Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 467
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI
Nobir Mia
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others
C. R. R. 644 of 2010
Decided On : 31-03-2011
For the Petitioner:Ms. Joyita Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. S. Roy, Advocate.
In the absence of sufficient and reliable evidence to prove the demand of dowry, cruelty, and intention to abet suicide, the accused cannot be convicted under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.
Headnote:
DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 498A/306 IPC - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - SECTION 113A OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 32(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 401/482 CRPC - SECTION 221 CRPC - SECTION 161 IPC - SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - DEMAND OF DOWRY - CRUELTY - ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - INTENTION - PROXIMATE CAUSE - BURDEN OF PROOF - RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES - CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - CONTINUOUS TORTURE - CONJUGAL LIFE - PRESUMPTION OF CONGENIAL ATMOSPHERE - LACK OF CONTINUITY - ABSENCE OF ACTIVE COMPLICITY - DISTORTED INCIDENT - DOUBT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the father of the deceased, filed a revision petition challenging the acquittal of the accused by the trial court in a case of dowry death. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the deceased, subjected her to physical and mental torture on demand of Rs. 10,000/- dowry, which led her to commit suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses, including the father, mother, and brother of the deceased, made omnibus allegations of demand of money by the accused without specifying any date, month, or year. The court noted major contradictions between the cases disclosed in the FIR and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand of dowry and cruelty by the accused. 2. Whether the death of the deceased was a result of the alleged torture and cruelty. 3. Whether the accused had the intention to abet the suicide of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the continuous ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and contradictory. 2. The court found that the deceased had been leading a conjugal life with her husband for more than ten years, which indicated a congenial atmosphere in the matrimonial home. The occasional reports of demand of money by the accused to the deceased's parents had no proximate relation to her death. 3. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had the intention to instigate or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. There was no evidence of active complicity on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.
In the instant application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Dinhata, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 2(v) of 2009 and Sessions Case No. 93 of 2009 arising out of Dinhata P. S. Case No. 65/08 dated 25.02.2008 under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed. By the judgment and order the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused opposite party of all charges. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such findings the de facto complainant has preferred this application contending inter alia, that the findings of the learned Trial Judge is perverse in as much as he has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the allegation of abatement by the relatives to commit suicide on demand of dowry followed by subsequent torture. It is contended that there are sufficient evidene on record to show that the victim was ill-treated which will be reflected from the individual role played by the accused persons in abetting the victim to commit suicide. From the conduct of the accused persons it will also be evident that immediately after the incident of the accused persons left the house leaving behind the deceased housewife in the house and it is only the adjoining neighbours who recovered the dead body and assisted the complainant party. In fact the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 were solely responsible for the tragic death of the victim and ignoring the significance of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 7 regarding cruelty and torture on demand of dowry the learned Judge has acquitted them. It is also argued that the latches of the investigating officer ought to have been ignored by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is not the outcome of any application of judicial mind and proper appreciation of the evidence on record leading to miscarriage of justice and therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside. In support of such contention the learned lawyer for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the principles laid down in AIR 2003 SC 11 (K. Prema S. Rao & Anr.-Vs.-Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors.) and AIR 2004 SC 5097 (Randhir Singh & Anr.-Vs.- State of Punjab).
2. In the case of Randhir Singh & Anr.-Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2004 SC 5097) it has been held, inter alia, that absence of victim’s statement before her friend about any harassment by itself is not sufficient to acquit accused when cogent and reliable evidence of relatives proved demand for dowry. In the said case evidence of relatives, more particularly, father and the mother clearly proves demand of dowry and the death occurred during seven years of marriage. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order of conviction under Section 306 IPC. In the instant case the death occurred about 10 years after marriage and as such the facts and circumstances are not identical though the parents have complained of demand of dowry which was disbelieved by the learned Trial Court.
3. In the case of K. Prema S. Rao & Anr.-Vs.-Yadla Srinivasa Rao & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 11 the accused was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC on charge of forcing deceased wife to part with her land received by her in marriage as “Stridhan” for the purpose of which he concealed her postal mail and such conduct was treated as cruelty which had driven her to commit suicide and the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was raised against him. In the said case the marriage of the deceased did take place on 26.06.1988 while she was forced to commit suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide endusulphan on 22.10.1989. This fact is also not identical with the facts of the present case. However, learned lawyer for the petitioner has contended that the ratio in those cases should be applicable in the instant case but the l
