Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, S. K. DUTTA
INDRA NATH GUHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 1978
Decided On : 11/28/1978
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the admissibility of certain statements of the deceased made to her grandfather and mother on the grounds that they were inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that the impugned orders were interlocutory orders and could not be assailed under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court further held that the impugned evidence was admissible under Sections 6, 8, 14, and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the Division Bench judgment in Satikanta Guha v. State of West Bengal did not bar the reception of evidence under Section 32(1) at the trial. The Court also held that the admission of the impugned evidence did not amount to an abuse of the process of Court or a failure to secure the ends of justice, and therefore, the Court could not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to interfere with the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Indranath Guha, was charged with murder and abetment of murder in connection with the death of his wife, Surupa Guha. The prosecution sought to introduce statements made by the deceased to her grandfather and mother, in which she allegedly made statements about the cruelty and oppression she had suffered at the hands of her husband and in-laws. The petitioner objected to the admissibility of these statements on the ground that they were inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned orders were interlocutory orders and could not be assailed under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court further held that the impugned evidence was admissible under Sections 6, 8, 14, and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the Division Bench judgment in Satikanta Guha v. State of West Bengal did not bar the reception of evidence under Section 32(1) at the trial. The Court also held that the admission of the impugned evidence did not amount to an abuse of the process of Court or a failure to secure the ends of justice, and therefore, the Court could not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to interfere with the impugned orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders were interlocutory orders and could not be assailed under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 2. Whether the impugned evidence was admissible under Sections 6, 8, 14, and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 3. Whether the Division Bench judgment in Satikanta Guha v. State of West Bengal barred the reception of evidence under Section 32(1) at the trial? 4. Whether the admission of the impugned evidence amounted to an abuse of the process of Court or a failure to secure the ends of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned orders were interlocutory orders and could not be assailed under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because they did not affect any right or liability of the parties and were merely steps taken towards the final adjudication. 2. The Court held that the impugned evidence was admissible under Sections 6, 8, 14, and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because the statements were relevant to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the deceased's death and were not barred by the Division Bench judgment in Satikanta Guha v. State of West Bengal. 3. The Court held that the Division Bench judgment in Satikanta Guha v. State of West Bengal did not bar the reception of evidence under Section 32(1) at the trial because the observations in that judgment were confined to the framing of charges and did not debar the admissibility of statements made by the deceased if they were otherwise admissible. 4. The Court held that the admission of the impugned evidence did not amount to an abuse of the process of Court or a failure to secure the ends of justice because the evidence was relevant to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the deceased's death and was not vexatious or oppressive to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the admissibility of certain statements of the deceased made to her grandfather and mother.
( 2 ) THE above note of Barooah, J. was placed before me on August 21, 1978, when this Bench was constituted.
( 3 ) THE petitioner Indra Nath Guha is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 2 (1)/1978 which is now proceeding before Shri R. Mahapatra, Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore. His petition is verified by an affidavit of his uncle Sachikanta Guha affirmed on the 26th July, 1978.
( 4 ) THE petitioner's case, inter alia, is that on or about May 5, 1976, one Ramendra Mohan Mukherjee lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of the Ballygunge Police Station alleging, that his daughter Surupa Guha was married to the petitioner in 1966; that since the marriage the petitioner's mother started ill-treating her in all possible ways and made his daughter's life miserable; that his daughter out of shame did not disclose about her ill-treatment and torture to the complainant or to his wife but when it became unbearable for her, she started complaining about her said ill treatment to the complainant and his wife; that as days passed by the petitioner at the instigation of his mother started ill-treating Surupa so much that he used to get drunk and did not even spare to beat her; that at the instance of the informant Surupa continued to live with her husband and mother-in-law and also started teaching in South Point School; that on 4. 5. 76 at about 1. 30 P. M. the complainant received a telephone call in his office that his daughter Surupa had been removed to the S. S. K. M. Hospital as she was very sick; that the complainant immediately came to the hospital and on enquiry learnt that it was a suspected case of severe poisoning and her condition was critical; that from the attending physician the complainant came to learn that his daughter made a statement to the effect that she did not take any poison on her own and that she had taken only cucumber and lassi at the petitioner's place as breakfast after coming from college; that in the hospital premises the petitioner's father Satikanta Guha pointed to a bottle of Horlicks held by Mrs. Vincent (an employee of the South Point School) and told the complainant and his brother that only Horlicks from that bottle was offered to Surupa during her breakfast; that the statement of Satikanta did not fit in with the dying statement of Surupa that she took cucumber and lassi; that the above facts indicated that Surupa after taking cucumber and lassi fell sick and died at about 11. 30 P. M. on 4. 5. 76; that considering the bad attitude of the petitioner's mother as well as the attitude of the petitioner, the complainant felt that some kind of poison was mixed either with cucumber or with the lassi which was offered to Surupa, and that in view of these facts the complainant requested the Officer-in-charge, Ballygunge Police Station, to take up the matter and make a thorough investigation to bring the culprits to book for the sake of justice.
( 5 ) ON the basis of the statement of Ramendra Mohan Mukherjee the Ballygunge P. S. (Sec. S) case No. 188 dated 15. 5. 76 was started under section 120b/326/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner Indra Nath, his parents Satikanta and Pritilata as well as two other persons, named Ramendra Nath Lahiri and Jhantu Charan Dutta were arrested
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
