Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
RAGHUNATH BHATTACHARYA, J.
Masud Ali
Versus
The State of West Bengal
C.R.A. No. 12 of 2009
Decided on: 07-09-2012
Dowry Death - Section 498A/306 IPC - Absence of Evidence - Acquittal: In a case involving dowry death, the court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction of the accused under Section 498A/306 IPC. The court noted that there was no evidence to show that the accused compelled the victim to commit suicide, and that the victim's father, who was the only witness to the alleged demand for a motorcycle, had died prior to the commencement of evidence. The court also found that the two letters alleged to have been written by the victim to her father were not produced in court, and that the ocular version of the victim's aunt, who was produced as a court witness, was not reliable.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Masud Ali, was convicted by the trial court for commission of offences under Sections 498A/306 IPC (dowry death) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC and seven years' imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The accused appealed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to show that the accused compelled the victim to commit suicide, and that the victim's father, who was the only witness to the alleged demand for a motorcycle, had died prior to the commencement of evidence. The court also found that the two letters alleged to have been written by the victim to her father were not produced in court, and that the ocular version of the victim's aunt, who was produced as a court witness, was not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the accused under Section 498A/306 IPC. 2. Whether the two letters alleged to have been written by the victim to her father were admissible in evidence. 3. Whether the ocular version of the victim's aunt, who was produced as a court witness, was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no evidence to show that the accused compelled the victim to commit suicide, and that the victim's father, who was the only witness to the alleged demand for a motorcycle, had died prior to the commencement of evidence. 2. The court held that the two letters alleged to have been written by the victim to her father were not produced in court, and that the ocular version of the victim's aunt, who was produced as a court witness, was not reliable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and acquitted the accused.
Raghunath Bhattacharya, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidbad in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2006 convicting the accused Masud Ali for commission of offence under Section 498A/306 I.P.C. and sentence to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-I.D. to S.I. to S.I. for three months for commission of offence under Section 498 I.P.C. and also R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.D. to S.I. for three months for commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction the accused Masud Ali preferred the instant appeal.
2. Shortly put that one Ilias Mia, father of the victim Firdousi Khatun lodged a written complaint to the Nowda P.S. alleging inter alia that at the time of her marriage with Masud Ali, he gave gold ornaments of 6 Bharis and after marriage his son-in-law started to demand for a motor cycle and failure to meet up such demand, Masud Ali started torture upon her wife as a result Firdousi Khatun, the victim girl committed suicide. It is alleged in the written complaint that Masud Ali, his father Ahammad Ali, brother-in-law Rasid Khan used to torture Firdousi Khatun. Hence the prosecution case.
The defence case as it appears from the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that of the Court witness and the answer given by the accused person to their respective examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of absolute innocence.
3. On the basis of the available documents and the paper and after hearing both sides a charge under Section 498A/306 I.P.C. was framed against the accused person to which each of them pleads not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. From the side of the prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined. One Md. Fajle Mabud, Anawar Kader, Nazrul Islam, Abdur Rakib, Golam Mostafa, Lal Chand Malitha, Abdul Sk.,Biswanath Kundu, Mojammel Haque, Kazem Ali, Mihir Kumar Kundu were examined as P.W. 1 to P.W. 11. Rakia Khatun was examined as P.W. 12 and she was examined as a Court witness after Court issue summons upon her under Section 311 Cr.P.C., S.I. Kanti Chatterjee is I.O. of this case and P.W. 14 is J.N. Pal who perform the P.M. examination on the dead body of Firdousi Khatun.
5. Out of those fourteen witnesses P.W. 1 contended that Firdousi Khatun expired about 13 years ago. She was deposing in the Court below in the year 2007. According to her she had been to the place of occurrence along with Ilias Mia and witness the dead body of the Firdousi Begam, the police prepared the inquest report in presence of her and he has a signatory of the inquest report. So, P.W. 1 has proved his signature on the inquest report but she had not been stated anything about the alleged torture inflicted upon Firdousi by the member of her in-laws house. P.W. 2 has not stated anything he only signed the seizure list. Before discussing the ocular version of P.W. 3 I like to mention that P.W. 4 is also a seizure witness. P.W. 5 who has signed on the inquest report marked exhibit 1/1. P.W. 6, 7 and 8 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and they remain unshaken during the course of their respective cross-examination and their ocular version did not at all help the prosecution story in any way.
P.W. 9 only prove his signature on the inquest report. P.W. 10 has also prove his signature on the inquest report. P.W. 11 prove his signature on the seizure witness. So except P.W. 3 rest 10 witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 11 have not at all stated anything against the accused person. Admittedly I.O. i.e. P.W. 13 has no knowledge about the alleged incident. After the alleged incident the same was endorsed to him. P.W. 14, the doctor who perform the inquest report on the dead body of Firdousi Begam has contended that death was due to extensive burn involving whole of the body and acco
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
