatural death. 2. The court held that the evidence established that the appellants had tortured the deceased for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry because: * The deceased's parents and other close relatives testified to the torture. * The neighbors testified to hearing disturbances between the deceased and the appellants. * The appellants' defense was not convincing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction under section 304B IPC and acquitting the appellants of that charge. The court upheld the conviction under section 498A IPC and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal was directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18. 12. 1990 under section 498a and 304b of the Indian Penal Code passed by Sri R. B. Roy, learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Midnapore whereby he was pleased to sentence both the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence under section 498a and to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 304b IPC.
( 2 ) THE fact of the prosecution case in brief is that the victim Rinarani Darbar, daughter of Prafulla Kumar Jana, the informant was married with the appellant Gopal Darbar on 28th Falgoon, 1393 B. S. It was agreed upon at the time of marriage that Prafulla would pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to the appellant Gopal as dowry and out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was paid to Gopal. It was further agreed upon that the balance sum of Rs. 4,500/- would be paid within one year of the marriage. It was alleged that Gopal perpetrated torture upon Rinarani and also assaulted her being inebriated for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry. It was also alleged that other appellant Suradhani, the mother of Gopal also used to torture Rinarani for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry. Rina used to narrate such torture to her parents and the other members of her parents' family. In the month of Bhadra 1394 B. S. Rina once came to her father's house and narrated the incident of such torture for non-payment of the balance amount of dowry. Rina also told at that time that Suradhani instigated Gopal to kill her. However, Prafulla and his sister Kamala took Rina on that occasion to the house of Gopal and requested Gopal not to persist in such torture and assured him that the balance amount of dowry would be paid. However, on 3rd Aswin, 1394 B. S. Rina died and on the next day Prafulla got the information of such death and immediately he went to the house of Gopal when he found mark of blood on the mouth, nostril and eyes. He also noticed black mark of assault by rod on her right cheek. Thereafter Prafulla lodged written complaint with Daspur Police Station. The police took up the investigation and submitted chargesheet under section 498a and 304b of the Indian Penal Code.
( 3 ) IT appears from the record that the learned trial Judge framed the charge against both the appellants under sections 498a and 304b/34 of the Indian Penal Code when the appellants as accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
( 4 ) THE record goes to show that as many as 13 witnesses were produced by the prosecution and out of those witnesses the PWs 1 to 6 were declared hostile by the prosecution. The record further goes to show that Dr. J. B. Mukherjee was examined by the Court as Court witness. After the evidence of the witnesses was over the accused persons were examined under section 313 Crpc. The defence case, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and that of their examination under section 313 Crpc is of ignorance and false accusation and that Rinarani died a natural death.
( 5 ) IT is thus incumbent upon us to determine as to whether the learned trial Judge was justified in finding the appellants guilty of the offences under section 498a and 304b read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 6 ) KRISHNADAS Mondal, a neighbour of the appellants is the PW 1. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on getting an information he went to the house of Gopal and found Rina dead there. He, however, claimed that he did not see any peculiarity on the corpse of Rina at that time. He did not find any disturbance between Gopal and Rina. It is also stated by him that he lodged the information with the Police Station in writing. The statement of this witness made before the Investiga
AI
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
